719 Amendments of Balázs HIDVÉGHI
Amendment 24 #
2024/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Subject to an assessment by the Commission carried out in the context of the regular monitoring of the impact of this Regulation and launched either following a duly substantiated request from a Member State or on the Commission’s own initiative, it is necessary to provide for the possibility to take any necessary measures for imports of any products falling under the scope of this Regulation which are adversely affecting the Union market or the market of one or several Member States for like or directly competing products. There is a particularly precarious situation in the markets for cereals, oilseeds, poultry, eggs, and sugar and honey that may harm Union agricultural producers if imports from Ukraine were to increase. It is appropriate to introduce an automatic safeguard for cereals, oilseeds, eggs, poultry, and sugar and honey products that is activated if quantities imported pursuant to this Regulation exceed the arithmetic mean of quantities in 2021, 2022 and 2023.
Amendment 46 #
2024/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
If a product covered by Article 1(1) or any other product originating in Ukraine is imported under conditions which adversely affect the Union market or the market of one or several Member States for like or directly competing products, the Commission may impose any measure which is necessary by means of an implementing act. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 5(3).
Amendment 60 #
2024/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
If, during the period 6 June to 31 December 2024, cumulative import volumes of either eggs, poultry orcommon wheat, wheat flours, and pellets ; barley, barley flour and pellets ; oats ; maize, maize flour and pellets ; barley groats and meal; cereal grains otherwise worked ; sunflower seeds, oil and meals; rapeseed seeds, oil and meal; honey; eggs, poultry, sugar since 1 January 2024 reach the respective arithmetic mean of import volumes recorded in 2022 and1, 2022, 2023, the Commission shall, within 210 days and after informing the Committee on Safeguards established by Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/478:
Amendment 77 #
2024/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) reintroduce for that product the corresponding tariff-rate quota suspended by Article 1(1), point b, until 31 December 2024 or in the case of sunflower seeds, oil and meals; rapeseed seeds, oil and meal; introduce a new tariff-rate quota based on the respective arithmetic mean of import volumes recorded in 2021, 2022 and 2023, until 31 December 2024; and
Amendment 83 #
2024/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) introduce from 1 January 2025 either a tariff-rate quota equal to five twelfths of that arithmetic mean or the corresponding tariff-rate quota suspended by Article 1(1), point b, whichever is highlower.
Amendment 89 #
2024/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
If, during the period 1 January to 5 June 2025, cumulative import volumes of either eggs, poultry orcommon wheat, flours, and pellets ; barley, flour and pellets ; oats ; maize, flour and pellets ; barley groats and meal; cereal grains otherwise worked ; sunflower seeds, oil and meals; rapeseed seeds, oil and meal; honey; eggs, poultry, sugar for the period since 1 January 2025 reach five twelfths of the respective arithmetic mean of import volumes recorded 2021, 2022 and 2023, the Commission shall, within 210 days and after informing the Committee on Safeguards, reintroduce for that product the corresponding tariff-rate quota suspended by Article 1(1) or in the case of sunflower seeds, oil and meals; rapeseed seeds, oil and meal; introduce a new tariff-rate quota based on the respective arithmetic mean of import volumes recorded in 2021, 2022 and 2023, point b.
Amendment 104 #
2024/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 3
For the purposes of this paragraph, the terms eggs, poultry andcommon wheat, flours, and pellets ; barley, flour and pellets ; oats ; maize, flour and pellets ; barley groats and meal; cereal grains otherwise worked ; sunflower seeds, oil and meals; rapeseed seeds, oil and meal; honey; eggs, poultry, sugar, refer to all products covered by the tariff-rate quotas in the Appendix to Annex I-A of the Association Agreement for, respectively, common wheat, wheat flours, and pellets ; barley, barley flour and pellets ; oats ; maize, maize flour and pellets ; barley groats and meal; cereal grains otherwise worked ; sunflower seeds, oil and meals; rapeseed seeds, oil and meal; honey, eggs and albumins, poultry meat and poultry meat preparations, and sugars, and the arithmetic mean shall be calculated by dividing the sum of import volumes in 2021, 2022 and 2023 by twohree.
Amendment 123 #
2024/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 8 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. If a product covered by Article 1(1) originating in Ukraine is imported in the EU or transit by the EU, the destination for all consignments of that product should be determined prior to entry into the EU by Ukrainian authorities. Furthermore, Ukrainian authorities should provide to the European Commission the necessary documentation certifying that those consignments reached their destination.
Amendment 54 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Remains deeply concerned by threats to and attacks on NGOs in Member Statesthat the European Commission has left the doors wide open to non-transparent NGOs and has given millions of European taxpayers’ money to them without demanding even the minimum levels of transparency;
Amendment 63 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Points out that the Brussels corruption scandal highlighted how NGOs that function in a completely non- transparent manner have received considerable amounts of EU money in the past years; points out that the NGO ‘No Peace Without Justice’, which is one of the NGOs in the middle of the Brussels corruption scandal, has received millions of euros from the European Commission;
Amendment 104 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that current EU instruments are likely insufficient for achieving proportionate transparency goals concerning NGO funding;
Amendment 107 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Amendment 109 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Calls for a review of the current rules governing the financing and transparency of NGOs; calls on the Commission to demand maximum transparency and accountability from all NGOs that are involved in EU decision- making, with special regard to the NGOs that receive EU money; calls on the Commisssion to stop giving privileges and exemptions to NGOs, especially when it comes to their transparency and accountability;
Amendment 112 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6 c. Calls on the Commission to develop a clear picture of the NGOs that receive EU funding, what this funding is used for, and the extent to which EU- funded NGOs receive and are influenced by other funding sources;
Amendment 113 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)
Paragraph 6 d (new)
6 d. Calls on the Commission to put in place a system where NGOs are obliged to provide detailed public information about EU and other sources of funding on their websites;
Amendment 49 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Reiterates that an independent judiciary is the backbone of the rule of law, as it is a precondition for an effective remedy when rights and freedoms are withheld or violated; underlines that an independent and effective judiciary is vital for the implementation of EU law, given that the Commission relies on the national judicial authorities to enforce EU law; expresses its concern that this ‘presumption of compliance’ becomes the ‘pretence of compliance’ when the Commission ignores national judicial authorities’ shortcomings; notes with concern that while some judicial systems may be robust on paper, in some cases they are not immune to state capture, political interference or nepotism; is aware of the fact that this is difficult to detect by simply assessing the formal structures; therefore urges the Commission to conduct a more qualitative analysis, including contextual elementsacknowledges that the organization of the judiciary is a competence of the Member States under Article 5 of the TEU;
Amendment 59 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the Commission finds wide disparities between EU Member States in terms of judicial independence and safeguards; notes that the report mentions a number of positive initiatives and ongoing developments concerning the Councils of the Judiciary, notably in Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Italy, Sweden, Finland and Hungary; highlights, however, that an independent assessment shows that of the four ‘super milestones’ related to the independence of the judiciary in Hungary only one can be considered fully implemented;28 notes that the Commission finds that concerns on the Councils for the Judiciary still have to be addressed in Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Spain and Cyprus; notes with concern that disciplinary proceedings may be used as a means to curtail judicial independence, as is the case in Poland and Bulgaria; notes that the Commission has, finally, referred Poland to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for violations of EU law by its Constitutional Tribunalnotes that the Commission finds that concerns on the Councils for the Judiciary still have to be addressed in Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Spain and Cyprus; regrets the lack of equal standards when it comes to addressing judicial independence in the EU; __________________ 28 Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Updated summary assessment on Hungary’s compliance with the four super milestones aimed at restoring the independence of the judiciary, 9 October 2023.
Amendment 93 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 167 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Acknowledges the crucial role civil society and a healthy civic space play in upholding and protecting the rule of law, and reiterates its call for a separate chapter to be dedicated to the condition of civil society in Member States; notes that the Commission finds that Malta, Ireland, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Germany have announced or initiated efforts to improve the framework for civil society, and finds that civil society faces particular challenges in Cyprus, Greece, Spain, Italy and France, and continued serious systemic restrictions in Hungary and Poland; calls on all Member States to accept civil society organisations (CSOs) as important stakeholders in democratic life and to create an enabling environment for civil society;
Amendment 186 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Notes that democratic andUnderlines that the annual rule of law backsliding and the undermining of minority rights often go hand in hand, once more underlining the need for a comprehensive approach to monitoring democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights (DRF) in the future reports; regrets the lack of progress on protectreport should not be used to carry out ideological campaigns against individual Member States while hiding behind minority protection and perceived freedom rights; calls on the Commission to refrain from interfering minorities across the EU; condemns hate speech, including by government or political officials, against minority groups the competences of Member States and to respect their constitutional identity;
Amendment 235 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. RecognisUnderlines that the annual rule of law report has become a benchmark for the EU institutions’ work on rule of law issues in the EU and in specific Member Statesview cycle is a tool created by the Commission which has no legal basis in the Treaties; regrets that the rule of law report often portrays political demands that fall outside the competence of the Union as general requirements for the rule of law; underlines that this fully discredits the rule of law report as a whole;
Amendment 236 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 a (new)
Paragraph 36 a (new)
36a. Regrets the fact that the annual rule of law report does not present an objective and substantiated picture of the rule of law situation in Member States; notes with concern that the Commission often reiterates the opinion of civil society organisations that are financed from abroad or by the Commission itself without verifying these allegations and presenting justification or evidence; notes with concern that the Commission ignores the position of the constitutional organs of the Member States and rather takes into account the politically biased opinions of certain civil society organisations; believes that more time should be devoted to the Commission’s understanding of national constitutional traditions and specificities;
Amendment 239 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. AcknowledgNotes that the Commission's rule of law report has become more comprehensive since its inception in 2020; regrets, however, that the 2023 edition of the report was not significantly expanded by adding a comprehensive new pillar; reiterates its position that the report should cover the full scope of thedeplores the fact, however, that Member States are not scrutinised according to the same indicators and methodology; regrets that the 2023 annual report often contains factually unfounded findings based on valgues of Article 2 TEU, as these cannot be seen concerns, value judgements and double standards in isorelation; calls on the Commission to expand the scope of to some Member States; notes with concern the improper methodology and the lack of uniform standards in the report next year;
Amendment 241 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)
Paragraph 37 a (new)
37a. Considers that the conclusions of the 2023 report are often built on the findings of political activist NGOs funded from abroad; notes that the disproportionate number of references to findings of such NGOs entails that the Commission outsourced the work on the report to NGOs without checking the factual correctness of their statements; considers that the sources of the report are one-sided and politically biased, and thus, its findings are inaccurate and cannot be relied upon;
Amendment 244 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Is concerned that the Commission, in its ef uses the respect fort to be factual and even- handed, sometimes ends up being too diplomatic and imprecise when identifying rule of law problems in Member States; regrets that the use of euphemistic language and the artificially equal number of conclusions and recommendhe rule of law and fundamental rights as a pretext to put political pressure on certain Member States to change their policies in fields such as migrations per Member State conceals the very real differences between Member States; believes that the assessment of the fulfilment of the recommendatolicy or family law; underlines that the Commissions should be more precise and qualitative, not relying only on legislative changes but also on real and independent evidence of their implementation in practice; notes the sometimes stark differences between the summaries of country chapters and the in-depth content of the chapnot use the report and other mechanisms to excerpt pressure on Member States as regards the handling of specific cases; underlines that political debaters themselves, suggesting an editorial interventionshould not be disguised as legal debates;
Amendment 269 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. CondemnNotes the total lack of progress in the ongoing Article 7(1) TEU procedures; urges the Council to address all new developments affecting the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights; reiterates its call on the Council to address recommendations in the framework of this procedure, underlining that any further delaying of such action would amount to a breach of the rule of law principle by the Council itself; insists that Parliament’s role and competences be respectedclose the procedures immediately as they are openly political procedures which harm European cooperation and destroy European unity;
Amendment 274 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Calls on the Commission to include, strictly monitor and safeguard the DRF conditions in all budgetary instruments and processes; calls on the Commission in this regard not to unblock any cohesion funds for Hungary unless all enablingas conditions have been fully met and the judiciary in that Member State can be considered fully independent on paper and in practice; calls on the Commission and the Council to apply the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation further and without delay where needed, and not to lift the measures adopted in the case of Hungary until all the milestones have been effectively fulfilled; calls on the Commission to rigorously verify that the rule of law related milestones in the various Member State recovery and resilience plans are fulfilled as a condition for disbursing funding when Member States make payment requests; calls on the Commission to assign the primary responsibility for the application of these conditions to the Commissioners responsible for the rule of lawlift the measures adopted in the case of Hungary under the Conditionality Regulation; calls on the Commission to stop using legal tools and mechanisms to excerpt political pressure on certain Member States;
Amendment 107 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
Amendment 113 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas the Council has yet to adopt a decision; whereas some Member States have been blocking concrete progress on this specific file in the Council due to the absence of unanimity as required under Article 83(1) TFEU;
Amendment 114 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas Article 83(1) TFEU requires unanimity in the Council to identify ‘other areas of crime’; whereas this requirement proved detrimental to achieving necessary common progress in an area, under Article 83(1) TFEU, the proposal for a directive defining the concept of hate crime can be submitted only after the Council decision has been adopted; whereas the drafting of a sufficiently clear and precise legal text is hampered by the fact that there is no single concept of hate crimes accepted either at European or at international level, and, moreover, the interpretation in this regard differs widely between the Commission and the Court of Justice on the one hand, and the Member States on the other; whereas the common European interest should prevailre were never any identifiable fundamental problems with the current content of Union crimes, until the planned extension – with regard to hate crimes and, in particular, to hate speech – the fundamental problem is that there is no consensus on its content, since that content is impacted in its foundations by the Member States’ cultural determination;
Amendment 126 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Urges the Council to adopt a decision to includecontinue the dialogue with the Member States about the inclusion of hate speech and hate crime as a criminal offence within the list under Article 83(1) TFEU, so that the Commission can initiate the second stage of the procedure;
Amendment 135 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Draws the Commission’s attention to the excessively brief and generic formulation, which would give almost ‘carte blanche’ to the extension of the range of European crimes; emphasises that, as a result, it would be appropriate to make clear in the proposal exactly what kind of behaviour that spreads hatred or is motivated by hatred would be worth including under Article 83(1) TFEU;
Amendment 148 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 154 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 180 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Asks the Commission to submit a proposal which, taking into account Member States’ rules of criminal law and practice, makes clear its position on exactly what kind of behaviour that spreads hatred or is motivated by hatred it would include under Article 83(1) TFEU; asks the Commission to draw up a clear and precise normative text by means of dialogue and negotiations among Member States, thereby ensuring that the expansion of Union competences takes place exclusively in areas where a Union approach can undeniably be more effective than action at national level;
Amendment 41 #
2023/2028(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 37
Citation 37
Amendment 54 #
2023/2028(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the EU is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, as set out in Article 2 TEU and the Charter; whereas these values should be shared by Member States;
Amendment 84 #
2023/2028(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the prevalence of discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin remains consistently high, both over time and across different population groups in differentan issue in different Member States, this being especially palpable among already disadvantaged groups living in poverty and social isolation; whereas discrimination of national and linguistic minorities is also a significant issue in some Member States; whereas antisemitism, antigypsism, islamophobia and racism are persistent forms of hatred and discrimination; whereas far-right extremism poses a particular threat to persons affected by discrimination and to society as a whole;
Amendment 93 #
2023/2028(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
Recital J a (new)
Ja. whereas hate speech and hate crimes disproportionately affect women; whereas young women, Roma women, women from ethnic backgrounds, women in poverty and women in the public sphere are targeted by hate speech in particular; whereas women belonging to vulnerable groups such as ethnic minorities living in poverty and social exclusion experience exacerbated discrimination hate speech and hate crimes with hate and disparaging language being a daily occurrence for these women;
Amendment 118 #
2023/2028(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 147 #
2023/2028(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Condemns the rise in antisemitic, anti-Roma, anti-Islamic and racist incidents in the EU; deplores that incidents of discrimination, racist and xenophobic crimes are often not reported to the authorities, which leads to de facto impunity; stresses the need for awareness raising campaigns, improved education and training enabling the social inclusion of Roma and other minorities by involving them in activism and decision making processes and promoting social inclusion strategies;
Amendment 153 #
2023/2028(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Condemns the discrimination of national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities;
Amendment 183 #
2023/2028(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Emphasises the importance of family and family policy in addressing women’s rights issues and demographic issues across the EU, an aging Union population and low fertility rates that are urgent concerns for every Member State; underlines that swift action needs to be taken to address the demographic issue of an aging population by enabling citizens to start families and have multiple children without a heavy financial strain; underlines that this can be encouraged by family support schemes, such as financial schemes, as well as supporting mothers’ return to employment with access to childcare facilities, family-friendly working time arrangements, adequate maternity and paternity leave and social funds, tax breaks and pensions to support families;
Amendment 198 #
2023/2028(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 219 #
2023/2028(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Amendment 463 #
2023/0135(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 25 a (new)
Article 25 a (new)
Article 25a Corruption offences committed by EU officials The competent national authorities shall pay particular attention to ensuring that corruption offences committed by EU officials are subject to effective investigation and that criminal proceedings are brought without delay. The competent national authorities shall immediately inform the national parliaments where criminal proceedings have been brought against EU officials for corruption offences.
Amendment 1 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. SupportsNotes with concern the proposals made by the plenary of the Conference on the Future of Europe (‘the Conference’) of 9 May 2022 in relation to the field of civil liberties, justice and home affairs1 ; calls upon the Union to more systematically uphold the rule of law principles and ensure fundamental rights protection, and to scrutinize respect for these values and principles, both in the accession of new members and continually across all Union policies and across the Member States; _________________ 1 In particular the following proposals: 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45. which do not reflect consensus, and therefore lack sufficient legitimacy; calls upon the Member States and the Union to uphold the rule of law principles and ensure fundamental rights protection on an equal basis without the application of double standards, and to ensure respect for these values and principles, both in the accession of new members and continually across all Union policies and across the Member States with full respect to their national competences and the principle of subsidiarity; underlines that the Union institutions must also adhere to the rule of law when they act; rejects the abuse of the concept of the rule of law for political aims and its use for political blackmailing;
Amendment 9 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 21 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that the Union’s main political instrument to address and reverse systemic rule of law threats and violations in the Member States, Article 7 TEU, has been wholly ineffective as the rule of law situation further deteriorated since the activation of the procedure in relation to both Poland and Hungary;2 therefore, considers it necessary to reform Article 7 TEU as follows: to change the Council voting thresholds of Article 7(1) TEU from four-fifths majority to qualified majority voting, and of Article 7(2) TEU from unanimity to a four-fifths majority; to involve the institution which triggers Article 7(1) TEU throughout the procedure;3 to require the Council to periodically organize hearings, draft country-specific recommendations and evaluate their implementation under Article 7(1) TEU; to involve the Parliament and the Commission in drafting modalities for the 7(1) TEU hearings;4 to allow the Parliament to trigger Article 7(2) TEU; to invite the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (‘FRA’) to give its input during the Article 7(1) hearings; _________________ 2 European Parliament resolution of 16 January 2020 on ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) of the TEU regarding Poland and Hungary (2020/2513(RSP)); European Parliament resolution of 5 May 2022 on ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) TEU regarding Poland and Hungary (2022/2647(RSP)). 3 European Parliament resolution of 16 January 2020 on ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) of the TEU regarding Poland and Hungary (2020/2513(RSP)). 4 European Parliament resolution of 7 October 2020 on the establishment of an EU Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights (2020/2072(INI).objective of an "ever closer union" must be deleted from the Treaties as integration is not an end in itself, but a means to the fulfilment of national freedom; rejects the constant overriding of national interests and of traditional values with the support of Union institutions;
Amendment 35 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that the Treaties currently do not contain a legal basis to introduce legislation to defend the common values expressed in Article 2 TEU and that this absence has seriously limited the Union in creating suitable mechanisms to redress national threats to the common values; calls for the inclusion of such a provision, which would allow the Union, through the ordinary legislative procedure, to introduce new mechanisms for the structural monitoring and assessment of the developments as regards the common values in each Member State, including annual reports on the situation as regards the Article 2 TEU values in each of the Member States, and to issue country- specific recommendations and impose measures in case of lack of remedial actionUnderlines that Europe's Christian roots and culture are the basis of European integration, and that they serve as a moral compass in uncertain times; points out that this principle must appear in the Treaties;
Amendment 39 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Underlines that the competences exercised by the Union's institutions must be reviewed and set out in a detailed catalogue in the Treaties, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity; notes that the political and ideological neutrality of the European Commission must be recorded in the Treaties; notes that the practice of outsourcing activities to politically biased civil society organizations in the framework of preparing the annual rule of law report by the Commission must be prohibited;
Amendment 41 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Calls for the inclusion of the effective possibility in the Treaties to allow for national parliaments to stop unwanted legislation at the Union level, as well as of the possibility for governments and national parliaments to initiate Union legislation; calls for the adoption of a general "emergency brake clause" in order to protect Member States' constitutional identity;
Amendment 42 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Amendment 43 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 d (new)
Paragraph 4 d (new)
4 d. Calls for the protection of the rights and support by the Treaties of national minorities living in the territory of the European Union;
Amendment 72 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 74 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 98 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Believes these form a sound basis to respond to calls from citizens expressed at the Conference6 which included strengthening the EU’s role on legal migration, on asylum, on addressing irregular migration, and on strengthening the protection of the European Union's external borders, while respecting fundamental rights, as well as for reform of the common European asylum system and for applying common rules uniformly in all Member States on the reception of migrants and for improving integration policies in all Member States; _________________ 6 Recommendations Nos 41 to 45, see https://www.europarl.europa.eu/resources/l ibrary/media/20220509RES29121/202205 09RES29121.pdfUnderlines the right of all peoples and nations to decide who they want to live with in their country; stresses that this right must be clearly guaranteed in the Treaties;
Amendment 103 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses however that action at EU level remains incomplete due to the institutional imbalance between the co- legislators; recommends therefore that the ordinary legislative procedure apply to all Union policies on border checks, asylum and immigration, including for the evaluation of the implementation of those policies (Article 70 TFEU); calls for competences to be fully shared between the EU and the Member States, including for harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States, which at the moment excludes integration measures, even though integration is the natural end point for efforts to develop common rules from the arrival of third- country nationals into the EU and is a key part of the implementation of the Common European Asylum Systemthat the past seven years have proven that real and effective solutions to stop illegal migration to the EU were found at the Member State level; stresses that as there is no unanimous political agreement among Member States on how to tackle migration, competences related to immigration must be transferred back to the Member States;
Amendment 109 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 93 #
2022/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Urges the Commission to improve its monitoring on the use of EU funds, including considering the suspension, withdrawal and recovery of payments if the obligation to respect fundamental rights is breached; stresses that segregational settings and small group homes should not be financed with EU funds;
Amendment 118 #
2022/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Exhorts the Commission and the Member States to raise awareness and carry out clearly structured consultations with the participation and involvement of the people directly affected and the civil society organisations that support and represent the communities affected in order to acquire a real understanding of disabilities at all levels of society;
Amendment 128 #
2022/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Denounces the fact that some groups of persons with disabilities are at greater risk of being the victim of any kind of violence, such as women and girls, children, elderly people, homeless people, detainees, migrants and refugees, Roma people and LGBTIQ+ peoplepeople belonging to other minorities and having other disadvantages or living on the periphery of society; calls on the Commission and the Member States to address the specific challenges, rights and needs of these people through specialised measures to ensure access to victim support services and protection and to remove barriers to reporting violence;
Amendment 157 #
2022/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Urges the Commission, particularly with a view to the next European elections in 2024, to work with the Member States to guarantee the rights of persons with disabilities to vote and stand as a candidate; calls on the Member States to consider the use of proxy votes, which have already been adopted and work well in certain Member States, and calls on the Member States that use proxy votes to consider the stringency of the deadline for casting a proxy vote, taking due account of temporary and unexpected changes in the living situations of persons with disabilities;
Amendment 188 #
2022/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the Commission to take measures to facilitate access to and the enjoyment of inclusive, integrated, quality education for all students with disabilities in line with the CRPD and include disability-specific indicators from the Europe 2020 strategy when pursuing the education target;
Amendment 201 #
2022/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Calls on the Commission to deploy financial resources to create jobs and provide diverse forms of support to help persons with disabilities become economically active and to join and be integrated into the labour market; calls on the Commission also to expand infrastructure to support existing small and medium-sized enterprises and multinational firms in order to promote the employment of persons with disabilities;
Amendment 202 #
2022/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
Paragraph 19 b (new)
19b. Points out to the Commission the importance of ensuring that the rules safeguarding a changed capacity for work are expressed clearly in every social and economic sphere and, in the event of discrimination, that consequential penalties are applied in view of the potentially cumulative nature of cases involving people with multiple disadvantages;
Amendment 203 #
2022/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 c (new)
Paragraph 19 c (new)
19c. Points out to the Commission that the guarantees aligned with universal rights should also be available to people with disabilities; stresses the importance of ensuring that their employment is full of opportunities, optional, ensured by local infrastructure and free from discrimination, and that it offers equal opportunities and fair and equal pay;
Amendment 3 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 a (new)
Citation 5 a (new)
— having regard to the report by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of 18 February 2011 on the EU strategy on Roma inclusion (2010/2276(INI)),
Amendment 5 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 b (new)
Citation 5 b (new)
— having regard to the report by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality of 24 October 2013 on gender aspects of the European Framework of National Roma Inclusion Strategies (2013/2066(INI)),
Amendment 6 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 c (new)
Citation 5 c (new)
— having regard to the report by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of 4 September 2020 on the implementation of National Roma Integration Strategies: combating negative attitudes towards people with Romani background in Europe (2020/2011(INI)),
Amendment 55 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas according to the FRA, racial discrimination and harassment remain normalised throughout the EU10 ; whereas racism and extreme right-wing sentimentist views and ideology continue to pose serious challenges in our Union; _________________ 10 https://fra.europa.eu/en/news/2019/rising- inequalities-and-harassment-fundamental- rights-protection-falters
Amendment 158 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission to assess the implementation of the current EU legal framework for combating discrimination, racism, xenophobidiscrimination against Roma and other types of intolerance in order to determine how to improve it where needed, and to take part in a regular dialogue and exchange of best practices with Member States and stakeholders;
Amendment 316 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Welcomes the Commission’s appointment of the first anti-racism coordinator in 2021 and the continuous re- appointment since 2015 of the coordinator on combating anti-semitism and fostering Jewish life; but deplores that the position of anti-muslim hatred coordinator has been left vacant since July 2021at the same time, calls on the Commission to set up the position and appoint a coordinator for Roma integration;
Amendment 350 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Calls on the EU institutions and Member States to review the Racial Equality Directive against the criteria for reducing discrimination against Roma people, with the participation of Roma experts and greater emphasis on promoting the work of Equinet; calls on the Member States to embrace the opportunities afforded by digital technology, which will allow hate crimes and online forms of discrimination to be monitored more quickly and accurately;
Amendment 351 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18b. Calls on the Member States, in the spirit of combating racism, to place greater emphasis on equal opportunities issues and the creation of opportunities when developing their national strategies for Roma people;
Amendment 352 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 c (new)
Paragraph 18 c (new)
18c. Calls on the EU institutions to facilitate the integration of disadvantaged groups that are vulnerable to discrimination, by establishing specific scholarship and trainee programmes;
Amendment 353 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 d (new)
Paragraph 18 d (new)
18d. Calls on Member States to incorporate good Union practices into their national strategies as part of their fight against discrimination, and to adapt the implementation of those practices to local conditions;
Amendment 354 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 e (new)
Paragraph 18 e (new)
18e. Calls on the Commission, in the spirit of achieving zero discrimination, to work actively with local community leaders and non-governmental organisations that operate in a targeted manner at local level;
Amendment 355 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 f (new)
Paragraph 18 f (new)
18f. Calls on the EU institutions to propose actions to be taken by the Member States to combat discrimination against Roma people in all its complexity, in addition to harmonising their policies;
Amendment 356 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 g (new)
Paragraph 18 g (new)
18g. Notes that discrimination is closely intertwined with social preconceptions and is felt particularly keenly by those living in poverty and deprivation; calls on the Commission to align the fight against discrimination with European anti- poverty strategies;
Amendment 357 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 h (new)
Paragraph 18 h (new)
18h. Notes that Roma people, Europe’s largest minority, have been subjected to numerous forms of negative discrimination, and still are to this day; recommends that the Union’s integration guidelines adapt good practices from Hungary, such as the Family Homebuilding Allowance and car- purchase support for large families, extra parental leave allowance and parental leave allowance for grandparents, the family tax deduction scheme, and, in particular, exemption from personal income tax for mothers with many children and for those under the age of 25; stresses that these measures will contribute substantially to breaking the cycle and achieving convergence;
Amendment 358 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 i (new)
Paragraph 18 i (new)
18i. Calls on the Commission to support the development of mechanisms to nurture Roma cultural values, the Roma language and Roma folk art traditions, and to create space for all of them within the walls of the European Union’s institutions, with a view to reducing the level of discrimination and prejudice;
Amendment 359 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 j (new)
Paragraph 18 j (new)
18j. Calls on the Member States to make more space in the media for the expression of minorities’ cultures, food, folk art and creative arts, and to support representation in the media of groups that are vulnerable to discrimination, particularly Roma people;
Amendment 63 #
2022/0426(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) In order to tackle the steady increase of the number and relevance of offences concerning trafficking in human beings committed for purposes other than sexual or labour exploitation, it is necessary to include forced marriage and, illegal adoption and surrogacy in the forms of exploitations explicitly listed in the Directive and to ensure that the Member States address within their national legal systems the widest range of forms of exploitation, insofar as these fulfil the constitutive elements of trafficking in human beings.
Amendment 135 #
2022/0426(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Directive 2011/36/EU
Article 2 – paragraph 3
Article 2 – paragraph 3
(1) in Article 2, paragraph 3, “or forced marriage, or illegal adoption, or surrogacy” is added at the end of the paragraph.
Amendment 942 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
In addition to the compliance check, the national security interests of the Member States shall be also taken into account before adopting the implementing act.
Amendment 1631 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 1
Article 42 – paragraph 1
1. Health data access bodies and single data holders may charge fees for making electronic health data available for secondary use. Any fees shall include and be derived from the costs related to conducting the procedure for requests, including for assessing a data application or a data request, granting, refusing or amending a data permit pursuant to Articles 45 and 46 or providing an answer to a data request pursuant to Article 47, in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation […] [Data Governance Act COM/2020/767 final]
Amendment 1641 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 2
Article 42 – paragraph 2
2. Where the data in question are not held by the data access body or a public sector body, the fees may also include compensation for part of the costs for collecting the electronic health data specifically under this Regulation in addition to the fees that may be charged pursuant to paragraph 1. The part of the fees linked to the data holder’s costs shall be paid to the data holder.
Amendment 1642 #
2022/0140(COD)
Amendment 1645 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 4
Article 42 – paragraph 4
4. Any fees charged to data users pursuant to this Article by the health data access bodies or data holders shall be transparent and proportionate to the costworkload of collecting and making electronic health data available for secondary use, objectively justified and shall not restrict competition. The support received by the data holder from donations, public national or Union funds, to set up, develop or update tat dataset shall be excluded from this calculation. The specific interests and needs of SMEs, public bodies, Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies involved in research, health policy or analysis, educational institutions and healthcare providers shall be taken into account when setting the fees, by reducing those fees proportionately to their size or budget.
Amendment 1651 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 5
Article 42 – paragraph 5
Amendment 1655 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 6
Article 42 – paragraph 6
Amendment 1726 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1
Article 45 – paragraph 1
1. Any natural or legal personUnion citizens and third-country nationals legally residing in the EU or legal person established in the EU may submit a data access application for the purposes referred to in Article 34.
Amendment 1763 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 3
Article 45 – paragraph 3
3. Data users seeking access to electronic health data from more than one Member State shall submit a single application to one of the concerned health data access bodies of their choice which shall be responsible for sharing the request witbe able to submit the applications through other health data access bodies and authorised participants in HealthData@EU referred to in Article 52, which have been identified in the data access application. For requests to access electronic health data from more than one Member States, the health data access body shall notify the other relevant health data access bodies of the receipt of an application relevant to them within 15 days from the date of receipt of the data access application HealthData@EU referred to in Article 52 by indicating what data they request from wich Member State.
Amendment 1804 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 46 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 1848 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 11
Article 46 – paragraph 11
11. Data users shall make public the results or output of the secondary use of electronic health data, including information relevant for the provision of healthcare, no later than 18 months after the completion of the electronic health data processing or after having received the answer to the data request referred to in Article 47. Those results or output shall only contain anonymised data. The data user shall inform the health data access bodies from which a data permit was obtained and support them to make the information public on health data access bodies’ websites. Whenever the data users have used electronic health data in accordance with this Chapter, they shall acknowledge the electronic health data sources and the fact that electronic health data has been obtained in the context of the EHDS. Where the output of the secondary use of the electronic health data is not comprehensive from the perspective of the underlying project, data users shall indicate where follow-up information is available.
Amendment 1862 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 1
Article 47 – paragraph 1
Amendment 1866 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 2
Article 47 – paragraph 2
Amendment 1868 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 47 – paragraph 2 – point a
Amendment 1869 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 47 – paragraph 2 – point b
Amendment 1870 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 3
Article 47 – paragraph 3
Amendment 1875 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 48
Article 48
Amendment 1894 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 1
Article 49 – paragraph 1
Amendment 1895 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 2
Article 49 – paragraph 2
Amendment 1896 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 3
Article 49 – paragraph 3
Amendment 1897 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 4
Article 49 – paragraph 4
Amendment 1933 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 5
Article 52 – paragraph 5
5. Third countries or international organisations may become authorised participants where they comply with the rules of Chapter IV of this Regulation and provide access to data users located in the Union, on equivalent terms and conditions, to the electronic health data available to their health data access bodies. The Commission may adopt implementing acts establishing that a national contact point of a third country or a system established at an international level is compliant with requirements of HealthData@EU for the purposes of secondary use of health data, is compliant with the Chapter IV of this Regulation and provides access to data users located in the Union to the electronic health data it has access to on equivalent terms and conditions. The compliance with these legal, organisational, technical and security requirements, including with the standards for secure processing environments pursuant to Article 50 shall be checked under the control of the Commission. These implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisoryexamination procedure referred to in Article 68 (2). The Commission shall make the list of implementing acts adopted pursuant to this paragraph publicly available. In addition to the compliance check, the national security interests of the Member States shall also be taken into account before adopting the implementing acts.
Amendment 1963 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 13 – subparagraph 2
Article 52 – paragraph 13 – subparagraph 2
Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisoryexamination procedure referred to in Article 68(2).
Amendment 2125 #
2022/0140(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 72 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Amendment 61 #
2022/0117(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) Human rights defenders also play an important role in European democracies, especially in upholding fundamental rights, democratic values, social inclusion, environmental protection and the rule of law. They should be able to participate actively in public life and make their voice heard on policy matters and in decision-making processes without fear of intimidation. Hre individuals, groups and organizations in civil society that promote and protect universally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms. As such, human rights defenders arefer to individuals or organisations engaged in defending fundamental rights and a variety of other rights, such as environmental and climate rights, women’s rights, LGBTIQ rights, the rights of the people with a minority racial or ethnic background, labour rights or religious freedoms. Other participants in public debate, such as academics and researchers, also deserve adequate protection committed to promoting and safeguarding civil, political, economic, social, cultural and environmental rights and to fighting against direct or indirect discrimination as listed in Article 21 of the Charter.
Amendment 193 #
2022/0117(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Amendment 207 #
Amendment 212 #
2022/0117(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a court or tribunal seised of court proceedings against public participation may accept that non- governmental organisations safeguarding or promoting the rights of persons engaging in public participation may take part in those proceedings, either inbrought against natural or legal persons on account of their engagement in public participation may accept that non- governmental organisations in accordance with national law provide out-of-court support tof the defendant or to provide informationin connection with those proceedings.
Amendment 221 #
2022/0117(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shallmay empower courts and tribunals to adopt an early decision to dismiss, in full or in part, court proceedings against public participation as manifestly unfounded.
Amendment 230 #
2022/0117(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that where a defendant has applied for early dismissal, it shall be for the claimant to provsubstantiate that the claim is not manifestly unfounded.
Amendment 234 #
2022/0117(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that a decision refusing or granting early dismissal pursuant to Article 9 is subject to an appeal.
Amendment 242 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) The measures under this Directive have been designed to address the specific needs of women and girls, given that they are disproportionately affected by the forms of violence covered under this Directive, namely violence against women and domestic violence. This Directive, however, acknowledges that other persons may also fall victim to these forms of violence and should benefit from the measures provided for therein. Therefore, the term ‘victim’ should refer to all persons, regardless of their sex or gender.
Amendment 285 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
Amendment 394 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) The increase in internet and social media usage has led to a sharp rise in public incitement to violence and hatred, including based on sex or gender, over the past years. The easy, fast and broad sharing of hate speech through the digital word is reinforced by the online disinhibition effect, as the presumed anonymity on the internet and sense of impunity reduce people’s inhibition to engage in such speech. Women are often the target of sexist and misogynous hate online, which can escalate into hate crime offline. This needs to be intercepted at an early stage. The language used in this type of incitement does not always directly refer to the sex or gender of the targeted person(s), but the biased motivation can be inferred from the overall content or context of the incitement.
Amendment 613 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 59
Recital 59
Amendment 633 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 61
Recital 61
(61) In order to counteract underreporting, Member States should also liaise with law enforcement authorities in the development of trainings in particular regarding harmful gender stereotypes, but also in the prevention of offences, given their typical close contact with groups at risk of violence and victims.
Amendment 729 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) “victim” means any person, regardless of sex or gender, unless specified otherwise, who has suffered harm, which was directly caused by acts of violence covered under this Directive, including child witnesses of such violence;
Amendment 884 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that the intentional conduct of inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to sex or gender, by disseminating to the public material containing such incitement by means of information and communication technologies is punishable as a criminal offence.
Amendment 1172 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) how to treat victims in a trauma-, gender- and child-sensitive manner;
Amendment 1177 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point f
Amendment 1483 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 36 – paragraph 5
Article 36 – paragraph 5
5. Preventive measures shall in particular aim at challenging harmful gender stereotypes, promoting equality between women and men, encouraging all, including men and boys, to act as positive role models to support corresponding behaviour changes across society as a whole in line with the objectives of this directive.
Amendment 22 #
2022/0031(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 a (new)
Recital 4 a (new)
(4a) During 2021, around 2 million Union citizens were vaccinated by COVID-19 vaccines the distribution of which has been temporarily authorised pursuant to Article 5(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council1a. The emergence of Omicron variant considerably changed vaccination policies throughout the Union. Booster vaccination became indispensable to prevent severe diseases resulting from infection. For preventing severe diseases, it is important that everyone obtains booster vaccination and those persons who, during the primary course of vaccination, did not receive vaccines authorised under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 are also assured that all their vaccination certificates should be recognized in case a booster vaccine is authorised under that Regulation. ____________________- 1a Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67).
Amendment 58 #
2022/0031(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b a (new)
Regulation (EU) 2021/953
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 3 b (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 3 b (new)
(ba) in paragraph 5, the following subparagraph is added: “By derogation from the second subparagraph, Member States shall accept vaccination certificates issued by other Member States in accordance with this Regulation for a COVID-19 vaccine which has been temporarily authorised pursuant to Article 5(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC if the vaccine was administered before 31 December 2021 and has been followed by a booster COVID-19 vaccine that has been granted a marketing authorisation pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.”;
Amendment 6 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 13
Citation 13
Amendment 12 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 16
Citation 16
Amendment 14 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 18
Citation 18
Amendment 19 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 20
Citation 20
Amendment 27 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 24
Citation 24
Amendment 31 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 26
Citation 26
Amendment 33 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 27
Citation 27
Amendment 35 #
2021/2180(INI)
Amendment 38 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 31
Citation 31
Amendment 48 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the Union is founded on the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities (Article 2 TEU values) – values that are common to the EU Member States and to which candidate countries must adhere in order to join the Union; whereas democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are mutually reinforcing values which, when undermined, may pose a systemic threat to the Union; whereas the Union institutions must also adhere to the rule of law when they act;
Amendment 61 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the annual rule of law review cycle is a welcome addition to the tools available to preserve the Article 2 TEU values by addressing the situation in all EU Member States in a report based on four pillars with a direct bearing on respect for the rule of lawtool created by the Commission which has no legal basis in the Treaties;
Amendment 73 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas without effan objective, follow- up, the rule of law report may fail to prevent, detect and effectively address systemic challenges and backsliding on the rule of law, as witnessed in several EU Member States in recent yearsair, impartial and fact-based approach, the rule of law report is a tool which lacks credibility and cannot be taken into account in the context of any other mechanism;
Amendment 84 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas it is necessary to strengthen and streamline existing mechanisms and to develop an effective EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights to ensure that Article 2 TEU values are upheld throughout the Unionunder the Treaties, the Commission has no competence to create additional mechanisms to monitor the rule of law in Member States;
Amendment 116 #
2021/2180(INI)
1. WelcomesUnderlines that the Commission’s second annual rule of law report; regrets the fact that the Commission did not address in full the recommendations made by Parliament in its resolution of 24 June 2021 on the Commission’s 2020 R is yet another tool for political pressure; regrets the fact that the report does not present an objective and substantiated picture of the rule of Llaw Report; considers that these recommendations remain valid and reiterates themsituation in Member States; highlights that this report cannot serve as a basis for any further EU mechanisms and procedures;
Amendment 133 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. WelcomNotes the fact that the functioning of justice systems, the anti- corruption framework, media pluralism and certain institutional issues related to checks and balances, including civic space to a certain extent, are all part of the Commission’s annual report; regrets, however, that not all rule of law issues were covered in sufficient detail in the 2021 report; calls for the inclusion in the annual reportthat the report portrays political demands that fall outside the competence of other important el Union, as general requirements ofor the Venice Commission’s 2016 Rrule of Llaw Checklist; believes that civic space deserves a separate subheading in the report; underlines that this fully discredits the rule of law report as a whole;
Amendment 142 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes with satisfaction that the report contains country-specific chapters; commendnotes the Commission’s efforts to engage with national governments and national parliaments, as well as civil society and other national actors; encourages the Commission to devote greater efforts to deepening the analysis, and invites the Commission to ensure proper resources for that; believes that more time should be devoted to the Commission’s country visits, including on siteregrets, however, that the Commission only reiterates the opinion of civil society organisations that are financed from outside the EU without verifying these allegations and presenting justification or evidence; notes with concern that the Commission ignores the position of the constitutional organs of the Member States and rather takes into account the politically biased opinions of certain civil society organisations; believes that more time should be devoted to the Commission’s understanding of national constitutional traditions and specificities;
Amendment 160 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. WelcomDeplores the fact that all Member States are not scrutinised according to the same indicators and methodology; emphasises that presenting deficiencies or breaches of a different nature or intensity risks trivialising the most serious breaches of the rule of law; urges the Commission to differentiate its reporting by distinguishing between systemic breaches of the rule of law and isolated breachthe requirement of a comprehensive, comparative analysis has not been met neither from methodological nor from thematic aspects; notes with concern that the examination is even more tendentious than it was in the report of 2020 as several topics, notions and sources are being used mostly or solely in relation to a few Member States;
Amendment 169 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 177 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 194 #
2021/2180(INI)
7. Considers that the annual report should identify cross-cutting trends at EU level; asks the Commission to identify instances where certain measures or practices that undermine the rule of law in one Member State become blueprints for others, or when the gravity and scope of such deficiencies have the potential to affect the Union as a wholeis full of factually unfounded findings based on vague concerns, value judgements and double standards in relation to some Member States; notes with concern the improper methodology and the lack of uniform standards in the report;
Amendment 197 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Commends the effort ofNotes with regret that the 2021 report to compared the situation with that of the 2020 report; believes that it is necessary to identify clearly positive and negative trends as regards the rule of law situation and provide an analysis of the underlying reasons fo the 2020 report is even worse as the examination in the report is even more thatendentious;
Amendment 203 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that the 2021 report could have provided clearer assessments, stating whether there were deficifully echoes the findings of ideologically biased NGOs funded from outside the EU; notes that the disproportionate number of referencies, a risk of a serious breach or an actual breach of Article 2 TEU values in each to findings of such NGOs entails that the Commission completely outsourced the work ofn the pillars analysed in the country chapters; calls for a more integrated analysis on the interlinkages betweenreport to these NGOs without checking the factual correctness of their statements; considers, therefore, that the fsour pillars and of how combined deficiencies may amount to breaches or risks of a breachces of the report are one-sided and politically biased, and thus, its findings are completely inaccurate;
Amendment 211 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. WelcomDeplores the Commission’s intention to include country-specific recommendations in the 2022 report; calls on as the Commission to accompany such recommendations with deadlines for implementation, targets and concretlacks the competence to do so; underlines that due to the lactions to be taken; calls on the Commission to include in subsequent reports indications on the implementation of itsk of objectivity and methodological mistakes, these reports cannot serve as a basis of any future mechanism or sanction, not even recommendations;
Amendment 215 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 224 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Regrets the fact that with the 2020 report fails to fully encompass the Article 2 TEU values of democracy and fundamental rights, which are immediately affected when countries start backsliding on the rule of law; reiterates the intrinsic link between the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rightthe Commission intends to excerpt pressure on Member States as regards the handling of specific cases; underlines that political debates should not be disguised as legal debates;
Amendment 245 #
2021/2180(INI)
13. Underlines its concern at the fact that women and people in vulnerable situations, including persons with disabilities, children, religious minorities, particularly at a time of rising antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred in Europe, Romani people and other persons belonging to ethnic and linguistic minorities, migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, LGBTI+ persons and elderly people, continue to see their rights not being fully respected across the Union; emphasises the obvious link between deteriorating rule of law standards and violationsthat the Commission uses the respect for the rule of law and fundamental rights as a pretext to put political pressure on certain Member States to change their policies with regard to migration policy ofr fundamental rights and minority rightsamily law for example;
Amendment 267 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the regular, inclusive and structured dialogue with governments and national parliaments, NGOs, national human rights institutions, ombudspersons, equality bodies, professional associations and other stakeholders; considers that civil society organisations should be closely involved in all phase and to duly take into account the information received from Member States; considers that the Commission should not copy-paste the political opinions of civil society organisations and base its findings ofn the review cyclese opinions; highlights that thematically structured consultations would make the process more efficient and increase the amount of valuable feedback; stresses that the consultation questionnaire should allow stakeholders to report aspects beyond the scope envisaged by the Commission;
Amendment 311 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 320 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 330 #
2021/2180(INI)
22. Reiterates that the annual report shouldcannot serve as a basis for deciding whether to activate one or several relevant tools such as Article 7 TEU, the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation, the Rule of Law Framework or infringement procedures, including expedited procedures, applications for interim measures before the CJEU and actions regarding non-implementation of CJEU judgments; calls on the institutions to activate such tools without delayany other mechanism or sanction;
Amendment 342 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Recalls that infringement procedures are the core instrument to protect and defend EU law and the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU; notes with concern that the number of infringement procedures launched by the Commission has plummeted since 2004; is surprised by the fact that infringement procedures are not triggered systematically as soon as the relevant infringement is documented in the annual report; deplores the Commission’s reluctance to exhaust the possibilities of infringement procedures against Member States as the instrument most tailored to resolve the issues efficiently and without delay; notes that this reluctance resulted in calls on Member States to initiate inter- State cases in accordance with Article 259 TFEU; is concerned that without systematic and timely application the preventive capacity of infringement procedures declines;
Amendment 354 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 371 #
2021/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Strongly regretNotes the inability of the Council to make meaningful progress in the ongoing Article 7(1) TEU procedures; urges the Council to ensure that hearings take place on a regular basis and also address new developments; reiterates its call on the Council to address concrete recommendations to the Member States in question, and to provide deadlines for the implementation of those recommendations; insists that Parliament’s role d the procedures immediately as they are nothing more but openly political procedures which do not lead anywhere, but harm Europeand comopetences be respectedration;
Amendment 2 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5
Citation 5
Amendment 13 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 23
Citation 23
Amendment 14 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 24
Citation 24
Amendment 16 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 28
Citation 28
Amendment 19 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas civil society organisations (CSOs) are non-profit making organisations independent of public institutions and commercial interests, which represent a wide range of worldviews and whose activities contribute to the realisation of EUa diverse set of values and fundamental rights; whereas human rights defenders, activists and informal groups are also key actors in civil society;
Amendment 31 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas freedom of expression has been restricted in some Member States; whereas strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) have also been used to target civil society organisations (CSOs) and human rights defenders; whereas these exert a severe chilling effect oncertain CSOs representing a radical left-wing and liberal ideology have gained significant influence in decision-making at the EU level; whereas these CSOs carry out their work claiming to be independent, but in reality, they serve the political interests of their funders; whereas this significant influence could be used by foreedom of expressionign powers to pursue interference goals;
Amendment 34 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Amendment 35 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
Amendment 40 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
Amendment 53 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas certain Member States have placed restrictions on CSOs’ ability to engage in political activities; whereas in others, accusations that CSOs are political have become tools to stigmatise and delegitimise them; whereas CSOs report discriminatory and restrictive funding practices in certain Member Stateintroduced transparency requirements regarding the funding of CSOs;
Amendment 57 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas policies and practices instilling a chilling effect on civic space have been adopted in certain Member Stsome CSOs may have a significant influence on public life and public debates with the aim of achieving self- censorship and deterring civic actors from exercising their rightshich justify their funding being subject to strict transparency measures, especially if the funding comes from outside the Union;
Amendment 59 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)
Recital K a (new)
K a. whereas transparency is a legitimate requirement which is of outmost importance for all European Union institutions, including the European Commission and the European Parliament;
Amendment 65 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K b (new)
Recital K b (new)
K b. whereas the European Union also maintains a transparency register of organizations wishing to influence decision-makers;
Amendment 71 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
Amendment 74 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
Amendment 76 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
Amendment 92 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Asserts the crucial role played by CSOs in the realisation of EUa wide range of values and fundamental rights, and the implementation of EU policies and strategies; stresses their key contribution to informed public debate, articulating aspirations present in society, giving a voice to vulnerable and marginalised people, providing expertise in policy- making, promoting active citizenship and acting as schools of democracy;
Amendment 100 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that for civil society organisations to thrive, civic space must be an enabling and safe environment free from undue interference, intimidation, harassment and chilling effector all kinds of organisations, including organisations that represent traditional values;
Amendment 105 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Warns about the degradation of civic space throughout the EU with policies hampering CSOs’ operations, their access to sustainable funding and their ability to participate in decision- making; condemns any form of harassment, smearing, stigmatisation, criminalisation and scapegoating of CSOincreasing activity of biased radical left-wing CSOs which act as political activist organisations; underlines that these CSOs often have little connection to society and people, but serve as political pressure groups receiving funding from abroad and acting in the political interests of their funders;
Amendment 110 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Notes with concern that these biased radical left-wing CSOs are in reality working to create an intolerant environment where only their own views are presented as acceptable, and label everyone else with different views as "extremists";
Amendment 111 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Condemns that CSOs representing traditional values are often squeezed out of the public discourse;
Amendment 113 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 117 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 123 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 134 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1
Subheading 1
An enabling regulatory and political environment free from chilling effects, threats and attackenvironment for all kinds of civil society organisations
Amendment 136 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that the ability of CSOs to act depends on the existence of an enabling legal and political environment, in particular on the exercise of freedom of association, peaceful assembly and expression; urges Member States to guarantee the exercise of these rights in conformity with international standards; highlights the need to ensure that civil society organisations operate in a transparent manner, with special regard to funding;
Amendment 142 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 149 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 165 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 182 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 188 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2
Subheading 2
Amendment 192 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 199 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Highlights that in case C-78/18 the CJEU confirmed that certain civil society organisations may have a significant influence on public life and public debate having regard to the aims which they pursue and the means at their disposal; expresses concern that this significant influence could be used by foreign powers to pursue interference and destabilization goals;
Amendment 203 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15 b. Underlines that the CJEU judgement in case C-78/18 also confirmed that the objective of transparency and, furthermore, traceability of movements of capital intended for organisations which participate in public life might be regarded as an overriding reason in the public interest;
Amendment 204 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 c (new)
Paragraph 15 c (new)
15 c. Underlines that it is a legitimate expectation on the part of society that CSOs should operate in a transparent manner, including the source of their funding, especially those receiving foreign funding;
Amendment 205 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 d (new)
Paragraph 15 d (new)
Amendment 206 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 212 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 227 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 236 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 248 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 253 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3
Subheading 3
Civil dialogue and transparent participation in policy- making
Amendment 257 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Stresses the importance of civil dialogue in informed policy-making and; emphasises that the privileged position of CSOs in contact with citizens, and their expertise, confers on them a key role in civil dialoguee need to ensure transparency when it comes to the involvement of CSOs in policy-making;
Amendment 263 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Regrets that civil dialogue often remains an ad hoc process; calls on the Member States to develop coherent policy frameworks that ensure structured, predictable and long-term processes, inclusIs gravely concerned that the European Commission outsources the work on the annual rule of law report to non-elected and ideologically motivated CSOs; highlights that this practice is antidemocratic as it gives participation and systematic review; calls on the Commission to provide recommendationsower to CSOs without any democratic legitimacy; underlines that this leads to unbalanced and biased on the analysis of existing practicereporting and the application of double standards, especially in relation to conservative right-wing governments;
Amendment 272 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22 a. Regrets that the European Commission in its annual rule of law report copies the unfounded allegations of politically motivated civil society organisations without any control or fact- checking;
Amendment 277 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. WelcomNotes the attribution to a Commission Vice-President of the responsibility to maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with civil society; stresses that civil dialogue should be further operationalisedunderlines that this shall involve dialogue with all kinds of CSOs representing a wide range of views and not only those representing radical left- wing and liberal views; stresses that civil dialogue should always be conducted in a transparent manner;
Amendment 280 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Calls on the Commission to leverage the definition of national programmes implementing EU funds and the implementation by Member States of EU strategies and action plans to requiresupport Member States to put in place effective and transparent civil dialogue mechanisms;
Amendment 295 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b
Regulation (EU) No 2016/399
Article 2 – point 27
Article 2 – point 27
27. ‘instrumentalisation of migrants’ refers tomeans a situation where a third country instigates irregular migratory flows into the Union by activelyor non state actor encouraginges or facilitatinges the movement of third country nationals to the external borders, onto or from within its territory and then onwards to those external borders, where such actions are indicative of an intention of a third country to or to a Member State with the aim of destabiliseing the Union or a Member State, where the nature of such actions isare liable to put at risk essential State functions, including its territorial integrity, of a Member State, including the maintenance of law and order or the safeguard of its national security;
Amendment 300 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) No 2016/399
Article 5 – paragraph 4
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. IMember States may, in particular in a situation of instrumentalisation of migrants, Member States may limit the number of or in other situations of emergency at the border, temporarily close specific border crossing points as notified pursuant to paragraph 1 or limit their opening hours where the circumstances so require. Member States may, in particular in a situation of instrumentalisation of migrants, where third-country nationals attempt to force entry en masse by using violent means, take the necessary measures to preserve security, law and order.
Amendment 307 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Regulation (EU) No 2016/399
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. The main purpose of border surveillance shall be to detect and prevenprevent and detect unauthorised border crossings, to counter cross-border criminality and to take measures against persons who have crossed the border illegally. A person who has crossed a border illegally and who has no right to stay on the territory of the Member State concerned shall be apprehended and made subject to procedures respecting Directive 2008/115/EC.
Amendment 316 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Regulation (EU) No 2016/399
Article 13 – paragraph 4
Article 13 – paragraph 4
4. Surveillance shall be carried out by stationary or mobile units which perform their duties by patrolling or stationing themselves at places known or perceived to be sensitive, the aim of such surveillance being to prevent unauthorised border crossings or apprehend individuals crossing or having crossed the border illegally. Surveillance may also be carried out by technical means, including electronic means, equipment and surveillance systems and, where appropriate, all types of stationary and mobile infrastructure including border barriers and fences.
Amendment 320 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Regulation (EU) No 2016/399
Article 13 – paragraph 5
Article 13 – paragraph 5
5. In a situation of instrumentalisation of migrants, the Member State concerneds shall intensify border surveillance as necessary in order to address the increased threats, notably when they face a situation of instrumentalisation of migrants. In particular, the Member States shall enhance, as appropriate, the resources and technical means to prevent an unauthorised border crossing of the borders.
Amendment 329 #
2021/0428(COD)
7. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 37 concerning additional measures governing surveillance, including the development of common minimum standards for border surveillance, in particular the use of surveillance and monitoring technologies at the external borders, taking into account the type of borders, the impact levels attributed to each external border section in accordance with Article 34 of the Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 and other relevant factors.
Amendment 334 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – paragraph 1
Regulation (EU) No 2016/399
Chapter 5 – Article 21a
Chapter 5 – Article 21a
Amendment 348 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Regulation (EU) No 2016/399
Article 23 – point a
Article 23 – point a
a) the exercise of police or other public powers by the competent authorities of the Member States in their territory, including in their internal border areas, as conferred on them under national law, insofar as the exercise of those powers does not have an effect equivalent to border checks. The exercise of police or other public powers by the competent authorities of the Member States in their territory, including in their border areas, should not have a disproportionate impact on fluidity of movement across the internal borders, notably by leading to excessive waiting times. In a spirit of dialogue and cooperation, Member States should consult the neighbouring Member State of their actions, in particular when the action is expected to have a more significant effect on cross-border traffic. The exercise by competent authorities of their powers may not, in particular, be considered equivalent to the exercise of border checks when the measures:
Amendment 55 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) During the evaluation, particular attention should be paid to verifying respect for fundamental rights in the application of the Schengen acquis in addition to the evaluation of the correct implementation and application of the data protection requirements of the Schengen acquis carried out by separate evaluations. To increase the capacity of the evaluation and monitoring mechanism to identify violations of fundamental rights in relevant policy areas, additional measures should be implemented. Schengen evaluators should be properly trained in this regard, relevant information from the European Agency for Fundamental Rights should be better utilised and its experts better involved in the design and implementation of evaluations. Furthermore, evidence which is made public or provided through independent monitoring mechanisms or by relevant third parties at their own initiative such as ombudspersons, authorities monitorverified information provided by relevant third parties directly involved ing the respect of fundamental rights, non-governmental and international organisations, shimplementation of the Schengen acquis could be taken into account in the programming, design and implementation of evaluations. Member States should have the opportunity to comment on information provided by third parties.
Amendment 60 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) Unannounced visits, being one of the most effective tools to verify Member States practices should, depending on their purpose, should take place without a prior notification to the Member State concerned or with only short prior notification. Unannounced visits without prior notification should take place for ‘investigative’ purposes in order to verify compliance with obligations under the Schengen acquis, including, in response to indications as regards the emergence of systemic problems that could potentially have a significant impact on the funcof at least 24 hours before the visit to the Member State to carry out a random check of the Member State’s implementationing of the Schengen area or to fundamental rights violations, in particular allegations of serious violations of fundamental rights at the external borders. In such cases, the provision of advance notice would defeat the objective of the visit. Unannounced visits with a 24- hour advance notice should take place if the main purpose of the visit is to carry out a random check of the Member State’s implementation ofcquis or in order to verify the compliance with obligations under the Schengen acquis.
Amendment 111 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point i
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point i
(i) ‘serious deficiency’ means one or more deficiencies based on findings of non-compliance which concern the effective application of key elements of the Schengen acquis and which individually or in combination, have, or risk to have over time, a significant negative impact on the rights of individuals or on the functioning of the Schengen area;
Amendment 136 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c
Amendment 151 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Member States may comment on the information statistical data or risk analyses referred to in paragraph 2.
Amendment 167 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
In the programming and implementation of the evaluations and monitoring activities, the Commission shallmay take into account verified information provided by third parties directly involved in the implementation of the Schengen acquis, including independent authorities, non- governmental organisations and international organisations. Member States shall have the opportunity to comment on information provided by third parties.
Amendment 207 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
It may include visits to and meetings with national authorities and bodies, non- governmental and international organisations as well as other entities, agencies and bodies directly involved in, or participating in or concerned by the implementation of the Schengen acquis while cooperating with the Member State subject to the evaluation or monitoring activity.
Amendment 214 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
Article 19 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. Unannounced visits shall take place without a prior notification to the Member State concerned. By way of exception, the Commission may notify the Member State concerned at least 24 hours before such visit is to take place when the main purpose of the unannounced visit is a random verification of the implementation of the Schengen acquis at least 24 hours before such visit is to take place.
Amendment 237 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
If the Commission does not consider that all the recommendations linked to findings of non-compliance have been sufficiently addressed, the evaluated Member State shall submit a revised action plan within one month of the receipt of the observations.
Amendment 16 #
2020/2273(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that agricultural productivity and resilience depend on biodiversity to guarantee the long-term sustainability of our food systems; underlines, furthermore, that much of the present biodiversity across Europe has been cpreatserved by farming and its survivalforest management as well and is dependent on the continued active management of farmland and forest;
Amendment 40 #
2020/2273(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the high level of ambition of the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030 in seeking to halt and reverse biodiversity loss in the EU; considers that this level of ambition encourages policy action at all levels and promotes the development of research and innovative solutions to tackle biodiversity loss; stresses that the continuous decline in farmland biodiversity is a realityaware of biodiversity loss at global scale and that bold action is needed to counteract this trend;
Amendment 48 #
2020/2273(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 2 – point 1 (new)
(1) Highlights that a unified EU methodology is important to assess the current biodiversity status, however by setting any quantitative target the specificities of the Member States shall be taken into full account; underlines in order to have tangible results a more effective communication shall be achieved than ever before with the farming and forestry community;
Amendment 49 #
2020/2273(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – point 2 (new)
Paragraph 2 – point 2 (new)
(2) Calls on the Commission to avoid outsourcing the environmental footprint to third countries; therefore stresses that without a thorough impact assessment the objectives of the Biodiversity Strategy in their current form are endangering the food security in Europe;
Amendment 78 #
2020/2273(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises the strong link with the Farm to Fork strategy and the need for a holistic approach to the food system; calls on the Commission to establish an evidence-based and science based evaluation of the implementation of the strategy’s measures and targets, in particular of the individual and cumulative impacts on the social and economic sustainability of agriculture and forestry in the EU, food security and biomass security as well as food and wood prices, and the potential risks of displacing biodiversity losses abroadin non-EU countries by the replacement of local agriculturalsustainable agricultural and forestry production with imports;
Amendment 114 #
2020/2273(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that biodiversity conservation is a key societal goal, requiring a broad and inclusive debate, and the effective participation of everyone in society, in particular those more affected by the measures, such as the farming and forestry community, while at the same time benefiting from their knowledge and experience, and creating a sense of ownership, vital for the successful implementation of the strategy;
Amendment 128 #
2020/2273(INI)
5. Stresses the key role of the common agricultural policy (CAP) in protecting and promoting farmland biodiversity; underlines the potential of the green architecture components of the CAP in promoting and providing incentives for the transition to more sustainable agriculturacknowledges the achievements so far of the CAP related to the environmental performance; stresses that the new CAP represents an enhanced environmental and climate ambition which takes shape in its nine specific objectives reflecting the three pillars of sustainability i.e. environmental, systems for producing food and maintaining high nature value farmland; considers that Memberocial and economic; points out that any additional agricultural and forest related climate-neutral objectives stemming from the Biodiversity Strates must ensure the timely development and uptake of actions which contribute to enhancing the delivery and potential of biodiversity benefits in line with the required level of ambitiongy shall respect the Union decision-making mechanisms i.e. the Commission shall submit legislative proposals accordingly; underlines the potential of the new green architecture of the CAP in promoting and providing incentives for the transition to more sustainable agricultural systems for producing food and maintaining high nature value farmland;
Amendment 159 #
2020/2273(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Highlights the importance of maintaining and restoring high-diversity landscape features in agricultural landscapes for their value in terms of biodiversity, and pollinators and the natural biological control of pests; calls on; stresses the role of beekeepers considering that the highest level of pollination is provided by honey bees therefore the importance of their financial support is vital; encourages the Member States to develop the necessary measures under their CAP Strategic Plans to promote non-productive areas and features with the aim of achieving an area of at least 10%measures of high diversity areas beneficial for biodiversity at national level, promoting interconnectivity between habitats and thereby maximising the potential for biodiversity; emphasises in this context that maintaining of financial support for these areas must be guaranteed;
Amendment 162 #
2020/2273(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. ConsiderAcknowledges thate ecosystem services provided by aquaculture and freshwater aquaculture as well, of which the maintenance of biodiversity is an important one, this must be taken into consideration and supported; accordingly; stresses also the contribution of freshwater aquaculture to freshwater biodiversity i.e. its role of maintenance of wetland habitats, in water management and in providing habitat for a range of bird species.
Amendment 166 #
2020/2273(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Welcomes proposals to reduce and limit the use of pesticides and other chemicals to protect biodiversity; strongly believes, however, that such measures should be pre-assessed diligently and should include cumulative impact assessments; furthermore stresses that in case of pesticides the reduction targets should take into account the already achieved results and the current factual usage of these substances by Member States;
Amendment 190 #
2020/2273(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Stresses the importance of the constructive, effective and equal consultation of fishers and, marine and freshwater aquaculture producers in any decision related to biodiversity;
Amendment 196 #
2020/2273(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Welcomes the recognition of organic farming as a strong component on the EU’s path towards more sustainable food systems; underlines that the development of organic food production must be accompanied by research, innovation and scientific transfer, market and supply chain development, and measures stimulating demand for organic food, ensuring both the stability of the organic products market and the fair remuneration of farmers; points out that the purchasing power within the European Union varies considerably, consequently the expected results on the demand side will vary in Member States;
Amendment 222 #
2020/2273(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines the importance of sustainable forest management for the health, climate resilience and longevity of forest ecosystems and as the most effective framework tool for the preservation of the multifunctional role of forests including maintaining and improving forest biodiversity; therefore calls on the Commission to properly consider and reflect this concept in the foreseen EU Forest Strategy and especially through the implementation of the relevant strategies; emphasises that sustainable management practices applied in the EU have shown their contribution to the protection of biodiversity; highlights the potential of agroforestry to improve and boost ecosystem services and farmland biodiversity, while enhancing farm productivity;
Amendment 235 #
2020/2273(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 8 – point 1 (new)
(1) Notes that administrative measures proposed in the strategy, especially the extension of protected and strictly protected forest areas, lack of clear definitions and detailed impact assessments; emphasizes the need that the full involvement of Member States and stakeholders is needed and national conditions should be taken into account in the development of key definitions important for the implementation of the strategy; stresses that more emphasis should be put on the implementation of the existing EU and national legislation;
Amendment 273 #
2020/2273(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses the importance of plant protection products and tools for the stability of agricultural production and forestry as well as the sustainability of farmers’ and forest holders' incomes; considers that, although progress has been made, a substantial reduction in the use and risks of chemical pesticides is needed; stresses that in case of pesticides the reduction targets shall take into account the already achieved results and the current factual usage of these substances by Member States; stresses the key role of integrated pest management in reducing pesticide dependency, and urges the Member States to ensure it is applied and its implementation is assessed systematically; stresses that farmers need a bigger toolbox of crop protection solutions and methods, as well as bolstered training and advisory systems;
Amendment 310 #
2020/2273(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Regrets the factNotes that agricultural production is being increasingly concentrated in a limited range of agricultural crops, varieties and genotypes; underlines that preserving genetic variability in all its components is crucial to promoting the diversity and richness of agricultural ecosystems and to the preservation of local genetic resources, in particular as a repository of solutions to help in facing the environmental challenges that lie ahead; protecting biodiversity should not mean the increased use of GMO.
Amendment 487 #
2020/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the farm to fork strategy as an important step in ensuring a sustainable, fair and resilient food system, which is central to achieving the goals set out in the European Green Deal and in the SDGs; emphasises the inextricable links between healthy people, healthy societies and a healthy planet, encourages the Commission to translate the strategy into concrete legislative and non-legislative action as soon as possible; stresses that, in accordance with the rules of Union decision-making mechanisms, additional agricultural objectives of the farm to fork strategy shall not hinder ongoing legislative interinstitutional negotiations of the Common Agricultural Policy;
Amendment 704 #
2020/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 920 #
2020/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises the importance of recognising the significant impact of agriculture and especially animal production onat agriculture is essential for humankind; stresses that agriculture and forestry plays a crucial role in addressing climate change adaptation and mitigation; underlines that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and land use; stresses thin agriculture have nbeed to enhance natural carbon sinks and reduce agricultural emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, in particular inn significantly reduced; notes however that these emissions are linked to natural processes; highlights the fneed and livestock sectors; calls forto enhance natural carbon sinks; stresses that any regulatory measures and targets to ensure progressive reductions in all GHG emissions related to GHG emissions in agriculture must bear in mind these sectors three pillars of sustainability;
Amendment 1024 #
2020/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points out that extensive and permanent grassland-based or organic animal husbandry, even extensive freshwater aquaculture, is a feature of the European food system and a defining element of many traditional rural communities, and that it has multiple positive effects for the environment and against climate change, and contributes to a circular economy;
Amendment 1096 #
2020/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the notion of rewarding carbon sequestration in soils; stresses, however, that intensive and industrial agriculture and farming models with negative impacts on biodiversity should not receive climate funding or be incentivised; calls for the proposals to be in line with the environmental objectives and the ‘do no harm’ principle of the Green Deal;
Amendment 1160 #
2020/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines the importance of seed security and diversity, notably of promoting EU-grown plant proteins to deliver locally sourced food and feed stuffs with high nutritional value while granting farmers access to quality seeds for plant varieties adapted to the pressures of climate change, including traditional and locally-adapted varieties, while ensuring access to innovative plant breeding and taking into account the precautionary principle, also ensuring the safety of these techniques and products thereof to humans, animals and the environment, in order to contribute to healthy seeds and protect plants against harmful pests and diseases; raises awareness of the potential negative effects of concentration and monopolisation in the seed sector;
Amendment 1308 #
2020/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls that the European food system delivers a sufficient and varied supply of safe, nutritious, affordable and sustainable food to people considering their living standards and traditional cuisine at all times and underlines that increasing the economic, environmental and social sustainability of food producers will ultimately increase their resilience; encourages the Commission to consider the food supply chain and its workers as a strategic asset for the safety and well-being of all Europeans;
Amendment 1339 #
2020/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Underlines that robust and reliable legal frameworks for the fisheries and aquaculture sector should provide the basis for better protection measures with subsequent increases in fish populations and more clarity regarding the use of space and licenses in aquaculture, allowing for greater predictability for investments; stresses the importance of marine and freshwater aquaculture in the sustainable food production; stresses that good traceability mechanisms and high sustainability standards for all products sold on EU markets are essential to ensure transparency for consumers, the sector and the different administrations, and to achieve the targets of the Green Deal and the SDGs;
Amendment 1548 #
2020/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Urges the review of the EU promotion programme for agricultural and food products, including the EU school scheme, with a view to enhancing its contribution to sustainable production and consumption, notably by focusing on educational messages about the importance of healthy nutrition and promoting greater consumption of fruit and vegetablesa more balanced diet with the aim of reducing obesity rates; stresses that this policy shall ensure promotion opportunities for all agricultural products.
Amendment 1661 #
2020/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls for measures to reduce the burden that highly processed foods with high salt, sugar and fat content place on public health; regrets that the introduction of nutrient profiles is greatly delayed and stresses that a robust set of nutrient profiles must be developed to restrict or prohibitstresses the importance of nutrient profiles which aim is to avoid the use of false nutritional claims on foods high in fats, sugars and/or salt; calls for a mandatoryn EU-wide front-of- pack nutrition labelling system based on independent science bearing in mind the specificities of product groups; emphasises that the implementation of any further information to be provided to the consumer must be accompanied by appropriately funded awareness raising campaigns in order to achieve their goals;
Amendment 1684 #
2020/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Highlights that the origin indications must be clear and transparent; recalls that the rules of origin labelling of honey blends must be updated 1a; underlines that this is needed to support the work of European beekeepers whose role in the enhancement of biodiversity and securing food security is of utmost importance; therefore calls on the Commission to open the Directive on honey (2001/110/EC) in order to prevent misleading consumers and establish fair marketing practices; _________________ 1aProspects and challenges for the EU apiculture sector, (European Parliament resolution of 1 March 2018 on prospects and challenges for the EU apiculture sector (2017/2115(INI))
Amendment 1780 #
2020/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Welcomes the fact that the strategy rightly recognises the role and influence of the food environment in shaping consumption patterns and the need to make it easier for consumers to choose healthy and sustainable dietsy produced food; reiterates the importance of promoting sustainable healthy diets by raising consumer awareness of the impacts of consumption patterns and providing information on diets that are better for human health and have a lower environmental footprint; stresses however that these diets must be acceptable from social and cultural point of view and from economic point of view accessible for the consumers; underlines that food prices must send the right signal to consumers; welcomes, therefore, the strategy’s objective that the healthy and sustainable choice should become the most affordable one;
Amendment 1926 #
2020/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Considers that the further development of plant protein production and alternative sources of protein in the EU is a way of effectively addressing many of the environmental and climate challenges that EU agriculture is facing, as well as preventing deforestation in countries outside the EU; calls on the Commission to build upon the report on "The development of plant proteins in the European Union" and to work on an EU action plan on proteins based on a wide approach and building coherence between the different EU policies;
Amendment 2189 #
2020/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Recalls the global responsibility of European food systems and their key role in setting global standards for food safety, environmental protection and animal welfare; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that all food and feed products imported to the EU fully meet relevant EU regulations and standards and to provide development assistance to support primary producers from developing countries in meeting those standards; welcomes the Commission’s intention to take the environmental impacts of requested import tolerances into accounthighlights that joint action taken by local communities and development actors with competence in agriculture must be based on the rural traditions taking into account the existing ownership relations and the local agricultural needs; notes that the development of local production, distribution networks ensure local consumption, short food supply chains and increase environmental resilience; welcomes the Commission’s intention to take the environmental impacts of requested import tolerances into account; calls on the Commission that in order to avoid outsourcing the environmental footprint to third countries a thorough ex- ante impact assessment is needed; notes that the objectives of the farm to fork strategy are endangering food security in Europe in their current form;
Amendment 5 #
2020/2216(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas climate change is already having a significant impact on agriculture and forestry and is having an immediate impact on production;
Amendment 17 #
2020/2216(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the Farm to Fork strategy sets out to reduce the use of pesticides by 2030, in which could be assisted throughprecision agriculture and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are crucial;
Amendment 23 #
2020/2216(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the proposal for the next multiannual financial framework provides for EUR 10 billion of the Horizon Europe budget to be allocated to research and development (R&D) in agriculture and forestry, which should help to develop technological AI infrastructure for the sector;
Amendment 41 #
2020/2216(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that issues related to the wellbeing of agricultural and forestry workers and/or operators, animal welfare, and other ethical aspects should be a priority when it comes to assessing the applicability of AI in the sector;
Amendment 63 #
2020/2216(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that targeted investments should be made in AI and innovative tools intended to improve the quality and use of natural resources, such as soil and water for agriculture and forestry production in the EU;
Amendment 86 #
2020/2216(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 3 – point 1 (new)
(1) Stresses that the development of digital skills is essential in order to achieve a real digital transformation in the field of agriculture; however in order to exploit the full potential of this opportunity the gap between service providers and end-users must be dealt. In this process the role of digital farming advisors is key;
Amendment 108 #
2020/2216(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on all Member States to include in their common agricultural policy strategic plans and rural development plans measures to support the introduction and wider use of safe and reliable AI and innovative tools at affordable rates for beneficiaries; however the Commission must take into full account the different level of preparedness of Member States by evaluating the CAP Strategic Plans;
Amendment 125 #
2020/2216(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission to include at least two representatives with an agricultural background and one representative with forestry background to the High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (HLEG AI);
Amendment 131 #
2020/2216(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on all Member States to include at least onetwo experts, on agriculture and forestry respectively in the innovation hubs with a high degree of specialisation in AI, as proposed by the Commission in its White Paper of 19 February 2020 entitled ‘On Artificial Intelligence – A European Approach to excellence and trust’ (COM(2020)0065).
Amendment 38 #
2020/2196(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the very concept of Schengen cooperation, that of ensuring the absence of controls at internal borders, has been further challenged by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been added to the grounds invoked since 2015 for the persistent retention of internal border controls by some Member States; reiterates its condemnation of the maintenance of internal border checks since 2015 and its view that many of the prolongations are not in line with the rules pertaining to their extension, necessity or proportionality, and are therefore unlawful; acknowledges that the COVID-19 pandemic has created an unprecedented health emergency in the European Union which has led Member States to resort to exceptional measures which affected freedom of movement as well as the Schengen area; stresses the need to restore the normal functioning of the Schengen area as soon as the epidemic situation ends;
Amendment 64 #
2020/2196(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Further to its numerous requests for the full application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania, requests the Council to take an immediate decision on the abolition of checks at internal land, sea and air borders;
Amendment 73 #
2020/2196(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Expresses its deep concern abmphasizes that the monitoring tools set out in the repeated allegations concerning Frontex’s possible involvement in pushbacks and considers that internal reporting mechanisms, as well as parliamentary and public scrutiny overEuropean Border and Coast Guard Regulation and the existing monitoring tools at national level should be considered relevant and sufficient in cases of fundamental rights concerns in relation to Frontex’'s activities, must be reinforced and joint operations;
Amendment 87 #
2020/2196(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 124 #
2020/2196(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 7 #
2020/2098(REG)
Proposal for a decision
Citation -1 (new)
Citation -1 (new)
-1 having regard to Parliament's roles, functions and competences laid down in the Treaties,
Amendment 8 #
2020/2098(REG)
Proposal for a decision
Citation -1 a (new)
Citation -1 a (new)
-1a having regard to the primary obligation of the institutions of the European Union to safeguard the rule of law also in their own functioning,
Amendment 9 #
2020/2098(REG)
Proposal for a decision
Citation -1 b (new)
Citation -1 b (new)
-1b having regard to the rights of persons with disabilities and to the European Parliament resolution of 7 July 2016 on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, with special regard to the Concluding Observations of the UN CRPD Committee1a ; _________________ 1a OJ C 101, 16.3.2018, p. 138.
Amendment 12 #
2020/2098(REG)
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Takes note of the temporary measures adopted by its President and its governing bodies in order to cope with such extraordinary circumstances; underlines that those measures were needed to guarantee the continuity of Parliament’s business, which is required by the Treaties, allowing Parliament to carry out its legislative, budgetary and political control functions during the crisis;
Amendment 14 #
2020/2098(REG)
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recognises that those temporary measures were fully justified and ensured the validity of all votes taken during their period of applicatione motive and necessity of those temporary measures were tackling the circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic;
Amendment 15 #
2020/2098(REG)
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Expresses its desire to restore Parliament's full operation in compliance with its own rules, as laid down in the Treaties;
Amendment 22 #
2020/2098(REG)
Title XIII a (new) – rule 237 a (new)
Amendment 29 #
2020/2098(REG)
Title XIII a (new) – rule 237 b (new)
Amendment 35 #
2020/2098(REG)
Title XIII a (new) – rule 237 c (new)
Amendment 38 #
2020/2098(REG)
Title XIII a (new) – rule 237 d (new)
Rule 237d Holding of the plenary session in separate meeting rooms Where the President decides in accordance with Rule 237a(3), point (c), to allow a plenary session of Parliament to be held in whole or in part in more than one meeting room, including, where appropriate, the hemicycle, the following rules shall apply: – the meeting rooms used in this context shall be considered to collectively constitute the Chamber; – the President may, if necessary, determine the manner in which the respective meeting rooms can be used, in order to ensure that physical distancing requirements are respected.
Amendment 40 #
2020/2098(REG)
Title XIII a (new) – rule 237 e (new)
Rule 237e Parliamentary business during a period of extraordinary circumstances 1. Without delay after the adoption of a decision by the President under Rule 237a(2), the Conference of Presidents shall identify those activities which are essential and urgent for Parliament during the period of extraordinary circumstances referred to in Rule 237a(1), taking into account the opinion of the Conference of Committee Chairs. Those activities shall include measures that need to be taken with regard to the extraordinary circumstances, to budgetary matters, to urgent legislative procedures, or to major political events. 2. During the period of validity of a decision adopted under Rule 237a(2), the parliamentary business conducted in part- sessions and committee meetings shall be limited to the consideration and adoption of measures identified as essential and urgent by the Conference of Presidents taking into account the opinion of the Conference of Committee Chairs in accordance with paragraph 1. 3. Within two months after the adoption or modification of the rules regarding extraordinary circumstances under Title XIIIa, the President of the European Parliament shall initiate the procedure of Article 263 TFEU to review the legality of the modification of the Rules of Procedure and ensure that the modification is in line with the principle of the rule of law and democracy.
Amendment 42 #
2020/2098(REG)
Title XIII a (new) – rule 237 f (new)
Rule 237f Members with disabilities The European Parliament, to the best of its capabilities, shall ensure reasonable accommodation for Members with disabilities and their staff in the course of operating under extraordinary circumstances described in this Title.
Amendment 4 #
2020/2086(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the purpose of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities and that the EU is also a State Party thereof;
Amendment 26 #
2020/2086(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Encourages the Council to unblock the negotiations onmmission to present a new horizontal equality directive which focuses on persons with disabilities in order to extend their proposed horizontal equality directivetection outside employment based on the notion of reasonable accommodation;
Amendment 47 #
2020/2086(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Regrets that peoplersons with disabilities continue to experience discrimination in various domains, that this has been further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic with special regards to older persons living in institutions and that all forms of discrimination are generally under-reported; notes with concern the lack of awareness of the victim’s rights and of the possibility of seeking redress;
Amendment 65 #
2020/2086(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that the collection of robust, disaggregated, comparable disability-related data is necessary for evidence-based policy-making in accordance with the CRPD; urges Member States to process equality data in full compliance with Union data protection and privacy law based on the Washington Group on Disability Statistics (WG).
Amendment 7 #
2020/2058(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Expects that under the future multiannual financial framework (MFF), the contribution to the agricultural and rural development domain will be maintained at least at current levels; insists that any additional measures relating to the green transition be financed with fresh money and additional EU own resources;
Amendment 9 #
2020/2058(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Acknowledges the achievements so far of the CAP related to the environmental and climate performance; stresses that the post-2020 CAP represents an enhanced environmental and climate ambition which is reflected in each CAP Strategic Plan of EU-27; calls on the Commission that given this higher level of ambition of the new CAP any new agricultural related climate-neutral objective of the Green Deal should be separated from the ongoing CAP negotiations bearing in mind not only its financial impact but the impact on food security;
Amendment 13 #
2020/2058(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Calls on the Commission that the green transition in agriculture must ensure a balanced approach in terms of the three dimensions of sustainability i.e. social, environmental and economic; underlines the importance of the article 2.1.b of the Paris Agreement which recognizes the fundamental priority of safeguarding food security by the adaptation to the impacts of climate change;
Amendment 31 #
2020/2058(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that a significant percentage of the common agricultural policy (CAP) envelope, which represents the largest share of the EU budget, will be set aside to support climate-related objectives; recalls that the reform of the CAP is still ongoing and that no decision has yet been made on the exact contribution to environmental and climate-related objectives and requirements; points out that in terms of any new agriculture related climate neutral objective of the Green Deal a separate draft legislative proposal should be published in accordance with the rules without hindering ongoing legislative processes;
Amendment 68 #
2020/2007(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Considers that seasonal workers play an important role in agricultural sector, therefore it is of utmost importance to guarantee their rights in the field of working conditions ensuring the same level of protection that applies to domestic workers, furthermore to safeguard that social security rights are provided by the Member State of employment in accordance with the lex loci laboris principle;
Amendment 9 #
2020/2006(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new)
(1) Stresses that the role of sustainable forest management in decreasing deforestation and forest degradation is key, and that promoting the benefits of sustainable forest management in third countries can contribute to that goal;
Amendment 80 #
2020/2006(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for the Union to cut dependency on imports of forest and ecosystem-risk commodities by implementing the Union protein plan, and for Union livestock production to match available Union land resourcbuilding upon the Commission's report on the development of plant proteins in the European Union in order to elaborate a Union action plan on proteins based on a wide approach and building coherence between the different Union policies;
Amendment 104 #
2020/2006(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 170 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Title 1
Title 1
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on asylum and migration management and amending Council Directive (EC) 2003/109 and the proposed Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Fund] (Text with EEA relevance)
Amendment 177 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The Union, in constituting an area of freedom, security and justice, should ensure the absence of internal border controls for persons and, with full respect to national competences, frame a common policy on asylum, immigration and managementthe effective protection of the external borders of the Union, based on solidarity between Member States, which is fair towards third- country nationals.
Amendment 183 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) To this end, a comprehensive approach is required with the objective of reinforcing mutual trust between Member States which should bring together policy in the areas of asylum and migration management and towards relations with relevant third countries, recognising that the effectiveness of such an approach depends on all components being jointly addressed and in an integrated manner. The primary objective of the Union should be to prevent migratory flows. For this, the cornerstone of the policy should be the effective protection of external borders. This is a prerequisite for any workable and sustainable migration policy in the Union.
Amendment 197 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) This Regulation should contribute to that comprehensive approach by setting out a common framework for the actions of the Union and of the Member States in the field of asylum and migration management policies, by elaborating on the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility in accordance with Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Member States should therefore take all necessary measures, inter alia, to provide access to international protection and adequate reception conditions to those in need, to enable the effective application of the rules on determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection, to swiftly return illegally staying third- country nationals, to prevent irregularllegal migration and unauthorised movements between them, and to provide support to other Member States in the form of solidarity contributions, as their contribution to the comprehensive approach.
Amendment 208 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The common framework should bring together the management of the Common European Asylum System and that of migration policy. The objective of migration policy should be to ensure the efficient management of migration flows, the fair treatment of third-country nationals residing legally in Member Stateprincipally to reduce and prevent migration flows by eliminating pull factors and by effectively protecting the external borders and the prevention of, and enhanced measures to combat, illegal migration and migrant smuggling.
Amendment 213 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) The common framework is needed in order to effectively addressprevent the increasing inflows and to address the phenomenon of mixed arrivals of persons in need of international protection and those who are not and in recognition that the challenge of irregularllegal arrivals of migrants in the Union should not have to be assumed by individual Member States alone, but by the Union as a whole. To ensure that Member States have the necessary tools to effectively managface this challenge in addition to applicants for international protection, irregular migrants should also fall within the scope of this Regulation. The scope of this Regulation should also include beneficiaries of international protection, resettled or admitted persons as well as persons granted immediate protecmigrants illegally crossing the borders should also fall within the scope of this Regulation.
Amendment 222 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) In order to reflect the whole of government approach and ensure coherence and effectiveness of the actions and measures taken by the Union and its Member States acting within their respective competencies, there is a need for integrated policy-making in the field of asylum and migration management, including both its internal and external components, which is part of the comprehensive approach.
Amendment 227 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) Member States should have sufficient human and financial resources and infrastructure to effectively implement asylum and migration management policies and should ensure appropriate coordination between the relevant national authorities as well as with the national authorities of the other Member States.
Amendment 229 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
Amendment 249 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Bearing in mind the importance of ensuring that the Union is prepared and able to adjust to the developing and evolving realities of asylum and migration managementflows, the Commission should annually adopt a Migration Management Report setting out the likely evolution of the migratory situation and the preparedness of the Union and the Member States to respond and adapt to it. The Report should build upon the inputs of Member States and should also include the results of the reporting on monitoring foreseen in the national strategies and should propose improvements where weaknesses are apparent.
Amendment 256 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) In order to ensure that the necessary tools are in place to assist Member States in dealing with challenges that may arise due to the presence on their territory of third-country nationals that are vulnerable applicants for international protection, regardless of how they crossed the external borders, the Report should also indicate whether the said Member States are faced with such challenges. Those Member States should also be able to rely on the use of the ‘solidarity pool’ for the relocation of vulnerable persons.
Amendment 278 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) An effective return policy is an essential element of a well-functioning system of Union asylum and migration managementsystem in the Union , whereby those who do not have the right to stay on Union territory should be swiftly returned. Given that a significant share of applications for international protection may be considered unfounded, it is necessary to reinforce the effectiveness of the return policy. By increasing the efficiency of returns and reducing the gaps between asylum and return procedures, the pressure on the asylum system would decrease, facilitating the application of the rules on determining the Member State responsible for examining those applications as well as contributing to effective access to international protection for those in need.
Amendment 294 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) In order to ensure a fair sharing of responsibility and a balance of effort between Member States, a solidarity mechanism should be established which is effective and ensures that applicants have swift access to the procedures for granting international protection. Such a mechanism should provide for different types of solidarity measures and should be flexible and able to adapt to the evolving nature of the migratory challenges facing a Member State. The mechanism should be based on voluntary choice, tailored to the individual capabilities of the Member States, taking into account their national specificities.
Amendment 304 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
Amendment 313 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
Amendment 327 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
Amendment 338 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
Amendment 347 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
Amendment 353 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
Amendment 367 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
Amendment 383 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) The solidarity mechanism should also address situations of migratory pressure in particular for those Member States which due to their geographical location are exposed to or likely to be exposed to migratory pressure. For this purpose, the Council, based upon the proposal of the Commission, should adopt a report identifying whether a Member State is under migratory pressure and setting out the measures that could support that Member State in addressing the situation of migratory pressure.
Amendment 393 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) When assessing whether a Member State is under migratory pressure the Commission in its proposal for a report, based on a broad qualitative assessment, should take account of a broad range of factors, including the number of asylum applicants, irregularllegal border crossings, return decisions issued and enforced, and relations with relevant third countries. The solidarity response should be designed on a case-by-case basis in order to be tailor- made to the needs of the Member State in question and building on the national specificities and individual capabilities of contributing Member States.
Amendment 400 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25 a (new)
Recital 25 a (new)
(25a) When it comes to solidarity, Member States should be able to choose the form of solidarity through which they wish to contribute. The border protection efforts of Member States should be considered as solidarity contributions. Relocation as well as return sponsorship should remain only voluntary instruments of solidarity. Capacity building contributions, operational support as well as measures taken in the external dimension of migration should be taken into account as solidarity contributions.
Amendment 408 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) Only persons who are more likely to have a right to stay in the Union shouldalready granted international protection can be relocated. Therefore, the scope of relocation of applicants for international protection should be limited to those who are not subject to the border procedure set out in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedure Regulation]were already granted international protection. Furthermore, relocation can only be a voluntary measure based on the explicit agreement of Member States.
Amendment 415 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) The solidarity mechanism should include measures to promote a fair sharing of responsibility and a balance of effort between Member States also in the area of return. Through return sponsorship, a Member State should commit to support a Member State under migratory pressure in carrying out the necessary activities to return illegally staying third-country nationals, bearing in mind that the benefitting Member State remains responsible for carrying out the return while the individuals are present on its territory. Where such activities have been unsuccessful after a period of 8 months, the sponsoring Member States should transfer these persons in line with the procedures set out in this Regulation and apply Directive 2008/115/EC; if relevant, Member States may recognise the return decision issued by the benefitting Member State in application of Council Directive 2001/4039 Return sponsorship can never result in becoming a delayed form of mandatory relocation. Return sponsorship should form part of the common EU system of returns, including operational support provided through the European Border and Coast Guard Agency and the application of the coordination mechanism to promote effective cooperation with third countries in the area of return and readmission. _________________ 39Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals, OJ L 149, 2.6.2001, p. 34.
Amendment 430 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) Member States should notify the type of solidarity contributions that they will take through the completion of a solidarity response plan. Where Member States are themselves benefitting Member States under pressure, they should not be obliged to make solidarity contributions to other Member States. At the same time, where a Member State has incurred a heavy migratory burden in previous years, due to a high number of applications for international protection it should be possible for a Member State to request a reduction of its share of the solidarity contribution to Member States under migratory pressure where such contribution consists of relocation or return sponsorship. That reduction should be shared proportionately among the other Member States taking such measures.
Amendment 441 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) Where the Migration Management Report identifies needs in a Member State under migratory pressure in the field of capacity measures in asylum, reception and return or in the external dimension, contributing Member States should be able to make contributions to these needs instead of relocation or return sponsorship. In order to ensure that such contributions are in proportion to the share of the contributing Member State the Commission should be able to increase or decrease of such contributions in the implementing act. Where the indications from Member States to take measures in the field of capacity or the external dimension would lead to a shortfall greater than 30% of the required number of persons to be relocated or subject to return sponsorship, the Commission should be able to adjust the contributions of these Member States in order to ensure that they contribute half of their share to relocation or return sponsorship.
Amendment 453 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) In order to ensure a comprehensive and effective solidarity response and in order to give clarity to Member States receiving support, the Commission should adopt an implementing act specifying the contributions to be made by each Member State. Such contributions should always be based on the type of contributions indicated by the Member State concerned in the solidarity response plan, except where that Member State failed to submit one. In such cases, the measures set out in the implementing act for the Member State concerned should be determined by the CommissioContributions should always be based on the type of contributions indicated by the Member State concerned in the solidarity response plan.
Amendment 458 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
Amendment 466 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) A Member State should be able to take, at its own initiative or at the request of another Member State, any other solidarity measures on a voluntary basis to assist that Member State in addressing the migratory situation or to prevent migratory pressure. Those contributions should include measures aimed at strengthening the capacity of the Member State under pressure or at responding to migratory trends through cooperation with third countries. In addition, such solidarity measures should include relocation of third-country nationals that are in the border procedure as well as illegally staying third-country nationals. In order to incentivise voluntary solidarity, where Member States make voluntary contributions in the form of relocation or return sponsorship, those contributions should be taken into account in the implementing act provided for in respect of situations of migratory pressure.
Amendment 498 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) This Regulation should be based on the principles underlying Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council41 while developing the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility as part of the common framework. To that end, a new solidarity mechanism should enable a strengthened preparedness of Member States to managface migration challenges, to address situations where Member States are faced with migratory pressure and to facilitate regular solidarity support among Member States. _________________ 41Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 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, OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 31.
Amendment 509 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
Recital 38
Amendment 520 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) At the same time, and given the importance of facilitating the full integration of beneficiaries of international protection in the Member State of residence, the prospect of obtaining long-term resident status in a shorter period of time should be provided for. Beneficiaries of international protection should be able to obtain long- term resident status in the Member State which granted them international protection after threfive years of legal and continuous residence in that Member State. As regards other conditions to obtain the status, beneficiaries of international protection should be required to fulfil the same conditions as other third-country nationals. Council Directive 2003/109/EC42 should therefore be amended accordingly. _________________ 42Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, OJ L 016, 23.1.2004, p. 44.
Amendment 540 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 43
Recital 43
(43) In accordance with the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration of Member States when applying this Regulation. In assessing the best interests of the child, Member States should, in particular, take due account of the minor’s well-being and social development, safety and security considerations and the views of the minor in accordance with his or her age and maturity, including his or her background. In addition, specific procedural guarantees for unaccompanied minors should be laid down on account of their particular vulnerability. However, special attention should be made to ensure that such special guarantees are not abused.
Amendment 542 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44
Recital 44
(44) In accordance with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, respect for family life should be a primary consideration of Member States when applying this Regulation. However, special attention should be taken that the provisions ensuring the respect for family life are not abused.
Amendment 563 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 47
Recital 47
(47) The definition of a family member in this Regulation should include the sibling or siblings of the applicant. Reuniting siblings is of particular importance for improving the chances of integration of applicants and hence reducing unauthorised movements. The scope of the definition of family member should also reflect the reality of current migratory trends, according to which applicants often arrive to the territory of the Member States after a prolonged period of time in transit. The definition should therefore include families formed outside the country of origin, but before their arrival on the territory of the Member State. This limited and targeted enlargement of the scope of the definition is expected to reduce the incentive for some unauthorised movements of asylum seekers within the EU only when the applicant is a minor under the age of 14.
Amendment 590 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 50
Recital 50
Amendment 594 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 51
Recital 51
Amendment 612 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 53
Recital 53
(53) In order to ensure that the procedures set out in this Regulation are respected and to prevent obstacles to the efficient application of this Regulation, in particular in order to avoid absconding and unauthorised movements between Member States, it is necessary to establish clear obligations to be complied with by the applicant in the context of the procedure, of which he or she should be duly informed in a timely manner. Violation of those legal obligations should lead to appropriate and proportionate procedural consequences for the applicant, including the rejection of his or her application, and to appropriate and proportionate consequences in terms of his or her reception conditions. In line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Member State where such an applicant is present should in any case ensure that the immediate material needs of that person are covered.
Amendment 646 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58
Recital 58
(58) In order to ensure the speedy determination of responsibility, the deadlines for making and replying to requests to take charge, for making take back notificationrequests, as well as for making and deciding on appeals, should be streamlined and shortened.
Amendment 666 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 62
Recital 62
(62) In order to ensure a clear and efficient relocWhen Member States decide to voluntarily relocate beneficiaries of international proceduretection, specific rules for a benefitting and a contributing Member State should be set out. The rules and safeguards relating to transfers set out in this Regulation should apply to transfers for the purpose of voluntary relocation except where they are not relevant for such a procedure.
Amendment 674 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 63
Recital 63
(63) To support Member States who undertake relocation as aany solidarity measure, financial support from the Union budget should be provided. In Border to incentivise Member States to give priority to the relocation of unaccompanied minors a higher incentive contribution should be providedprotection efforts of Member States, including the financing of physical barriers at external borders should be supported financially from the Union budget.
Amendment 682 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 64
Recital 64
(64) The application of this Regulation can be facilitated, and its effectiveness increased, by bilateral arrangements between Member States for improving communication between competent departments, reducing time limits for procedures or simplifying the processing of take charge requests or take back notificationrequests, or establishing procedures for the performance of transfers.
Amendment 706 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 72
Recital 72
(72) The examination procedure should be used for the adoption of a standard form for the exchange of relevant information on unaccompanied minors; of uniform conditions for the consultation and exchange of information on minors and dependent persons; of uniform conditions on the preparation and submission of take charge requests and take back notificationrequests; of two lists of relevant elements of proof and circumstantial evidence, and the periodical revision thereof; of a laissez passer; of uniform conditions for the consultation and exchange of information regarding transfers; of a standard form for the exchange of data before a transfer; of a common health certificate; of uniform conditions and practical arrangements for the exchange of information on a person’s health data before a transfer, and of secure electronic transmission channels for the transmission of requests.
Amendment 710 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 73
Recital 73
Amendment 724 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 78
Recital 78
(78) Since the objective of this Regulation, namely the establishment of 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, and the establishment of a solidarity mechanism to support Member States in addressing a situation of migratory pressure, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of this Regulation, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). When doing so, the Union shall respect the national competences of Member States. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation doesshall not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.
Amendment 742 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) sets out a common framework for the management of asylum and migration in the Union;
Amendment 782 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – introductory part
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – introductory part
(g) ‘family members’ means, insofar as the family already existed in the country of origin before the applicant or the family member arrived on the territory of the Member States, the following members of the applicant’s family who are present on the territory of the Member States:
Amendment 809 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – point v
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – point v
(v) the sibling or siblings of the applicant; provided that the applicant is a minor below the age of 14;
Amendment 833 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point n
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point n
Amendment 836 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point o
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point o
Amendment 842 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point p
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point p
(p) ‘absconding’ means the action by which an applicant person does not remain available to the competent administrative or judicial authorities, such as by leaving the territory of the Member State without authorisation from the competent authorities for reasons which are not beyond the applicant’s controlfailure to notify absence from a particular accommodation centre, or assigned area or residence;
Amendment 851 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point r
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point r
(r) ‘benefitting Member State’ means the Member State benefitting from the solidarity measures in situations of migratory pressure or for disembarkations following search and rescue operations as set out in Chapters I-III of Part IV of this Regulation;,
Amendment 868 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point u
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point u
(u) ‘relocation’ means the transfer of a third-country national or a stateless persperson who was already granted international protection from the territory of a benefitting Member State to the territory of a contributing Member State with the explicit consent of the contributing Member State;
Amendment 900 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part II – title
Part II – title
II COMMON FRAMEWORK FOR ASYLUM AND MIGRATION MANAGEMENT
Amendment 903 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – title
Article 3 – title
Comprehensive approach to asylum and migration management
Amendment 909 #
2020/0279(COD)
The Union and the Member States shall take actions in the field of asylum and migration management on the basis of a comprehensive approach and with full respect to national competences. That comprehensive approach shall address the entirety of the migratory routes that affect asylum and migration managementflows to the European Union, and shall consist of the following components:
Amendment 918 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) mutually-beneficial partnerships and close cooperation with relevant third countries, including on legal pathways for third-country nationals in need of international protection and for those otherwise admitted to reside legally in the Member States addressing the root causes of irregularllegal migration, supporting partners hosting large numbers of migrants and refugees in need of protection and building their capacities in border, asylum and migration management, preventing and combatting irregularllegal migration and migrant smuggling, and enhancing cooperation on readmission;
Amendment 926 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) close cooperation and mutual partnership among Union institutions and bodies, Member States and international organisations with full respect to national competences;
Amendment 940 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) effective management and prevention of irregularllegal migration;
Amendment 943 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) effective managementprotection of the Union’s external borders, based on the European integrated border management, including search and rescue operations, and ensuring adequate Union funding to the protection of the EU’s external borders, also covering the additional costs of physical barriers;
Amendment 950 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point f
Amendment 967 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point h
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point h
(h) determination of the Member State responsible for the examination of an application for international protection, based on shared responsibility and rules and mechanisms fora fair balance between responsibility and solidarity;
Amendment 981 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point k
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point k
Amendment 990 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point l
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point l
(l) measures aimed at reducing and tackling the enabling factors of irregularllegal migration to and illegal stay in the Union, including illegal employment;
Amendment 1006 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. The Union and Member States shall ensure coherence of asylum and migration management policies, including both the internal and external components of those policies with full respect to national competences.
Amendment 1014 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. The Union and Member States acting within their respective competencies shall be responsible for the implementation of the asylum and migration management policies.
Amendment 1018 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. Member States, with the support of Union Agencies, shall ensure that they have the capacity to effectively implement asylum and migration management policies, taking into account the comprehensive approach referred to in Article 3, including the necessary human and financial resources and infrastructure.
Amendment 1028 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. In implementing their obligations, the Member States shall observe the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility and shall take into account the shared interest in the effective functioning of the Union’s asylum and migration management policies. Member States shall:
Amendment 1039 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) establish and maintain national asylum and migration management systems that provide access to international protection procedures, grant such protection to those who are in need and ensure the swift return of those who are illegally staying;
Amendment 1052 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) take all measures necessary and proportionate to reduce and prevent irregularllegal migration to the territories of the Member States, in close cooperation and partnership with relevant third countries, including as regards the prevention and fight against migrant smuggling;
Amendment 1063 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) provide support to other Member States in the form of flexible solidarity contributions tailored to the individual capabilities of the Member States, taking into account their national specificities and on the basis of needs set out in Chapters I-III of Part IV;
Amendment 1085 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Amendment 1092 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Amendment 1128 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall adopt a Migration Management Report each year setting out the anticipated evolution of the migratory situation and the preparedness of the Union and the Member States. In the case of migratory flows generated by search and rescue operations, the Commission shall consult the concerned Member States and the Report shall set out the total number of projected disembarkations in the short term and the solidarity response that would be required to contribute to the needs of the Member States of disembarkation through relocation and through measures in the field of capacity building, operational support and measures in the field of the external dimension with regard to external and internal factors influencing migratory flows. The Commission shall build on the inputs by Member States when drawing up the report. The Report shall also indicate whether particular Member States are faced with capacity challenges due to the presence of third- country nationals who are vulnerable and include the results of the reporting on monitoring listed in paragraph 3 including the information gathered within the framework of the Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint and propose improvements where appropriate.
Amendment 1131 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 5
Article 6 – paragraph 5
5. The Member States shall establish the national strategies by [one year after the entry into force of this Regulation] at the latest. The first European Asylum and Migration Management Strategy shall be adopted by [18 months after the entry into force of this Regulation] at the latest and the first Migration Management Report shall be issued by [one year after the entry into force of this Regulation] at the latest.
Amendment 1192 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3
Article 8 – paragraph 3
Amendment 1207 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
Article 8 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. If a security check provided for in Article 11 of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Screening Regulation] has not been carried out, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was registered shall examine whether there are reasonable grounds to consider the applicant a danger to national security or public order of that Member State or the internal security of the EU as a whole as soon as possible after the registration of the application, before applying the criteria for determining the Member State responsible pursuant to Chapter II or the clauses set out in Chapter III of Part III.
Amendment 1211 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
If a security check provided for in Article 11 of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Screening Regulation] has been carried out, but the first Member State in which the application for international protection was registered has justified reasons to examine whether there are reasonable grounds to consider the applicant a danger to national security or public order of that Member State or to the internal security of the EU as a whole, that Member State shall carry out the examination as soon as possible after the registration of the application, before applying the criteria for determining the Member State responsible pursuant to Chapter II or the clauses set out in Chapter III of Part III.
Amendment 1244 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 3
3. The applicant shall fully cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States in matters covered by this Regulation, in particular by submitting as soon as possible and at the latest during the interview referred to in Article 12, all the elements and information available to him or her relevant for determining the Member State responsible. Where the applicant is not in a position at the time of the interview to submit evidence to substantiate the elements and information provided, the competent authority may set a time limit within the period referred to in Article 29(1) for submitting such evidence. The applicant shall fully cooperate in the recording of his or her biometric data.
Amendment 1270 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. In case the applicant does not cooperate with the authorities, thereby unduly delaying the procedure, his or her application should be rejected.
Amendment 1284 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) that the right to apply for international protection does not encompass a choice by the applicant in relation to either the Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection or the Member State of relocation;
Amendment 1288 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) of the objectives of this Regulation and the consequences of making another application in a different Member State as well as the consequences of leaving the Member State where he or she is required to be present pursuant to Article 9(4), in particular that the applicant shall only be entitled to the reception conditions as set out in Article 10(1), as well as of the consequences of non-cooperation with the authorities;
Amendment 1307 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
(ea) of the obligation for the applicant to provide his or her biometric data;
Amendment 1334 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point l
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point l
Amendment 1418 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. The representative of an unaccompanied minor shall be involved in the process of establishing the Member State responsible under this Regulation. The representative shall assist the unaccompanied minor to provide information relevant to the assessment of his or her best interests in accordance with paragraph 4, including the exercise of the right to be heard, and shall support his or her engagement with other actors, such as family tracing organisations, where appropriate for that purpose.
Amendment 1552 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 4
Article 19 – paragraph 4
4. Where the applicant is in possession of one or more residence documents which expired less than 6 months before the application was registered or one or more visas which expired less than threewo years before the application was registered, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall apply.
Amendment 1558 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20
Article 20
Amendment 1578 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 3
Article 21 – paragraph 3
Amendment 1643 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 1646 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 1657 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Where a Member State issues a residence document to the applicant, decides to apply Article 25, or does not transfer the person concerned to the Member State responsible within the time limits set out in Article 35, that Member State shall become the Member State responsible and the obligations laid down in Article 26 shall be transferred to that Member State. Where applicable, it shall inform the Member State previously responsible, the Member State conducting a procedure for determining the Member State responsible or the Member State which has been requested to take charge of the applicant or has received a take back notificationrequest, using the electronic communication network set up under Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003.
Amendment 1660 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The first subparagraph shall not apply if the person has already been granted international protection by the responsible Member State or if the person's status is under review by the responsible Member State.
Amendment 1671 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1
Article 28 – paragraph 1
1. The Member State where an application for international protection is first registered pursuant to Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedure Regulation] or, where applicable, the Member State of relocation shall start the process of determining the Member State responsible without delay.
Amendment 1678 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 2
Article 28 – paragraph 2
2. The Member State where an application is first registered or, where applicable, the Member State of relocation shall continue the process of determining the Member State responsible if the applicant leaves the territory of that Member State without authorisation or is otherwise not available to the competent authorities of that Member State.
Amendment 1731 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 8
Article 30 – paragraph 8
8. Where the requested Member State does not object to the request within the one-month period set out in paragraph 1 by a reply which gives full and detailed reasonssubstantiated reasons based on all circumstances of the case, or where applicable within the two- week period set out in paragraphs 2 and 7, this shall be tantamount to accepting the request, and entail the obligation to take charge of the person, including the obligation to provide for proper arrangements for arrival.
Amendment 1737 #
2020/0279(COD)
III Procedures for take back notificationsrequests (This amendment applies through the whole text.)
Amendment 1751 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1
Article 31 – paragraph 1
1. In a situation referred to in Article 26(1), point (b), (c) or (d) the Member State where the person is present shall make a take back notificationrequest without delay and in any event within two weeks after receiving the Eurodac hit.
Amendment 1758 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 3
Article 31 – paragraph 3
3. The notifirequested Member State shall confirm receipt of the notificationrequest to the Member State which made the notificationrequest within one week, unless the notifirequested Member State can demonstrate within that time limit that its responsibility has ceased pursuant to Article 27. The requested Member State shall have the right to reply to the request and explain its reasons.
Amendment 1783 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1
Article 32 – paragraph 1
1. The determining Member State whose take charge request as regards the applicant referred to in Article 26(1), point (a) was accepted or who made a take back notificationrequest as regards persons referred to in Article 26(1), point (b), (c) and (d) shall take a transfer decision at the latest within one week10 days of the acceptance or notification.
Amendment 1809 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The applicant or another person as referred to in Article 26(1), point (b), (c) and (d) shall have the right to an effective remedy, in the form of an appeal or a review, in fact and in law, against a transfer decision, before a court or tribunal.
Amendment 1819 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 2
Article 33 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall provide for a period of two week3 days after the notification of a transfer decision within which the person concerned may exercise his or her right to an effective remedy pursuant to paragraph 1.
Amendment 1824 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 33 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The person concerned shall have the right to request, within a reasonable period of time3 days from the notification of the transfer decision, a court or tribunal to suspend the implementation of the transfer decision pending the outcome of his or her appeal or review. Member States shall ensure that an effective remedy is in place by suspending the transfer until the decision on the first suspension request is taken. Any decision on whether to suspend the implementation of the transfer decision shall be taken within one month of the date when that request reached the competent court or tribunal.
Amendment 1882 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 34 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Where an applicant or another person referred to in Article 26(1), point (b), (c) or (d) is detained pursuant to this Article, the period for submitting a take charge request or a take back notificationrequest shall not exceed two weeksone month from the registration of the application. Where a person is detained at a later stage than the registration of the application, the period for submitting a take charge request or a take back notificationrequest shall not exceed one2 weeks from the date on which the person was placed in detention. The Member State carrying out the procedure in accordance with this Regulation shall ask for an urgent reply on a take charge request. Such reply shall be given within one2 weeks of receipt of the take charge request. Failure to reply within the one2-weeks period shall be tantamount to accepting the take charge request and shall entail the obligation to take charge of the person, including the obligation to provide for proper arrangements for arrival.
Amendment 1885 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – introductory part
Article 34 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – introductory part
Where a person is detained pursuant to this Article, the transfer of that person from the requesting or notifying Member State to the Member State responsible shall be carried out as soon as practically possible, and at the latest within foursix weeks of:
Amendment 1890 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Article 34 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 1898 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 4
Article 34 – paragraph 4
4. Where a person is detained pursuant to this Article, the detention shall be ordered in writing by the administrative and judicial authorities. The detention order shall state the reasons in fact and in law on which it is based.
Amendment 1910 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The transfer of an applicant or of another person as referred to in Article 26(1), point (b), (c) and (d), from the requesting or notifying Member State to the Member State responsible shall be carried out in accordance with the national law of the requesting or notifying Member State, after consultation between the Member States concerned, as soon as practically possible, and at the latest within six months of the acceptance of the take charge request or of the confirmation of the take back notification by another Member State or of the final decision on an appeal or review of a transfer decision where there is a suspensive effect in accordance with Article 33(3). That time limit may be extended up to a maximum of one year if the transfer cannot be carried out due to imprisonment of the person concerned.
Amendment 1911 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 2012 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. SThe form of solidarity contributions for the benefit of a Member State under migratory pressure or subject to disembarkations following search and rescue operations shallshould be based on the free and voluntary choice of each Member State taking into account their national specificities. Solidarity contributions for the benefit of a Member State may consist of the following types:
Amendment 2026 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) relocation of applicants who are not subject to the border procedure for the examination of an application for international protection established by Article 41 of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedure Regulatmeasures taken for the effective protection of the external borders of the European Union];
Amendment 2041 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) voluntary relocation of beneficiaries of international protection who have been granted international protection less than three years prior to adoption of an implementing act pursuant to Article 53(1)the implementation of the solidarity contribution;
Amendment 2048 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) capacity-building measurecontributions in the field of asylum, reception and return, operational support and measures aimed at responding to migratory trends affecting the benefitting Member State through cooperation with third countries.;
Amendment 2052 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) operational support to the benefitting Member State such as the joint processing of cases, support in asylum management and reception capacities, border protection, countering human smuggling and trafficking, return and readmission, communication and information;
Amendment 2056 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point d b (new)
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point d b (new)
(db) measures taken in the external dimension of migration, especially through cooperation with third countries and taking help to territories in need;
Amendment 2057 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point d c (new)
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point d c (new)
(dc) any other form of solidarity agreed by the contributing and benefitting Member State.
Amendment 2069 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 2
Article 45 – paragraph 2
Amendment 2085 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46
Article 46
Article 46 deleted Solidarity Forum shall comprise all Member States. The Commission shall convene and preside the Solidarity Forum in order to ensure the smooth functioning of this Part.
Amendment 2101 #
Amendment 2138 #
Amendment 2183 #
Amendment 2215 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 2
Article 50 – paragraph 2
2. The Asylum Agency and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency shall assist the Commission in drawing up the assessment of migratory pressure. The Member State concerned should also be involved in and be duly informed of all stages of such assessment. The Commission shall inform the European Parliament, the Council and the Member States, without delay, that it is undertaking an assessment.
Amendment 2244 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point h
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point h
(h) the number of persons apprehended in connection with an irregularllegal crossing of the external land, sea or air border;
Amendment 2253 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point k a (new)
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point k a (new)
(ka) the actions taken by the Member State to protect the external borders, in particular the financial and human expenditures for the protection of external borders;
Amendment 2257 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point k b (new)
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point k b (new)
(kb) a comparison of actions and expenditures for the protection of external borders by Member States at each external border section.
Amendment 2277 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The Commission shall submit the proposal for a report on migratory pressure to the European Parliament and to the Council within one month after the Commission informed them that it was carrying out an assessment pursuant to Article 50(2). The Commission shall communicate the proposal for a report on migratory pressure to the European Parliament.
Amendment 2280 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 2
Article 51 – paragraph 2
2. In the report, the Commission shall state whether it considers that the Member State concerned is under migratory pressure. The Council shall adopt the report on migratory pressure.
Amendment 2284 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Where the Commissionuncil concludes that the Member State concerned is under migratory pressure, the report of the Council shall identify:
Amendment 2293 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – point b – point i
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – point b – point i
(i) measures and actions that the Member State under migratory pressure should take in the field of migration management, and, in particular in the field of asylum and return;
Amendment 2296 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – point b – point ii
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – point b – point ii
(ii) measures referred to in Article 45(1), points (a), (b) and (c) to be taken by other Member States;
Amendment 2297 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – point b – point iii
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – point b – point iii
Amendment 2300 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 4
Article 51 – paragraph 4
4. Where the Commission considers that a rapid response is required due to a developing situation in a Member State, it shall submit its reportproposal for a report to the Council within two weeks at the latest from the date on which it informed the European Parliament, the Council and the Member States pursuant to Article 50(2) that it was carrying out an assessment.
Amendment 2310 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1
Article 52 – paragraph 1
1. Where the report referred to in Article 51 indicates that a Member State is under migratory pressure, the other Member States which are not themselves benefitting Member States under pressure, shall contribute by means of the solidarity contributions referred to in Article 45(1), points (a), (b) and (c). Member States shall prioritise the relocation of unaccompanied minors.
Amendment 2318 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 2
Article 52 – paragraph 2
Amendment 2326 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 52 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Within two weeks from the adoption of the report referred to in Article 51, Member States shall submit to the Commission a Solidarity Response Plan by completing the form in Annex II. The Solidarity Response Plan shall indicate the type of contributions from among those set out in Article 51(3)(b)(ii) or, where relevant, the measures set out in Article 51(3)(b)(iii45(1) that Member States propose to take. Where Member States propose more than one type of contribution set out in Article 51(3)(b)(ii),45(1) they shall indicate the share of each.
Amendment 2334 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 52 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Where Member States indicate measures set out in Article 51(3)(b)(iii45(1) in the Solidarity Response Plan they shall also indicate the detailed arrangements and the time-frame for their implementation.
Amendment 2340 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 4
Article 52 – paragraph 4
4. Where the Commissionuncil considers that the solidarity contributions indicated in the Solidarity Response Plans do not correspond to the needs identified in the report on migratory pressure provided for in Article 51, it shall convene the Solidarity Foruma special Council meeting. In such cases, the Commissionuncil shall invite Member States to adjust the type ofir contributions in their Solidarity Response Plans in the course of the Solidarity Forum by submitting revised Solidarity Response Plans.
Amendment 2343 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 5
Article 52 – paragraph 5
Amendment 2350 #
2020/0279(COD)
Amendment 2376 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54
Article 54
Amendment 2409 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 2
Article 55 – paragraph 2
Amendment 2414 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 3
Article 55 – paragraph 3
Amendment 2437 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 2
Article 56 – paragraph 2
2. Any Member State may, at any time, in response to a request for solidarity support by a Member State, or on its own initiative, including in agreement with another Member State, make contributions by means of the measures referred to in Article 45 for the benefit of the Member State concerned and with its agreement. Contributions referred to in article 45, point (d) shall be in accordance with the objectives of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Migration Fund].
Amendment 2445 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 57 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The procedure set out in this Article shall apply to: persons referred to in Article 45(1) point (c). Relocation under this Article should always be voluntary by the relocating Member State and may only concern persons who were already granted international protection. In the event of a security risk at any stage of the relocation process, the Member State of relocation may at any time refuse to relocate of that person.
Amendment 2453 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 2
Article 57 – paragraph 2
2. Before applying the procedure set out in this Article, the benefitting Member State shall ensure that there are no reasonable grounds to consider the person concerned a danger to national security or public order of that Member State. If there are reasonable grounds to consider the person a danger to national security or public order, the benefitting Member State shall not apply the procedure set out in this Article and shall, where applicable, exclude the person from the list referred to in Article 49(2).
Amendment 2463 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 57 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Where rRelocation is to be applied, the benefitting Member State shall identify the persons who could be relocated. Where the person concerned is an applicant for ormay only apply if the concerned person is already a beneficiary ofor international protection, that Member State shall take into account, wher. Where relocation is to be applicabled, the existence of meaningful links between the person concerned and the Member State of relocation. Where thebenefitting Member State shall identifiedy the person to be relocated is a beneficiary for international protection, ts who could be relocated. The person concerned shall be relocated only after the contributing Member State as well as that person consented to the relocation in writing.
Amendment 2465 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 57 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 2468 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 57 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 2480 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 4
Article 57 – paragraph 4
Amendment 2488 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 6
Article 57 – paragraph 6
6. The Member State of relocation shall examine the information transmitted by the benefitting Member State pursuant to paragraph 5, and verify that there are no reasonable grounds to consider the person concerned a danger to its national security or public order. as well as for the whole of the EU. For this, the Member State may carry out a personal interview prior to relocation if any security concern occurs regarding the person concerned.
Amendment 2513 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 2
Article 58 – paragraph 2
Amendment 2519 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 3
Article 58 – paragraph 3
Amendment 2524 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 4
Article 58 – paragraph 4
4. Where the Member State of relocation hasHaving relocated a beneficiary for international protection voluntarily, the Member State of relocation shall automatically grant international protection status respecting the respective status granted by the benefitting Member State.
Amendment 2528 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 5
Article 58 – paragraph 5
Amendment 2541 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 1
Article 61 – paragraph 1
Funding support following relocation pursuant to Chapters I and II of Part IV shall be implemented in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Fund]should be made available from the Union budget for all forms of solidarity contributions by Member States, including the financing of physical barriers at the external borders of the EU.
Amendment 2568 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 71 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Directive 2003/109/EC
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
With regard to beneficiaries of international protection, the required period of legal and continuous residence shall be threfive years.
Amendment 2590 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point 2 Regulation (EU) 2021/1147
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point 2 Regulation (EU) 2021/1147
3a. A Member State shall receive a significant contribution amounting at least to the half of the total costs to cover the protection of external borders of the Union, including the financing of physical barriers at the external borders of the Union. (Article 72 of the Commission proposal contains amendments to the text of the proposal for a regulation establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund (COM(2018)0471). That regulation was subsequently adopted as Regulation (EU) 2021/1147 and several of its provisions were renumbered. Therefore, Article 17 of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Fund], as referred to in Article 72 of the Commission proposal, corresponds to Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1147.)
Amendment 155 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The rules governing border control of persons crossing the external borders of the Member States of the Union are laid down in Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Schengen Borders Code)21 as adopted under Article 77(2)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). To further develop the Union’s policy with a view to carrying out checks on persons and efficiently monitoring the crossing of external borders referred to in the first paragraph of Article 77 TFEU, additional measures should address situations where third-country nationals manage to avoid border checks at the external borders, or where third-country nationals are disembarked following search and rescue operations as well as where third- country nationals request international protection at a border crossing point without fulfilling entry conditions. The present regulation complements and specifies Regulation (EU) 2016/399 with regard to those three sets of situations. _________________ 21 Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), OJ L 77, 23.3.2016, p.1.
Amendment 166 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) It is essential to ensure that in those three sets of situations, the third country nationals are screened, in order to facilitate a proper identification and to allow for them being referred efficiently to the relevant procedures which, depending on the circumstances, can be procedures for international protection or procedures respecting Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (the “Return Directive”)22 . The screening should seamlessly complement the checks carried out at the external border or compensate for the fact that those checks have been circumvented by the third country nationals when crossing the external border. _________________ 22 Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98.
Amendment 190 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) In order to ensure a swift handling of third-country nationals who try to avoid border checks or who request international protection at a border crossing point without fulfilling the entry conditions or who are disembarked following a search and rescue operation, it is necessary to provide a stronger framework for cooperation between the different national authorities responsible for border control, the protection of public health, the examination of the need for international protection and the application of return procedures.
Amendment 203 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) This Regulation should apply to third-country nationals and stateless persons who are apprehended in connection with the unauthorised crossings of the external border of a Member State by land, sea or air, except third country nationals for whom the Member State is not required to take the biometric data pursuant to Article 14(1) and (3) of the Eurodac Regulation for reasons other than their age, as well as to persons who have been disembarked following search and rescue operations, regardless of whether they apply or not for international protection. This Regulation should also apply to those who seek international protection at the border crossing points or in transit zones without fulfilling the entry conditions
Amendment 242 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) In accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, the fulfilment of entry conditions and the authorisation of entry are expressed in an entry stamp in a travel document. The absence of such entry stamp or the absence of a travel document may therefore be considered as an indication that the holder does not fulfil the entry conditions. With the start of the operation of the Entry/Exit System leading to substitution of the stamps with an entry in the electronic system, that presumption will become more reliable. Member States should therefore apply the screening to third-country nationals who are already within the territory and who are unable to prove that they fulfilled the conditions of entry into the territory of the Member States. The screening of such third-country nationals is necessary in order to compensate for the fact that they presumably managed to evade entry checks upon arrival in the Schengen area and therefore could have not been either refused entry or referred to the appropriate procedure following screening. Applying the screening could also help in ascertaining, through the consultation of the databases referred to in this Regulation, that the persons concerned do not pose a threat to internal security. Throughout the screening, these persons should be regarded as if they had not entered the territory of the Member State similarily to those persons under the screening procedure at the external borders. By the end of the screening within the territory, the third- country nationals concerned should be subject to a return procedure or, where they apply for international protection, to the appropriate asylum procedure. Submitting the same third- country national to repeated screenings should be avoided to the utmost extent possible.
Amendment 247 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) The screening should be completed as soon as possible, and should not exceed 5 days where it is conducted at the external border and 3 days where it is conducted within the territory of a Member State14 days. Any extension of the 514 days’ time limit should be reserved for exceptional situations at the external borders, such as where the capacities of the Member State to handle screenings are exceeded for reasons beyond its control such as crisis situations referred to in Article 1 of Regulation XXX/XXX [crisis proposal] or if it is impossible to conclude the screening or the security, vulnerability and the age determination procedure within that time-limit.
Amendment 267 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) In order to ensure compliance with EU and international law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, during the screening, each Member State should establish a monitoring mechanism and put in place adequate safeguards for the independence thereof. The monitoring mechanism should cover in particular the respect for fundamental rights in relation to the screening, as well as the respect for the applicable national rules regarding detention and compliance with the principle of non-refoulement as referred to in Article 3(b) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399. The Fundamental Rights Agency should establish general guidance as to the establishment and the independent functioning of such monitoring mechanism. Member States should furthermore be allowed to request the support of the Fundamental Rights Agency for developing their national monitoring mechanism. Member States should also be allowed to seek advice from the Fundamental Rights Agency with regard to establishing the methodology for this monitoring mechanism and with regard to appropriate training measures. Member States should also be allowed to invite relevant and competent national, international and non-governmental organisations and bodies to participate in the monitoring. The independent monitoring mechanism should be without prejudice to the monitoring of fundamental rights provided by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency’s fundamental rights monitors provided for in Regulation (EU) 2019/1896. Tthe Member States should investigate allegations of the breach of the fundamental rights during the screening, including by ensuring that complaints are dealt with expeditiously and in an appropriate way.
Amendment 329 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) As the screening concerns persons present at the external border without fulfilling entry conditions, or disembarked after a search and rescue operation, the security checks as part of the screening should be at least of a similar level as the checks performed in respect of third country nationals that apply on beforehand for an authorisation to enter the Union for a short stay, whether they are under a visa obligation or not.
Amendment 358 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
This Regulation establishes the screening at the external borders of the Member States of all third-country nationals who have crossed the external border in an unauthorised manner, and of those who have applied for international protection during border checks without fulfilling entry conditions, as well as those disembarked after a search and rescue operation, before they are referred to the appropriate procedure.
Amendment 387 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 a (new)
5 a. ‘vulnerable persons’ means minors, unaccompanied minors, disabled people, elderly people, pregnant women, single parents with minor children and persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence as referred to in Article 3(9) of Directive ((EU) 2008/115;
Amendment 407 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 430 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. During the screening, the persons referred to in Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not be authorised to enter the territory of a Member State. This should apply accordingly to persons referred to in Article 5.
Amendment 434 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Persons referred to in paragraph 1 may be detained for the purpose of preventing entry into the territory of the Member State.
Amendment 443 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Member States shall apply the screening to third-country nationals found within their territory where there is no indication that they have crossed an external border to enter the territory of the Member States in an authorised manner. These third-country nationals shall be regarded as if they had not entered the territory of the Member State, and Article 4 shall apply accordingly.
Amendment 464 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. In the cases referred to in Article 3 and 5, the screening shall be carried out without delay and shall in any case be completed within 514 days from the apprehension in the external border area, the disembarkation in the territory of the Member State concerned or the presentation at the border crossing point. In exceptional circumstances, such as where a disproportionate number of third-country nationals needs to be subject to the screening at the same time, making it impossible in practice to conclude the screening or where it is impossible to conclude the security, vulnerability and the age determination procedure within that time- limit, the period of 514 days may be extended by a maximum of an additional 514 days.
Amendment 472 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 5
Article 6 – paragraph 5
Amendment 516 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Each Member State shall establishprovide for an independent monitoring mechanism.
Amendment 521 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – indent 1
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – indent 1
Amendment 530 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – indent 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – indent 2
Amendment 536 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – indent 3
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – indent 3
Amendment 549 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 555 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 567 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 619 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3
Article 8 – paragraph 3
3. The information provided during the screening shall be given in a language which the third-country national understands or is reasonably supposed to understand. The information shall be given in writing and, in exceptional circumstances, where necessary, orally using interpretation services. It shall be provided in an appropriate manner taking into account the age and the gender of the person.
Amendment 623 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4
Article 8 – paragraph 4
Amendment 636 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. Third-country nationals submitted to the screening referred to in Article 3 and 5 shall be subject to a preliminary medical examination with a view to identifying any needs for immediate health care or isolation on public health grounds, unless, based on the circumstances concerning the general state of the individual third-country nationals concerned and the grounds for directing them to the screening, the relevant competent authorities are satisfied that no preliminary medical screening is necessary. In that case, they shall inform those persons accordingly. Where it is deemed necessary based on the preliminary examination, third-country nationals submitted to the screening referred to in Article 3 and 5 shall be subject to a health check.
Amendment 652 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4
Article 9 – paragraph 4
4. Where it is deemed necessary based on the circumstancesubstantiated doubts, third-country nationals submitted to the screening referred to in Article 3 and 5 shall be subject to a preliminary medical examination, notably to identify any medical condition requiring immediate care, special assistance or isolationn age assessment or other procedures in accordance with national legislation in order to verify their vulnerabilities.
Amendment 710 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(a a) the result of the age determination procedure;
Amendment 729 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) information on assistance provided by a person or a criminaln organisation in relation to unauthorised crossing of the border, and any related information in cases of suspected smuggling.
Amendment 744 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
The third country nationals referred to in Article 3(1) point (a) and (b) and Article 5 of this Regulation who
Amendment 774 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 4
Article 14 – paragraph 4
Amendment 109 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) The comprehensive approach should bring together policies in the areas of asylum, and migration management, returns, external border protection and partnership with relevant third countries, recognising that the effectiveness of the overall approach depends on all components being jointly addressed and in an integrated manner. The comprehensive approach should ensure that the Union has at its disposal specific rules to effectively manageprevent a migration including the triggering of a compulsory solidarity mechanism and that all the necessary measures are put in place to prevent crisis to happecrisis to happen, principally with the effective protection of external borders and effective action in the external dimension of migration.
Amendment 155 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) The solidarity mechanism for situations of migratory pressure as set out in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management] should be adaptpplied based ton the specific needs of situations of crisis by extendprinciple of flexible solidarity. Member States should be able to choose the form of solidarity through which they wish to contribute. The border protection efforts of Member States and their efforts ing the personal scope of the solidarity measures provided for in that Regulaexternal dimension of migration should be considered as solidarity instruments. Relocation as well as return sponsorship should remain only voluntary instruments of solidarity. Capacity building contributions and setting shorter deadlines well as measures taken in the external dimension of migration should be taken into account as solidarity contributions.
Amendment 160 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
Amendment 173 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
Amendment 190 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12 a (new)
Recital 12 a (new)
(12a) In a crisis situation, Member States should be able to put in place and maintain a system where submitting an asylum application is only possible in the consulates of safe third countries and where those arriving at the external border sections wishing to submit an application there, but arrive via a safe third country, would be redirected to the consulate of that Member State in the neighbouring safe third country.
Amendment 245 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) The return crisis management procedure should facilitate, in a situation of crisis, the return of illegally staying third- country nationals whose applications were rejected in the context of a crisis asylum management procedure and who have no right to remain and are not allowed to remain, by providing the competent national authorities with the necessary tools and sufficient time-frame to carry out return procedures with due diligence. To be able to respond to situations of crisis in an effective manner, the return crisis management procedure should apply also to applicants, third-country nationals and stateless persons subject to the border procedure referred to in Article 41 of the of proposed Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedures Regulation], whose applications were rejected before the adoption of a CommissionEuropean Council decision declaring that a Member State is confronted with a situation of crisis, and who have no right to remain and are not allowed to remain after such a decision.
Amendment 257 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) In order to allow for the proper management of a crisis situation and ensure a proper adaptation of the relevant rules on the asylum and return procedure, the Commission should, by way of an implementing decision,uncil, in full compliance with the decision of the European Council declaring a situation of crisis and setting out the exact range of measures to be applied in such situation, may authorise concerned Member States, upon their reasoned request, to apply relevant derogatory rules. Such an implementing decision could authorise one or more requesting Member States to derogate from the relevant rules.
Amendment 266 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) The Commissionuncil should examine a reasoned request submitted by a Member State while taking into account substantiated information gathered pursuant to Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Agency Regulation] and Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council24 and the Migration Management report referred to in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management]. _________________ 24 Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624, OJ L 295, 14.11.2019, p. 1.
Amendment 273 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) In order to provide Member States with additional time needed to deal with the situation of crisis and at the same time ensure an effective and as quick as possible access to the relevant procedures and rights, the Commission shoulduncil, in full compliance with the decision of the European Council declaring a situation of crisis and setting out the exact range of measures to be applied in such situation, may authorise the application of the asylum crisis management procedure and the return crisis management procedure for a period of six months, which could be extended up to a period not exceeding one year. After the expiry of the relevant period, the extended deadlines provided for in the asylum and return crisis management procedures should not be applied to new applications for international protection.
Amendment 280 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) For the same reasons, the Commission shoulduncil, in full compliance with the decision of the European Council declaring a situation of crisis and setting out the exact range of measures to be applied in such situation, may authorise the application of derogatory rules as regards the registration deadline for a period not exceeding four weeks, which should be renewable upon a new reasoned request submitted by the Member State concerned. The total period of application should nonetheless not exceed twelve weeks.
Amendment 372 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) To support Member States who undertake relocation as aany solidarity measure, financial support from the EU budget should be provided.
Amendment 381 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 387 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 393 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
Amendment 410 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Upon the request of a Member State, the European Council may declare that a Member State is confronted with a situation of crisis and set out the exact range of measures to be applied in such situation.
Amendment 419 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) an exceptional situation of mass influx of third-country nationals or stateless persons arriving irregularllegally in a Member State or disembarked on its territory following search and rescue operations, being of such a scale, in proportion to the population and GDP of the Member State concerned, and nature, that it renders the Member State’s asylum, reception or return system non-functional and can have serious consequences for the functioning the Common European Asylum System or the Common Framework as set out in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management], or
Amendment 443 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. For the purpose of providing solidarity contributions for the benefit of a Member State in situations of crisis as set out in Article 1(2)(a), Part IV of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management] shall apply mutatis mutandis, with the exception of Article 45(1), point (d), Art. The form of solidarity contributions should be based on the free choicle 47, Article 48, Article 49, Article 51(3)(b)(iii) and (4), Article 52(2) and (5) and Article 53(2), second andof each contributing Member State, tailored to their individual capabilities and taking into account theird subparagraph national specificities.
Amendment 451 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 5
Article 2 – paragraph 5
Amendment 459 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 6
Article 2 – paragraph 6
Amendment 462 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 7
Article 2 – paragraph 7
Amendment 486 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Where a Member State considers that it is facing a crisis situation as referred to in Article 1(2), that Member State shall submit a reasoned request to the Commissionuncil for the purpose of applying the rules laid down in Articles 4, 5 or 6 as necessary. (This amendment applies throughout Article 3)
Amendment 504 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 6
Article 3 – paragraph 6
Amendment 515 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 a (new)
Article 3 a (new)
Article 3 a Applications in safe third countries 1. In a crisis situation, Member States may put in place and maintain a system where submitting an asylum application is only possible in the consulates of safe third countries. 2. Those arriving at the external border of a Member State to submit an asylum application there, and who arrive via a safe third country, may be redirected to the consulate of the Member State in the neighbouring safe third country.
Amendment 607 #
2020/0277(COD)
Amendment 668 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – title
Article 11 – title
Adoption of implementing actCouncil decisions
Amendment 672 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall adopt implementinguncil may adopt acts in respect of authorising the application of the derogatory procedural rules referred to in Articles 4, 5 and 6, and triggering the granting of immediate protection status in accordance with Article 10. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 12(2).
Amendment 680 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2
Article 11 – paragraph 2
2. On duly justified imperative grounds of urgency, due to the situation of crisis as defined in Article 1(2) in a Member State, the Commission shalluncil may adopt immediately applicable implementing acts in respect of authorising the application of the derogatory procedural rules referred to in Articles 4, 5 and 6, and triggering the granting of immediate protection status in accordance with Article 10. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 12(3).
Amendment 683 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Any decision made by the Council should always fully respect the decision of the European Council determining the situation of crisis and the exact range of measures set out by the European Council to be applied in such situation.
Amendment 690 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12
Article 12
Amendment 3 #
2020/0112R(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the proposal for a Council regulation represents a step forward in making the work of the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) effective by enabling it to operate fully in all areas of Union competence and byproposes to widen the competences of the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), and to clarifying its tasks and working methods;
Amendment 15 #
2020/0112R(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 26 #
2020/0112R(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
Amendment 35 #
2020/0112R(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Acknowledges the objective of the FRA in providing information, assistance and expertise on fundamental rights and in defending and protecting fundamental rights in the EU by publishing reports which are fact-based, balanced, take into account a variety of sources and respect the principle of equality of Member States; underlines its role as a facilitator in supporting the Union and its Member States when taking measures or formulating courses of action relating to fundamental rights;
Amendment 51 #
2020/0112R(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Reaffirms its strong willingness to enable the FRA to operate fully in all areas of Unionits current competence and to fulfil its role as designed by the EU legislators, and therefore to identify the principles and conditions under which it might give its consent;
Amendment 56 #
2020/0112R(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point i
Paragraph 4 – point i
Amendment 82 #
2020/0112R(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point iv – paragraph 1
Paragraph 4 – point iv – paragraph 1
The proposal by the Commission to discontinue the previous five-year Multiannual Framework should not be taken on board; the FRA should prepare as it its programming in clposed; consultation with the FRA national liaison officers, in order to coordinate the work in the best possible way with the respective national authorities; the draft programming document should be sent to the competent Council preparatory body and the European Parliament for discussion, and in the iders that effective control by the Member States over the programming of the Agency's main thematic areas of activity must be maintained in some form; highlight ofs the outcome of these discussions, the Director of the FRA must submit the draft programming document to the FRA Management Board for adoptionneed to ensure that in any future framework the programming is adopted with the unanimous consent of the Member States;
Amendment 102 #
2020/0112R(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point iii – paragraph 1
Paragraph 5 – point iii – paragraph 1
Upon the request of the Council, the Commission or Parliament, the FRA should be able to carry out scientific research, surveys, and preparatory and feasibility studies and formulate and publish conclusions and opinions on specific thematic topics; this should also be possible on the initiative of the FRA, and not only upon the request of an EU institution; furthermore, individual Member States or a group of Member States should have the right of initiative;
Amendment 39 #
2020/0036(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The Commission has, in its Communication of 11 December 2019 entitled ‘The European Green Deal’19 , set out a new growth strategy that aims to transform the Union into a fair and prosperous society, with a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy, where there are no net emissions of greenhouse gases in 2050 and where economic growth is decoupled from resource use. It also aims to protect, conserve and enhance the Union's natural capital, and protect the health and well- being of citizens from environment-related risks and impacts. At the same time, this transition must be just and inclusive, leaving no one behind. Nevertheless, this transition should ensure a balanced approach in terms of the three dimensions of sustainability - social, environmental and economic. _________________ 19 Commission Communication - The European Green Deal, COM(2019) 640 final of 11 December 2019.
Amendment 58 #
2020/0036(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The Paris Agreement sets out a long-term goal to keep the global temperature increase to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to keep it to 1.5 °C above pre- industrial levels23 , and stresses the importance of adapting to the adverse impacts of climate change24 and making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development25 . in a manner that this is not threatening food security. _________________ 23 Article 2.1.a of the Paris Agreement. 24 Article 2.1.b of the Paris Agreement. 25 Article 2.1.c of the Paris Agreement.
Amendment 89 #
2020/0036(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) The Union is responsible only for 9% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, but already a global leader in the transition towards climate neutrality, and is determined to help raise global ambition and to strengthen the global response to climate change, using all tools at its disposal, including climate diplomacy, because efforts will only be successful if the rest of the world also makes remarkable progress.
Amendment 145 #
2020/0036(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) The Commission, in its Communication ‘The European Green Deal’, announced its intention to assess and make proposals for increasing the Union’s greenhouse gas emission reduction target for 2030 to ensure its consistency with the climate-neutrality objective for 2050. In that Communication, the Commission underlined that all Union policies should contribute to the climate-neutrality objective and that all sectors should play their part while considering the "polluter pays" principle. By September 2020, the Commission should, based on a comprehensive impact assessment with a breakdown per Member State and taking into account its analysis of the integrated national energy and climate plans submitted to the Commission in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council36 , review the Union’s 2030 target for climate and explore options for a new 2030 target of 50 to 55 % emission reductions target compared with 1990 levels. Where it considers necessary to amend the Union’s 2030 target, it should make proposals to the European Parliament and to the Council to amend this Regulation as appropriate. In addition, based on the impact assessment result, the Commission should, by 30 June 2021, assess how the Union legislation implementing that target would need to be amended in order to achieve emission reductions of 50 toaround 50 but no more than 55 % compared to 1990. _________________ 36Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action, amending Regulations (EC) No 663/2009 and (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directives 94/22/EC, 98/70/EC, 2009/31/EC, 2009/73/EC, 2010/31/EU, 2012/27/EU and 2013/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directives 2009/119/EC and (EU) 2015/652 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 328, 21.12.2018, p. 1).
Amendment 160 #
2020/0036(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
Amendment 197 #
2020/0036(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. Union-wide emissions and removals of greenhouse gases regulated in Union law shall be socially, economically and environmentally balanced at the latest by 2050, thus reducing emissions to net zero by that date.
Amendment 209 #
2020/0036(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 2
2. The relevant Union institutions and the Member States shall take the necessary measures at Union and national level respectively, to enable the collective achievement of the climate-neutrality objective set out in paragraph 1, taking into account the importance of promoting fairness, competitiveness and solidarity among Member States.
Amendment 249 #
2020/0036(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Amendment 304 #
2020/0036(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point e a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point e a (new)
(ea) Member States sovereignty in the climate goals achievement scenarios;
Amendment 394 #
2020/0036(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shallmay assess any draft measure or legislative proposals in light of the climate-neutrality objective set out in Article 2(1) as expressed by the trajectory referred to in Article 3(1) before adoption, and include this analysis in anythe impact assessments accompanying these measures or proposals, and make the result of that assessment public at the time of adoption.
Amendment 450 #
2020/0036(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9
Article 9
Amendment 79 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the importance of ensuring compliance with return decisions and recalls the key principle enshrined in the directive that voluntary returns should be prioritised over forced returns, also highlighting that the voluntary nature of the departure should not endanger the implementation of the return decision;
Amendment 104 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Stresses, however, that if Member States determine, based on an individual assessment, that the voluntariness of the departure endangers the implementation of the return decision, Member States have the opportunity to grant a shorter period for voluntary departure, or to refrain from its application in line with Article 7 (4) of the directive;
Amendment 138 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Highlights that the directive allows for the temporary suspension of the enforcement of a removal, pending a decision relating to return; underlines the importance of such suspensive effect in cases where there is a risk of refoulement; notes that in most countries, appeal against return is not automatically suspensive, which may diminish protection and increase administrative burdens;
Amendment 142 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 214 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 178 #
2019/2207(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Notes that although Article 7(1) TEU can affect mutual recognition, according to the CJEU, the executing authority must assess in each specific case whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, following the surrender, the person will run the risk of having their fundamental rights contravened; underlines that the triggering of Article 7(1) TEU does not amount to automatic non-recognition; notes that the latter would seriously harm cooperation in criminal matters and would undermine the functioning of the whole system;
Amendment 187 #
2019/2207(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Reiterates the importance of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, in the form of an interinstitutional agreement consisting of an annual independent and evidence- based review to assess the compliance of all EU Member States with Article 2 TEU, plus country-specific recommendations;
Amendment 191 #
2019/2207(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Calls on the Commission to issue supplementing instruments on procedural rights, such as on admissibility and prison conditions in pre-trial detention, matching or surpassing CoE standards, including time limits on pre-trial detention; states that the Commission should aim for the highest standards while having full respect to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;
Amendment 227 #
2019/2207(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Recommends, in the medium term, the promotion of an EU judicial code in criminal matters to guarantee legal certainty and coherence;deleted
Amendment 13 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6
Citation 6
Amendment 16 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7
Citation 7
Amendment 23 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9
Citation 9
Amendment 29 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 14
Citation 14
Amendment 42 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 19 a (new)
Citation 19 a (new)
– having regard to the Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA,
Amendment 44 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 21
Citation 21
Amendment 46 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 22
Citation 22
Amendment 47 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 23
Citation 23
Amendment 59 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 25 a (new)
Citation 25 a (new)
– having regard to its resolution of 10 October 2019 on foreign electoral interference and disinformation in national and European democratic processes1a; __________________ 1a Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0031
Amendment 67 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 28
Citation 28
Amendment 72 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 31
Citation 31
Amendment 78 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 33
Citation 33
Amendment 81 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 34
Citation 34
Amendment 86 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 35
Citation 35
– having regard to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) of 19 December 2017 in Case A.R. and L.R. v Switzerland (22338/15), which affirms thate comprehensive sexuality education is in the best interest of the child and is consistent with the legitimate interest of protecting children from sexual abuse and of protecting public health, meaning that parents do not necessarily have the right to opt their children out of sexuality educationlementary nature of school sex education in relation to the education in such matters that was provided within the family, recognizing that the school’s role was merely to “complement” the sex education provided by parents,
Amendment 94 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 39
Citation 39
Amendment 95 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 40
Citation 40
Amendment 98 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 41
Citation 41
Amendment 100 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 44
Citation 44
Amendment 101 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 45 a (new)
Citation 45 a (new)
– having regard to its resolution of 12 December 2018 on findings and recommendations of the Special Committee on Terrorism1a, __________________ 1a Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0512
Amendment 159 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas Roma women are particularly affected as regards women’s rights and often face exacerbated forms of verbal, physical, psychological and racial harassment in reproductive health care settings, as has found to be the case in Bulgaria19 ; whereas Roma have also experienced in that Member State, ethnic segregation in maternal health care facilities, and are placed in segregated rooms with segregated bathrooms and eating facilities20 ; whereas in some Member States, such as the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic, Roma have been subjected to systematic practices of forced and coercive sterilisation and have been unable to obtain adequate reparations, including compensation, for the resulting violations of their human rights21 ; __________________ 19Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in Europe, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2017, pp. 42-44; Decision of the European Committee of Social Rights of 5 December 2018, European Roma Rights Centre v Bulgaria, Complaint No. 151/2017 ; European Roma Rights Centre, Romani woman harassed by racist hospital staff during childbirth wins case, European Roma Rights Centre, 18 January 2017, http://www.errc.org/press- releases/romani-woman-harassed-by- racist-hospital-staff-during-childbirth- wins-case 20Decision of the European Committee of Social Rights of 5 December 2018, European Roma Rights Centre v Bulgaria, Complaint No. 151/2017. 21Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding observations on the third periodic report of Slovakia, 18 October 2019, E/C.12/SVK/CO/3, paras. 44-45; Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the combined twelfth and thirteenth periodic reports of Czechia, 19 September 2019, CERD/C/CZE/CO/12-13, paras. 19-20; Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the combined eleventh and twelfth periodic reports of Slovakia, 12 January 2018, CERD/C/SVK/CO/11-12, paras. 23- 24; Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the fourth report of Slovakia, 22 November 2016, CCPR/C/SVK/CO/4, paras. 26-27.communities have to be afforded special attention, making sure that their best interest is taken into account in the field of education, work and health care and special emphasis has to be put on integration;
Amendment 160 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas Roma women are particularly affected as regards women’s rights and often face exacerbated forms of verbal, physical, psychological and racial harassment in reproductive health care settings, as has found to be the case in Bulgaria19 ethnical and religious minorities are particularly affected and often face verbal, physical, psychological and racial harassment; whereas Rwoma have also experienced in that Member State, ethnic segregation in maternal health care facilities, and are placed in segregated rooms with segregated bathrooms and eating facilities20 ; whereas in some Member States, such as the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic, Roma have been subjected to systematic practices of forced and coercive sterilisation and have been unable to obtain adequate reparations, including compensation, for the resulting violations of their human rights21 en and children are often the most vulnerable groups within such minorities and their fundamental rights are significantly more under threat; __________________ 19Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in Europe, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2017, pp. 42-44; Decision of the European Committee of Social Rights of 5 December 2018, European Roma Rights Centre v Bulgaria, Complaint No. 151/2017 ; European Roma Rights Centre, Romani woman harassed by racist hospital staff during childbirth wins case, European Roma Rights Centre, 18 January 2017, http://www.errc.org/press-releases/romani- woman-harassed-by-racist-hospital-staff- during-childbirth-wins-case 20Decision of the European Committee of Social Rights of 5 December 2018, European Roma Rights Centre v Bulgaria, Complaint No. 151/2017. 21Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding observations on the third periodic report of Slovakia, 18 October 2019, E/C.12/SVK/CO/3, paras. 44-45; Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the combined twelfth and thirteenth periodic reports of Czechia, 19 September 2019, CERD/C/CZE/CO/12-13, paras. 19-20; Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the combined eleventh and twelfth periodic reports of Slovakia, 12 January 2018, CERD/C/SVK/CO/11-12, paras. 23-24; Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the fourth report of Slovakia, 22 November 2016, CCPR/C/SVK/CO/4, paras. 26-27.
Amendment 184 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 192 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas many instances of disproportionate use of force against peaceful demonstrators continue to be reported across the EU, including the beating of demonstrators; whereas law enforcement authorities in some Member States such as Romania23 , Spain and France24 are increasingly using less lethal weapons, such as batons, tear gas, hand- held sting grenades, electroshock weapons, water cannons and rubber bullets to control or disperse crowds of demonstrators; whereas the number of persons seriously wounded in demonstrations in recent years as a result of the use of rubber bullets is particularly striking; __________________ 23European Parliament resolution of 13 November 2018 on the rule of law in Romania (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0446) 24 Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Shrinking space for freedom of peaceful assembly, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2019; Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Memorandum on maintaining public order and freedom of assembly in the context of the ‘yellow vest’ movement in France, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2019; Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Protection of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly during last week’s demonstrations in Catalonia, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2019
Amendment 205 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
Amendment 240 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F d (new)
Recital F d (new)
Fd. whereas children’s rights are enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and should be at the heart of EU policies; whereas the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in all EU action and the principle of the best interest of the child should be fully respected in all legislation, court and government decision at all levels; whereas article 26.3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children
Amendment 245 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F e (new)
Recital F e (new)
Fe. whereas human dignity is the inviolable foundation of all fundamental rights and should not be subject to any instrumentalization or politicization, and should be respected and protected in all EU initiatives;
Amendment 288 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights Article 37 of the Charter, which affirms that measures to protect the environment must be integrated into the policies of the Union, and believes that this must be the guiding principle for all macroeconomic policies, above any other economic consideration to deal with the most significant threat facing humanity and to ensure that all people have the right to a futurein order to ensure the just transition to the more sustainable economy;
Amendment 325 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 336 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 337 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Strongly affirms that the denial of sexual and reproductive health and rights services is a form of violence against women and girls and stresses that the ECtHR has ruled on different occasions that restrictive abortion laws and preventesses that the ECtHR has ruled on different occasions that once the State adopts statutory regulations allowing abortion in some situations, the legal framework should allow the different legitimate interests involved to be taken into account adequately, meaning that States are obliged to organise the health services system in such a way as to ensure the effective exercise of the freedom of conscience of health professionals, at the same time allowing the patients to obtaing access to legal abortion violates the human rights of women; reiterates that the refusal by medical professionals to provide the full range of reproductive and sexual health services on personal grounds must not infringe the right of women or girls to access reproductive careawful services; stresses that the right to conscientious objection, including the right of the medical professionals to exercise the conscientious objection, is protected by the Charter; calls on the Member States to ensure that the national laws allow for the full exercise of this right;
Amendment 364 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Strongly condemns the ethnic segregation of Roma women in maternal health care facilities; calls on the Member States to immediately prohibit all forms of ethnic segregation in health facilities, including maternal health care settings; calls on the Member States to ensure effective and timely remedies for all survivors of forced and coercive sterilisation, including through the establishment of effective compensation schemes;
Amendment 453 #
Amendment 455 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 457 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Condemns attempts by governments to silence media outlets that criticise them and to eliminate media freedom and pluralism, including in sophisticated ways that do not typically lead to an alert being submitted to the Council of Europe Platform for the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists, such as the buying up of commercial media outlets by government members and their cronies and the hijacking of public service media outlets to serve partisan interests; underlines the need to step up against big tech companies’ arbitrary actions to limit content online which severely undermines the freedom of speech; calls on the Commission to take all necessary steps to tackle these phenomena;
Amendment 480 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Condemns the use of violent and disproportionate interventions by law enforcement authorities during peaceful dStresses that law enforcement officials must respect and protect human dignity and maintain and uphold the human rights of all persons while performing their duty; stresses that the foremonstrations; encourages the relevant national authorities to ensure a transparent, impartial, independent and effective investigation when the use of disproportionate force is suspected or has been alleged task of police forces is to ensure the security and safety of citizens, and to ensure protests are conducted in peaceful manner without harm to a person or property; recalls that force must be used as the last resort and respect the principle of necessity and proportionality, as required under international law; recalls that law enforcement agencies are fully accountable for the fulfilment of their duties and their compliance with the relevant legal and operational frameworks;
Amendment 492 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Is deeply concerned about the increasingly shrinking space for independent civil society in some Member States; recalls the importance of ensuring adequateRecalls the importance of ensuring adequate funding to support civil society activities; underlines that any funding to support civil society activitiesorganizations shall be fully transparent and accountable;
Amendment 494 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Welcomes initiatives and actions which aim at strengthening security cooperation between Member States and to set out an effective EU response to terrorism and security threats in the European Union; urges the Member States to fully cooperate with each other, and to improve the exchange of information among each other and with EU Justice and Home Affairs agencies; highlights the importance of respecting fundamental rights in the fight against terrorism; stresses the importance that oversight mechanisms in the field of intelligence services should be in line with the Charter and the ECHR; calls on the institutions concerned to provide safeguards to prevent any subsequent victimisation derived from humiliation and attacks on the image of the victims coming from social sectors related to the attacker;
Amendment 523 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 545 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Encourages the EU and the Member States to devote sufficient resources in order to undermine the business model of trafficking networks and smugglers, which puts most vulnerable groups such as children and women in life threatening situations, as well as to prevent many from the risk of embarking on dangerous and uncontrolled migration routes where they cannot get access to official asylum procedure;
Amendment 41 #
2019/2169(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Expresses its concern at the widespread prevalence of GBV in all its forms and the lack of full access to sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR);
Amendment 50 #
2019/2169(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 81 #
2019/2169(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 126 #
2019/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that the promotion of SFM in the EU, as part of the EU Forest Strategy and the rural development measures implemented under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), has had a positive impact on forests and forest conditions on livelihood in rural areas, on the biodiversity of forests in the EU and has enhanced the climate benefits offered by the forest-based sector; notes, however, that there is still a need to strengthen SFM in a balanced manner in order to ensure that forests are better able to adapt to changing climate conditions and to reduce the risks and impacts of natural disturbances;
Amendment 171 #
2019/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recognises that long-term investments in SFM ensure that forests remain not only economically viable, but also contribute to achieving the many goals of the EU, including the successful implementation of the European Green Deal and the transition to a circular bioeconomy; however notes the different level of national policies in the context of circular bioeconomy.
Amendment 191 #
2019/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Acknowledges the crucial climate benefits of forests and the forest-based sector; highlights the need to increase CO2 sequestration in forests through SFM, carbon storage in wood-based products and the substitution of fossil-based materials and energy;
Amendment 240 #
2019/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Emphasises the crucial role of forests, the forest-based sector and the bioeconomy in achieving the goals of the European Green Deal; stresses that achieving the EU’s environmental and climate goals will never be possible without multifunctional, healthy and sustainably managed forests and viable industries; encourages, in addition, actions to increase forest cover; actions to increase forest cover and other wooded land where relevant, especially in abandoned lands, close to urban and peri-urban areas as well as in mountainous areas considering regional site and changing climatic conditions.
Amendment 366 #
2019/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the Commission to support the negotiations conducted by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and supported by the Food and Agriculture Organisation, with a view to reaching a legally binding pan-European agreement on forests;
Amendment 382 #
2019/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Stresses the crucial importance of the CAP and forestry measures in implementing the EU Forest Strategy; encourages the continuity of forestry measures under the 2021-2027 CAP; highlights the need for other easily accessible, well-coordinated and relevant EU funding mechanisms; in the next CAP priority should be given also to knowledge on forestry and forest protection, including innovation and digitalisation, as well as knowledge transfer;
Amendment 418 #
2019/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Underlines the essential role of high-level research and innovation in fostering the contribution of forests and the forest-based sector to overcoming the challenges of our time; stresses the importance of the EU’s post-2020 research and innovation programmes and recognises the role of the Standing Committee on Agricultural Research; convinced that the EU Forest Strategy should promote and share of best practices and results in the forest sector and improve cooperation among Member States;
Amendment 25 #
2019/2055(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is concerned by alleged cases of high-level conflicts of interest and land- grabbing by oligarchs with possible facilitation by governments and public authorities; calls on the Commission to increase efforts to prevent and detect fraud; urges the Commission to be extra vigilant on rule of law mattersCalls on the Commission to continue, as guardian of the Treaties, underlining aspects of legality and the prevention of all kinds of abuse;
Amendment 50 #
2019/2055(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that support to young farmers from the CAP is essential; encourages the Commission to move towards a greener CAPn appropriate level of EU financing in line with the Paris Agreement.
Amendment 4 #
2019/2028(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes the overall reduction of AMIF commitment appropriations by 15,4 % (-172 million euros) compared to 2019; regrets the decrease of commitment appropriations aimed at strengthening and developing the CEAS and enhancing responsibility-sharing between Member States (-29,5 %) compared to 2019; recalls the importance of providing adequate financial capacity to improve the integration of migrants as well as re- integration of migrants who forcibly or voluntarily returned to a third country,ensure the return of irregular migrants to their country of origin; and to respond to emergency assistance needs of Member States under migratory pressure; expresses its disappointment at the factnotes that the AMIF budget does not include some financial reserves to finance the reformed Dublin legislation and the new Union Resettlement schemes in case of adoption during 2020; proposes to foresee an amount in the reserve for temporary arrangements for disembarkation in the Union and relocation of people rescued in the Mediterranean; requests, in order to free financial resources, that the EU Trust Fund for Africa and the Regional development protection programmes for North Africa that primarily support external policies of the Union are funded by Heading IV of the Union budget (Global Europe) instead of by AMIF under Heading III (Security and Citizenship);
Amendment 20 #
2019/2028(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that both marine and freshwater aquaculture is becoming an important element in the objective to cope with increasing consumption of fisheries products in the Union and helps to achieve the goal of sustainable and ecological fishing.
Amendment 29 #
2019/2028(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that the budget of the EBCG has increased by 34,8 % (+108 million euros) in 2020 which is by far the largest increase among all JHA agencies; recalls that the Court of Auditors identified as part of the discharge of the 2017 Budget that Member States overestimated the financial need of the EBCG in 2017; underlines that when the objective of providing the EBCG with more human resources (10.000 border guards by 2027), the number of migrants arriving irregularly over sea or land in the Union has substantially decreased compared to previous years; suggests that such boost in resources should also be used for rescuing lives at seaunderlines, nevertheless, the need to maintain and reinforce border control with adequate funding in order to stop irregular migration and to anticipate and address future flows; regrets the remarkable difference between the commitment appropriations assigned to EBCG (420 million euros) in 2020 and the amount accorded to EASO (133 million euros); suggests that the budget and staffing of EASO should be increased for a better performance of the duties entrusted to the Agency;
Amendment 22 #
2018/0902R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the scope of Article 7 TEU is not confined to the obligations under the Treaties, as in Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and whereas the Union can assess the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach of the common values in areas falling under Member States’the EU's competences;
Amendment 25 #
2018/0902R(NLE)
D. whereas for several years the sEuropean instituation in Hungary has not been addressed and many concerns remain, and in the meantime many new issues have arisen, which is having a negative impact on the image of the Union, as well as its effectiveness and credibility in the defence of fundamental rights, human rights and democracy globally, and revealing the need to address them through concerted Union acs have been using the debates on the respect for the rule of law and fundamental rights as a pretext to put political pressure on certain Member States to change their policies which belong to their national competences; whereas Hungary has been attacked for more than 10 years because the European left cannot bear the power of a national government in Hungary that is firmly committed to classical European values and traditions and opposes the European liberal mainstream which tries to deny and eliminate these values and traditions;
Amendment 30 #
2018/0902R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas following the ad hoc delegation of its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to Budapest, Hungary, from 29 September to 1 October 2021, the majority of the members of the delegation still have serious concerns about democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in the country; whereas the delegation has concluded that the situarrived in Hungary with prejudices and political bias without seeking a real understanding of the events in the country; whereas the only aim of the visit for the majority of the members of the delegation hwas not improved since 2018, but has instead deterioratedto have their already established views echoed by certain ideologically biased NGOs;
Amendment 34 #
2018/0902R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas on 20 July 2021, the Commission indicated in the country chapter on Hungary of the 2021 Rule of Law Report that the transparency and quality of the legislative process remain a sothe Commission's Rule of Law Report does not present an objective and substantiated picturce of concern, although an amendment to the constthe rule of law situation will limit the powers of government as regards the ‘state of danger’ regime after July 2023; whereas concerns have been expressed about newly established private trusts receiving significant public funding, managed by board members close to the current governmentin Member States as it raises serious concerns as regards its concept, methodology, sources and content; whereas the evaluative findings of the Report reflect double standards and discrimination against Hungary is obvious when compared to the reports on other Member States;
Amendment 36 #
2018/0902R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas in its resolution of 17 April 2020 on EU coordinated action to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences4 , Parliament falsely deemed totally incompatible with European values the Hungarian Government’s decision to prolong the state of emergency iandefinitely, to authorise itself to rule by decree without a time limit, and to weaken the emergency oversight of the Hungarian Parliament created unnecessary political hysteria based on factual errors; whereas the extraordinary powers of the Government have only been exercised insofar as were necessary and proportionate to prevent, tackle and eliminate the COVID-19 outbreak and preventing and combating its detrimental effects; whereas, contrary to the fake news spread also in the European Parliament, the Hungarian National Assembly has been holding regular plenary and committee sessions since the state of danger was proclaimed; whereas in its opinion on the 2020 Convergence Programme of Hungary of 20 July 2020, the Council recommended ensuring that any emergency measures be strictly proportionate, limited in time and in line with European and international standards, that they do not interfere with business activities and the stability of the regulatory environment, and the effective involvement of social partners and stakeholders in the policy-making process; _________________ 4 OJ C 316, 6.8.2021, p. 2.
Amendment 48 #
2018/0902R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas on 20 July 2021, the Commission indicated in the country chapter on Hungary of the 2021 Rule of Law Report that the Hungarian justice system performs well in terms of the length of proceedings and has a high level of digitalisthe Commission's Rule of Law Report reflects double standards, and discrimination, and that the gradual increase in the salaries of judges and prosecutgainst Hungary is obvious when compared to the reports continues; whereas, as regards judicial independence, the justice system has been subject to new developments adding to existing concerns: the new rules allowing for the appointment of members of the Constitutional Court to the Supreme Court (Kúria) outside the normal procedure have been put into practice and have enabled the election of the new Kúria President, whose position was also endowed with additional powers and who was elected despite an unfavourable opinion from the National Judicial Council (NJC); whereas the recommendation to strengthen judicial independence, made in the context of the European Semester, remains unadd other Member States; whereas this is the case when it comes to the independence of the judiciary; whereas regarding the effectiveness of the judiciary, even the Commission acknowledged that the Hungarian justice system performs well in terms of the length of proceedings and has a high level of digitalisation, and that the gradual incresased, including the need to formally reinforce the powers of the independent NJC to enable it to counterbalance the powers of the President of the National Office for the Judiciary the salaries of judges and prosecutors continues;
Amendment 64 #
2018/0902R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas on 20 July 2021, the Commission indicated in the country chapter on Hungary of the 2021 Rule of Law Report that the implementation of the anti-corruptithe Commission's Rule of Law Report reflects double standards, and discrimination against Hungary is obvious when compared to the reports on other Member States; whereas this is clearly demon strategy is ongoing, but its scope remains limited, and shortcomings persist as regards political pd by the fact the Commission portrays the situation more concerning in Hungary even though under several indicators Hungarty financing, lobbying and ‘revolving doors’; whereas risks of clientelism, favouritism and nepotism in high-level public administration, as well as risks arising fromperforms better than other Member States; whereas, for example, the indictment rate based on OLAF recommendations in Hungary is 67% which is nearly twice as much as EU average; whereas according to the lSink between businesses and political actors, remain unaddressed, independent control mechanisms remain insufficient for detecting corruption, and concerns remain regarding the lack of systematic checks and insufficient oversight of asset and interest declarations; whereas new criminal law provisions aim to address foreign bribery and informal payments in healthcare; whereas while the indictment rate for corruption cases is high, and some new high-level corruption cases have been opened since 2020, the track record for the investigation of allegations concerning high-level officials and their immediate circle remains limitedgle Market Scoreboard, as in previous years, Hungary's overall performance in the field of public procurement is "average", compared to nine Member States, where the overall performance is qualified as "unsatisfactory"; whereas new criminal law provisions aim to address foreign bribery and informal payments in healthcare;
Amendment 68 #
2018/0902R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
Amendment 73 #
2018/0902R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas on 5 April 2022, the Commission President announced that Commissioner for Budget Johannes Hahn had informed the Hungarian authorities about the Commission’s plans to move on to the next step and formally trigger the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation5 , mainly over corruption concerns; whereas the Hungarian Government claims that no structural issues that would justify any well-founded rule-of-law related concern as regards the protection of the EU budget exists; whereas the fact that the procedure was announced only two days after the general elections and the landmark victory of the ruling parties in Hungary substantiates the political nature of the procedure; _________________ 5 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, OJ L 433 I , 22.12.2020, p. 1.
Amendment 88 #
2018/0902R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas on 20 July 2021, the Commission indicated in the country chapter on Hungary of the 2021 Rule of Law Report that media pluralism remains at risk and that concerns persist with regard to the independence and effectiveness of the Media Authority, also in the light of the Media Council’s decisions leading to independent radio station Klubrádió being taken off air; whereas while no media support schemes were established to counter the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on news media outlets, significant amounts of state advertising have continued to permit the government to exert indirect political influence over the media; whereas access to public information was tightened through emergency measures introduced during the pandemic, making timely access to such information harder for independent media outlets; whereas independent media outlets and journalists continue to face obstruction and intimidationthe Commission's Rule of Law Report does not present an objective and substantiated picture of the media situation in Hungary, which is clearly more balanced than in other Western European countries when it comes to the plurality of opinions and the liveliness of public debate; whereas both right-wing, conservative views as well as left-wing, liberal views are equally represented in the Hungarian media which is not the case in many other Member States; whereas the Commission and the Parliament aim to interfere in individual matters which belong to the competence of national constitutional bodies; whereas the case of Klubrádió is a clear an example of this;
Amendment 90 #
2018/0902R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)
Recital L a (new)
La. whereas the Government has taken several steps to react to the economic and social consequences of the pandemic and considerable support has been provided for the artistic sector and for media as well; whereas the work of journalists in Hungary is not threatened by physical or other attacks or atrocities - unlike in other EU countries; whereas on the Council of Europe Platform on the Safety of Journalists there have not been any reported alerts on attacks on physical safety and integrity of journalists in Hungary in the last 5 years, while there are other Western-European Member States where only in 2021 5 such alerts have been published;
Amendment 181 #
2018/0902R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – introductory part
Paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Reiterates that the concerns of Parliament related to the following issues in Hungary:Hungary have been clarified by the Hungarian Government on numerous occasions; regrets the fact that the Parliament intends to excerpt pressure on Member States for ideological reasons and as regards the handling of specific cases; underlines that political and ideological debates should not be disguised as legal debates;
Amendment 184 #
2018/0902R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 1
Paragraph 1 – indent 1
Amendment 186 #
2018/0902R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 2
Paragraph 1 – indent 2
Amendment 188 #
2018/0902R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 3
Paragraph 1 – indent 3
Amendment 190 #
Amendment 192 #
Amendment 195 #
Amendment 197 #
Amendment 199 #
Amendment 201 #
2018/0902R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 9
Paragraph 1 – indent 9
Amendment 204 #
2018/0902R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 10
Paragraph 1 – indent 10
Amendment 207 #
2018/0902R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 11
Paragraph 1 – indent 11
Amendment 209 #
Amendment 212 #
2018/0902R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that, taken together, the facts and trends mentioned in Parliament’s resolutions represent a systemic threat to the values of Article 2 TEU and constitute a clear risk of a serious breach thereof; expresses regret that the lack of decisive EU action has contributed to turning Hungary into hybrid regime of electoral autocracy, according to the relevant indicesshow that the European mainstream is working to create a federal, supra-national EU which suppresses the independence and sovereignty of Member States and enforces a single ideology on them; whereas this results in the arbitrary use of the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU and politically motivated sanction mechanisms against Member States which disagree with this direction; underlines that this represents a systemic threat to European cooperation; expresses regret that Hungary is the target of unfounded and politically motivated attacks only because it firmly stands up for the sovereignty and independence of Member States and the original idea behind European cooperation;
Amendment 217 #
2018/0902R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Strongly regretNotes the inability of the Council to make meaningful progress in the ongoing Article 7(1) TEU procedure; urges the Council to ensure that hearings take place at a minimum once per Presidency during ongoing Article 7 TEU procedures and also address new developments affecting the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights; calls on the Council to publish comprehensive minutes after each hearing; emphasises that there is no need for unanimity in the Council either to identify a clear risk of a serious breach of Union values under Article 7(1), or to address concrete recommendations to the Member States in question and provide deadlines for the implementation of those recommendations; reiterates its call for the Council to do so, underlining that any further delay to such action would amount to a breach of the rule of law principle by the Council itself; calls on the Council to issue recommendations to Hungary as soon as possible in order to remedy the issues mentioned in its resolution of 12 September 2018 and in the present resolution, asking it to implement all the judgments and recommendations mentioned; insists that Parliament’s role and competences be duly respectedd the procedure immediately as it is nothing more but a political procedure which does not lead anywhere, but harms European cooperation;
Amendment 223 #
2018/0902R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to make full use of the tools available to address the clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded, in particular expedited infringement procedures, applications for interim measures before the Court of Justice and actions regarding non- implementation of the Court’s judgments; recalls the importance ofnot to portray political demands that fall outside the competence of the Union as general requirements for the Rrule of Law Conditionality Regulation and welcomes the decision to trigger it in the case of Hungary, albeit after a long delay and with a limited scope; calls on the Commission to take immediate action under the regulation as regards other breaches of the rule of law; notes the risk of misuse of funds under the Recovery and Resilience Facility and reiterates its call for the Commission to refrain from approval of the Hungarian planlaw and not to use and mix sanction mechanisms against Hungary contrary to the provisions of the Treaties to pursue political goals;
Amendment 348 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Member States may decide not to apply this Directive to third-country nationals in case of mass influx of migrants into their respected territory.
Amendment 361 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c a (new)
(ca) another third country in which he or she will be accepted;
Amendment 362 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c b (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c b (new)
(cb) as a last resort, if the return to a third country referred to in points (a) to (d) cannot be enforced due to lack of cooperation in the return process by either the third country or the third- country national, any third country with which there is an EU or bilateral agreement on the basis of which the third- country national is accepted, and is allowed to remain, where international human rights standards according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are respected, and provided that no international, European or national rules prevent the return. When the return is carried out to a third country, which has a common border with a Member State, the prior agreement of that Member State is required before starting negotiations on any such bilateral agreement.
Amendment 364 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 6
6. ‘entry ban’ means an administrative or judicial decision or act prohibiting entry into and stay on the territory of the Member States for a specified period, accompanying a return decision;
Amendment 406 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) illegal entry into the territory of the Member States or apprehension or interception relating to the irregular crossing by land, sea or air of the external border of a Member State;
Amendment 408 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) unauthorised movement to the territory of another Member State, including movement after transit through a third country or attempts to do so;
Amendment 409 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) explicit expression of intent of non- compliance with all return-related measures applied by virtue of this Directive or actions clearly demonstrating an intent not to comply with all of these measures;
Amendment 421 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point m
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point m
(m) using false or forged identity or travel documents, destroying or otherwise disposing of existing documresidence permits or visas, or documents setting out the conditions of entry, destroying or otherwise disposing of such documents, using pseudonyms with fraudulent intents, orcommunicating other false information orally or in writing, refusing to provide fingerprintsbiometric data as required by Union or national law;
Amendment 429 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States may lay down additional objective criteria in their national legislation.
Amendment 434 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
However, Member States shall establish that a risk of absconding is presumed in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the objective criteria referred to in points (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), (p) and (pq) of paragraph 1 is fulfilled.
Amendment 466 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) the duty to lodge to the competent authorities of third countries a request for obtaining a valid travel document, to provide all information and statements necessary to obtain such a document, and to cooperate with these authorities.
Amendment 476 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. The elements referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 shall include the third- country nationals’ statements and documentation in their possession regarding the identity, place and date of birth, nationality or nationalities, age, country or countries and place or places of previous residence, travel routes and travel documentation, and biometric data.
Amendment 516 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Amendment 559 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 6
Article 10 – paragraph 6
6. Member States shall provide for an effective forced-return monitoring system. This system shall not involve the systematic implementation of a check on each forced return operation.
Amendment 591 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. Member States may impose an entry ban, which does not accompany a return decision, to a third-country national who has been illegally staying in the territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, where justified on the basis of the specific circumstances of the individual case and taking into account the principle of proportionality.
Amendment 613 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Member States shallmay establish programmes for providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance, in accordance with national legislation, for the purpose of supporting the return of illegally staying third-country nationals who are nationals of third countries listed in Annex I to Council Regulation 539/200130 . _________________ 30Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).
Amendment 620 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
The granting of such assistance, including its kind and extent, shall be subject to the cooperation of the third-country national concerned with the competent authorities of the Member States as provided for in Article 7 of this Directive, and may be subject to the conditions and grounds for exclusion laid down in national provisions, particularly with regard to reintegration assistance in the third country of origin. The assistance referred to in this paragraph shall not be granted as a rule to a third-country national who has already benefited from reintegration assistance provided by a Member State.
Amendment 659 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Member States shall grant a period not exceeding fivetwo days to lodge an appeal against a return decision when such a decision is the consequence of a final decision rejecting an application for international protection taken in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation].
Amendment 753 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 24 a (new)
Article 24 a (new)
Article 24a When the third country is considered not to be cooperating sufficiently with Member States with regard to readmission, Article 25(1)(a) of the Visa Code shall apply.
Amendment 2 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9 a (new)
Citation 9 a (new)
- having regard to the Conclusions of the Council of the European Union and the Member States meeting within the Council on ensuring respect for the rule of law of 16 December 2014;
Amendment 3 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9 b (new)
Citation 9 b (new)
- having regard to the Council Legal Service’s legal opinion of 27 May 2014 on the compatibility of the Commission’s Communication on a new EU Framework to strengthen the Rule of Law with the Treaties;
Amendment 19 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and as reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and embedded in international human rights treaties;
Amendment 20 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, in contrast to Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the scope of Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union is not limited to the obligations under the Treaties, as indicated in the Commission Communication of 15 October 2003, and whereas the Union can assess the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach of the common values in areas falling under Member States’ competencesthe competences of the Union, and Union monitoring mechanisms are only possible to this extent; whereas, additionally, the Council Legal Service recalled in its legal opinion of 27 May 2014 that there is no legal basis in the Treaties empowering the institutions to create a new supervision mechanism of the respect of the rule of law by the Member States, additional to what is laid down in Article 7 TEU;
Amendment 30 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 38 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Expresses its deep concern that, despitTakes note of the three hearings of Poland having been held in the Council, alarmingthe critical reports by the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe, and four infringements procedures launched by the Commission, the rule of law situation in Poland has not only not been addressed but has seriously deteriorated since the triggering of Article 7(1) TEU;
Amendment 46 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Takes the view that the latest developmentsArticle 7 TEU procedure ins the ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) TEU once again underline the imminent need for a complementary and preventive Union mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights as put forward by Parliament in its resolution of 25 October 2016ly procedure available under the Treaties to safeguard the rule of law and no complementary and preventive Union mechanism can be put forward by the EU institutions; underlines that any monitoring of the rule of law shall respect the principles of objectivity, non-discrimination, equal treatment, a non-partisan and evidence-based approach;
Amendment 50 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 63 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. DeplorNotes the frequent use of expedited legislative procedures by the Polish parliament for the adoption of crucial legislation redesigning the organisation and functioning of the judiciary, without meaningful consultation with stakeholders, including the judicial community19 ; _________________ 19ENCJ, Warsaw Declaration of 3 June 2016.;
Amendment 64 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 82 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Is concerned, while rRecognisinges the extraordinary circumstances created by the COVID-19 health crisis, aboutnd thus the amendments to the electoral legislation being considered in the Polish parliament shortly before the presidential elections whichwhich would change the practical organisation of the elections in order to proceed to a vote by postal services, which could impede the elections from taking a fair, secret and equal course, respectful of the right to privacy and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council23 and which moreover run counter to the case law; notes that voting by postal services could be a possibility to hold elections in these difficult times, while it is important to carefully consider its circumstances and to draw conclusions from the practices of othe Polish Constitutional Tribunalr Member States holding elections by postal services; stresses, moreover, that it is very difficult to organise a genuine election campaign giving an equal share of attention and equal opportunities to all candidates and programmes and allowing for real public debate in the midst of an epidemic24 ; _________________ 23Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1). 24OSCE/ODIHR, Opinion on the draft act on special rules for conducting the general election of the President of the Republic of Poland ordered in 2020 (Senate Paper No. 99), 27 April 2020.
Amendment 115 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
Amendment 128 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
Amendment 134 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Concurs with the Commission, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Group of States against Corruption that the aforementioned separate reforms to the judicial system, considering their interaction and overall impact, amount to a serious, sustained and systemic breach of the rule of law, enabling the legislative and executive powers to influence the functioning of the judiciary in a critical manner, thereby significantly weakening the independence of the judiciary in Poland43 ; _________________ 43Recommendation (EU) 2018/103; GRECO, Follow-up to the Addendum to the Fourth Round Evaluation Report (rule 34) – Poland, 6 December 2019, para. 65; PACE, Resolution 2316 (2020) of 28 January 2020 on the functioning of democratic institutions in Poland, para. 4.Recalls that at this stage of the procedure it is for the Council to determine whether the aforementioned separate reforms to the judicial system amount to a clear risk of a serious breach of the rule of law in Poland;
Amendment 140 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Is concerned aboutTakes note of reports alleging undue delays in court proceedings, difficulties in accessing legal assistance during arrest, and instances of insufficient respect for the confidentiality of communication between counsel and client44 ; _________________ 44UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Poland, 23 November 2016, para. 33.
Amendment 143 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Is concernedNotes that, since the entry into force on 14 February 2020 of the amendments to the act on the Supreme Court, only the Extraordinary Chamber can decide whether a judge or tribunal or court is independent and impartial, hence depriving citizens of an important element of judicial review at all other instances45 ; _________________ 45Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, para 59.;
Amendment 147 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 17
Subheading 17
The right to information and freedom of expression, including academic freedom
Amendment 160 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
Amendment 177 #
Amendment 182 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
Amendment 191 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 22
Subheading 22
Amendment 195 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
Amendment 206 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
Amendment 229 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Recalls its stance expressed in its resolution of 18 December 2019, when it strongly denounced any discrimination against LGBTI people and the violation of their fundamental rights by public authorities, including hate speech by public authorities and elected officials, in the context of elections, as well as the declarations of zones in Poland free from so-called ‘LGBT ideology’, and called on the Commission to strongly condemn such public discrimination;
Amendment 237 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Notes in case the Council would determine that there is lack of independence of the judiciary in Poland has already starte, this could affecting mutual trust between Poland and other Member States, especially in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters; points out that mutual trust between the Member States can be restored only once respect for the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU is ensured;
Amendment 244 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Calls upon the Council to resume the formal hearings - the last one of which was held as long ago as December 2018 - as soon as possible and to include in those hearings all the latest and major negative developments in the areas of rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights; urges the Council to finally act under the Article 7(1) TEU procedure by finding that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by the Republic of Poland of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU, in the light of overwhelming evidence thereof as displayed in this resolution and in so many reports of international and European organisations, the case-law of the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights and reports by civil society organisations; strongly recommends that the Council address concrete recommendations to Poland, as provided for in Article 7(1) TEU, as a follow-up to the hearings, and that it indicate deadlines for the implementation of those recommendationsadopt a final position under the Article 7(1) TEU procedure; calls on the Council to keep Parliament regularly informed and closely involved;
Amendment 249 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
Paragraph 50
Amendment 92 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40
Recital 40
(40-a) All the procedural steps relating to the implementation of this regulation should be designed and applied in a way that is in line with fundamental rights, including the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment as prescribed for in Articles 3 ECHR and 4 Charter, the right to asylum as enshrined in Article 18 Charter and the principle of non- refoulement in Article 19 Charter.
Amendment 98 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40a
Recital 40a
(40a) ‘ The purpose of the border procedure for asylum and return should be to quickly assess at the external borders whether applications are unfounded or inadmissiblefor international protection and to swiftly return those with no right to stay, while ensuring that those with well-founded claims are channelentitled into the regular procedure and providedprotection have quick access to international protection. Member States should therefore be able to require applicants for international protection to stay at the external border or in a transit zone in order to assess the admissibility of applications. In well-defined circumstances,pplications. Member States should be able to provide for the examination of the merits of an application in the border procedure and, in the event of rejection of the application, for the return of the third- country nationals and stateless persons concerned at the external borders.
Amendment 102 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40b
Recital 40b
(40b) Member State should assess all applications in a border procedure where the applicant is a danger to national security or public order, where the applicant has misled the authorities by presenting false information or documents or by withholding relevant information or documents with respect to his or her identity or nationality that could have had a negative impact on the decision and where it is likely that the application is unfounded because the applicant is of a nationality for whom decisions granting international protection is lower than 20% of the total number of decisions for that third country. In other cases, such as when the applicant is from a safe country of origin or a safe third country, the use of the border procedure should be optional for the Member Statesithout allowing entry into the territory of the Member State during the procedure.
Amendment 115 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40c
Recital 40c
(40c) When applyingIn the border procedure, for the examination of an application for international protection, Member States should ensure that the necessary arrangements are made to accommodate the applicants at or close to the external border or transit zones, in accordance with Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Reception Conditions Directive]. Member States may process the applications at a different location at the external border than that where the asylum application is made by transferring applicants to a specific location at or in the proximity of the external border of that Member States where appropriate facilities exist. Member States may also transfer those illegally staying nationals who were apprehended on the territory of the Member States to such appropriate facilities in order to conduct the border procedure. Member States should retain discretion in deciding at which specific locations at the external borders such facilities should be set up. However, Member States should seek to limit the need for transferring applicants for this purpose, and therefore aim at setting up such facilities with sufficient capacity at border crossing points, or sections of the external border, where the majority of the number of applications for international protection are made, also taking into account the length of the external border and the number of border crossing points or transit zones. They should notify the Commission of the specific locations at the external border, transit zones or proximity of the external border where the border procedures will be carried out. In cases where the border procedure is applied and the capacity of the locations at or in proximity of the external border as notified by a Member State is temporarily exceeded, Member States may process those applications at another location within its territory, for the shortest time possible.
Amendment 123 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40d
Recital 40d
Amendment 134 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40e
Recital 40e
(40e) The duration of the border procedure for examination of applications for international protection should be as short as possible while at the same time guaranteeing a complete and fair examination of the claims. It should in any event not exceed 125 weeks. This deadline should be understood as a stand-alone deadline for the asylum border procedure, encompassing both the decision on the examination of the application as well as the decision of the first level of appeal, if applicable. Within this period, Member States are entitled to set the deadline in national law both for the administrative and for the appeal stage, but should set them in a way so as to ensure that the examination procedure is concluded and that subsequently, if relevant, the decision on the first level of appeal is issued within this maximum 125 week. After that period, if the Member State nevertheless failed to take the relevant decisions, the applicant should in principle be authorised to enter the territoryEntry into the territory should not be authorised without a positive decision ofn the Member State. Entry into the territory should however not be authoriseapplication and where the applicant has no right to remain, where he or she has not requested to be allowed to remain for the purpose of an appeal procedure, or where a court or tribunal has decided that he or she should not be allowed to remain pending the outcome of an appeal procedure. In such cases, to ensure continuity between the asylum procedure and the return procedure, the return procedure should also be carried out in the context of a border procedure for a period not exceeding 12 week4 months. This period should be counted starting from the moment in which the applicant, third- country national or stateless person no longer has a right to remain or is no longer allowed to remain.
Amendment 158 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40i
Recital 40i
(40i) Where an applicant, third-country national or stateless person who was detained during the border procedure for the examination of their application for international protection no longer has a right to remain and has not been allowed to remain, Member States should be able to continue the detention for the purpose of preventing entry into the territory and carrying out the return procedure, respecting the guarantees and conditions for detention laid down in Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive]. An applicant, third-country national or stateless person who was not detained during the border procedure for the examination of an application for international protection, and who no longer has a right to remain and has not been allowed to remain, could also be detained for the purpose of preventing entry into the territory of the Member State, if there is a risk of absconding, if he or she avoids or hampers return, or if he or she poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security. Detention should be for as short a period as possible and should not exceed the maximum duration of the border procedure for carrying out return. When the illegally staying third-country national does not return or is not removed within that period and the border procedure for carrying out return ceases to apply, the provisions of the [recast Return Directive] should apply. TWhe maximum period of detention set by Article 15 of that Directive should include the period of detention applied during the border procedure for carrying our returnn the return decision cannot be enforced within 4 months, the third country national may further be detained in accordance with Article 18 [recast Return Directive].
Amendment 161 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40j
Recital 40j
Amendment 167 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44a
Recital 44a
(44a) ‘'An applicant who lodges a subsequent application at the last minute merely in order to delay or frustrate his or her removal should not be authorised to remain pending the finalisation of the decision declaring the application inadmissible in cases where it is immediately clear to the determining authority that no new elements have been presented and there is no risk of refoulement and provided that the application is made within one year of the decision by the determining authority on the first application. The determining authority shall issue a decision under national law confirming that these criteria are fulfilled in order for the applicant not to be authorised to remain. ’
Amendment 174 #
2016/0224(COD)
(65) ‘For a'An applicant has to be able to exercise his or her right to an effective remedy against a decision rejecting an application for international protection, all effects of the return decision should be automatically suspended for as long as the applicant has the right to remain or has been allowed to remain on the territory of a Member State. To improve the effectiveness of procedures at the external border, while ensuring the respect of the right to an effective remedy, appeals against decisions taken in the context of the border procedure should take place only before a single level of jurisdiction of a court or tribunal.
Amendment 180 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 66
Recital 66
(66) Applicants should, in principle, have the right to remain on the territory of a Member State until the time-limit for lodging an appeal before a court or tribunal of first instance expires, and, where such a right is exercised within the set time-limit, pending the outcome of the appeal. It is only in the limited cases set out in this Regulation, wWhere applications are likely to be unfounded, that the applicant should not have an automatic right to remain for the purpose of the appeal.
Amendment 220 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – point a – paragraph 1 – point i
Article 40 – point a – paragraph 1 – point i
(i) ‘the applicant is of a nationality or, in the case of stateless persons, a former habitual resident of a third country for which the proportion of decisions by the determining authority granting international protection is, according to the latest available yearly Union-wide average Eurostat data, 250% or lower, unless a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant Eurostat data or the applicant belongs to a category of persons for whom the proportion of 250% or lower cannot be considered as representative for their protection needs;’
Amendment 226 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – point b – paragraph 5 – point c
Article 40 – point b – paragraph 5 – point c
(c) ‘the applicant is of a nationality or, in the case of stateless persons, a former habitual residence of a third country for which the proportion of decisions granting international protection by the determining authority is, according to the latest available yearly Union-wide average Eurostat data, 250% or lower, unless a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant Eurostat data or the applicant belongs to a category of persons for whom the proportion of 250% or lower cannot be considered as representative for their protection needs;’
Amendment 231 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Following the screening procedure carried out in accordance with Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX [Screening Regulation], and provided that the applicant has not yet been authorised to enter Member States’ territory, a Member State mayshall examine an application in a border procedure where that application has been made by a third-country national or stateless person who does not fulfil the conditions for entry in the territory of a Member State as set out in Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399. The border procedure mayshall take place: in all cases.
Amendment 233 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 236 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 241 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 245 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 248 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 41 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. If an unaccompanied minor is under the age of 14, the border procedure shall not apply.
Amendment 251 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 41 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. WhereIn a border procedure is applied, decisions may be taken on the following:
Amendment 257 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 41 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) the merits of an application in an accelerated examination procedure in the cases referred to in Article 40(1).
Amendment 258 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 3
Article 41 – paragraph 3
Amendment 268 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 4
Article 41 – paragraph 4
Amendment 284 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 5
Article 41 – paragraph 5
Amendment 303 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 6
Article 41 – paragraph 6
6. Applicants subject to the border procedure shall not be authorised to enter the territory of the Member State, without prejudice to paragraphs 9 and 11.
Amendment 307 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 7
Article 41 – paragraph 7
7. When applying the border procedure, Member States may carry out the procedure for determining the Member State responsible for examining the application as laid down in Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX [Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management], without prejudice tothe timeframe for establishing the Member State responsible shall not be part of the deadlines establishedlaid down in paragraph 11.
Amendment 312 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 8
Article 41 – paragraph 8
Amendment 315 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 9
Article 41 – paragraph 9
Amendment 335 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 9 a (new)
Article 41 – paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Without prejudice to the legal situation of non-entry, for serious illnesses where it is not possible to provide appropriate medical care at the border, the applicant could be transferred to the territory of the Member States to receive such medical care.
Amendment 339 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 10
Article 41 – paragraph 10
10. By way of derogation from Article 28 of this Regulation, applications subject to a border procedure shall be lodged no later than fivone days from registration for the first time or, following a relocation in accordance with Article [x] of Regulation EU (No) XXX/XXX [Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management], five daysone day from when the applicant arrives in the Member State responsible following a transfer pursuant to Article 56(1), point (e), of that Regulation.
Amendment 342 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 11 – subparagraph 1
Article 41 – paragraph 11 – subparagraph 1
11. The border procedure shall be as short as possible while at the same time enabling a complete and fair examination of the claims. It shall encompass the decision referred to in paragraph 2 and 3 and any decision on an appeal if applicable and shall be completed within 125 weeks from when the application is registered. Following that period, the applicant shall be authorised to enter the Member State’s territory except when Article 41a(1) is applicable.
Amendment 351 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 11 – subparagraph 2
Article 41 – paragraph 11 – subparagraph 2
By way of derogation from the time limits set in Articles 34, 40(2) and 55, Member States shall lay down provisions on the duration of the examination procedure and of the appeal procedure which ensure that, in case of an appeal against a decision rejecting an application in the framework of the border procedure, the decision on such appeal is issued within 125 weeks from when the application is registered.
Amendment 353 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
12. By way of derogation from paragraph 11 of this Article, tThe applicant shall not be authorised to enter the Member State’s territory where:until a positive decision on the merits of the application is rendered granting international protection to the applicant.
Amendment 358 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Amendment 361 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Amendment 366 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Amendment 374 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 13
Article 41 – paragraph 13
13. During the examination of applications subject to ain the border procedure, the applicants shall be kept at or in proximity to the external border or transit zones. Each Member State shall notify to the Commission, [twosix months after the date of the application of this Regulation] at the latest, the locations where the border procedure will be carried out, at the external borders, in the proximity to the external border or transit zones, including when applying paragraph 3 and ensure that the capacity of those locations is sufficient to process the applications covered by that paragraph. Any changes in the identification of the locations at which the border procedure is applied, shall be notified to the Commission twosix months in advance of the changes taking effect in order to ensure that Member States have enough time to identify new locations.
Amendment 388 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 14
Article 41 – paragraph 14
14. In situations where the capacity of the locations notified by Member States pursuant to paragraph 14 is temporarily insufficient to process the applicants covered by paragraph 3, Member States may designate other locations within the territory of the Member State and upon notification to the Commission to accommodate applicants there, on a temporary basis and for the shortest time necessary.
Amendment 407 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 2
Article 41 a – paragraph 2
2. Persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall be kept for a period not exceeding 12 week4 months in locations at or in proximity to the external border or transit zones; where a Member State cannot accommodate them in those locations, it can resort to the use of other locations within its territory. The 12- week4 months period shall start from when the applicant, third-country national or stateless person no longer has a right to remain and is not allowed to remain.
Amendment 411 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 41 a – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. When the return decision cannot be enforced within the maximum period referred to in paragraph 2, Member States shall continue return procedures in accordance with Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive]. Persons referred to in this paragraph shall not be authorised to enter the territory of the Member State.
Amendment 416 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 4
Article 41 a – paragraph 4
4. Without prejudice to the possibility to return voluntarily at any moment, persons referred to in paragraph 1 who have not been detained may be granted a period for voluntary departure not exceeding 15 days.
Amendment 427 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 6
Article 41 a – paragraph 6
6. Persons referred to in paragraph 1 who no longer have a right to remain and are not allowed to remain, and who were not detained during the procedure referred to in Article 41, may be detained for the purpose of preventing entry into the territory of the Member State, if there is a risk of absconding within the meaning of Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive], if they avoid or hamper the preparation of return or the removal process or they pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security.
Amendment 430 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 7
Article 41 a – paragraph 7
7. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible, as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence. The period of detention shall not exceed the period referred to in paragraph 2 and shall be included in the maximum periods of detention set in Article 15 (5) and (6). When the return decision cannot be enforced within the maximum period referred to in paragraph 2, the third-country national may be further detained in accordance with Article 18 of Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive].
Amendment 438 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 8
Article 41 a – paragraph 8
8. Member States that have decided not to apply Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive] pursuant to Article 2(2), point (a) of that Directive, following the rejection of an application in the context of the procedure referred to in Article 41, may issue a refusal of entry in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, and that have decided not to apply Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive] in such cases pursuant to Article 2(2), point (a), of that Directive, shall ensure that the treatment and level of protection of the third-country nationals and stateless persons subject to a refusal of entrytheir national procedures are in accordance with Article 4(4) of Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive] and are equivalent to the ones set out in paragraphs 2, 4 and 7 of this Article.’
Amendment 444 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – subparagraph 2 – point c
Article 43 – subparagraph 2 – point c
(c) a first subsequent application has been lodged within one year of the decision of the determining authority on the first application merely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of a return decision which would result in the applicant’s imminent removal from the Member State, pending the finalisation of the decision declaring that application inadmissible in cases where it is immediately clear to the determining authority that no new elements have been presented in accordance with Article 42(4)’
Amendment 482 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 7 – point a
Article 53 – paragraph 7 – point a
Amendment 485 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 7 – point b
Article 53 – paragraph 7 – point b
(b) between a minimum of two weeks and a maximum of two monthsone week in all other cases.
Amendment 512 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 54 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) a decision which rejects an application as inadmissible pursuant to Article 36(1)(a) [first country of asylum] (b) [safe third country] or (c) [subsequent applications without new elements];
Amendment 517 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 54 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The applicant shall not have the right to remain pursuant to Article 2 in the case of a subsequent application after the termination of the previous procedure with final effect.
Amendment 528 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 5 – point a
Article 54 – paragraph 5 – point a
(a) the applicant shall have a time-limit of at least 53 days from the date when the decision is notified to him or her to request to be allowed to remain on the territory pending the outcome of the remedy;
Amendment 1 #
2016/0062B(NLE)
Draft legislative resolution
Citation 10 (new)
Citation 10 (new)
- having regard to Article 5 TEU, in particular with regard to the principle of subsidiarity, under which the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level;
Amendment 2 #
2016/0062B(NLE)
Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 1 #
2016/0062A(NLE)
Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. GDoes not gives its consent to the conclusion of the Convention;
Amendment 2 #
2016/0062A(NLE)
Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. The conclusion of the Convention on behalf of the Union with regard to institutions and public administration of the Union does not proceed as its ratification is pending in some Member States;