Activities of Nicolas BAY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Member States ~~and the Commission~~ to carefully review the policies they enacted during the COVID-19 crisis and to define new mechanisms and protocols for any future emergency spending in order to increase the level of transparency of public spending;

2021/09/13
Committee: LIBE

2020/2222(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Welcomes the critical~~Notes the role of civil society organisations in fighting corruption; emphasises that the success of any emergency response greatly depends on ~~the active participation of all actors in society~~accuracy of transparency processes; believes that the current COVID- 19 crisis has highlighted the importance of maintaining a robust system of citizen participation in public decision-making;

2021/09/13
Committee: LIBE

2020/2222(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Calls on the Member States to follow the recommendations of the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) ~~and welcomes the possibility of the EU joining GRECO as a full member~~.

2021/09/13
Committee: LIBE

2020/2221(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses that organised crime is involved in increasingly sophisticated fraudulent activities, such as cybercrime, which deprive the legal economy of considerable resources, particularly at difficult times like the present; points out that cybercrime costs the EU Member States EUR 265 billion per year1a and has a devastating impact on each EU Member State. _________________ 1a https://www.thehaguesecuritydelta.com/pa rtners/partner/137-europol

2021/09/08
Committee: LIBE

2020/2221(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Points out that there are at least 20 million cases of petty corruption in the Union public sector and that, clearly, this spills over into the Member State public authorities responsible for managing EU funds and other financial interests;

2021/09/08
Committee: LIBE

2020/2221(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights that organised criminal groups take advantage of the different laws in individual Member States, and that the development of a harmonised anti-fraud approach at EU level is complicated by differing definitions of organised crime; reiterates therefore its previous calls for the revision of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008, and the need to establish a common definition of organised crime, which should also take into account the use of violence, corruption or intimidation by criminal groups to obtain control of economic activities or public procurement, or to influence democratic processese importance of cooperation among the different judicial systems in the Member States in making the fight against organised crime more effective;

2021/09/08
Committee: LIBE

2020/2221(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the start of operations of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) on 1 June 2021; reiterates the need to ensure that the EPPO has all the necessary resources to carry out its functions, in order to protect the EU’s financial interests;deleted

2021/09/08
Committee: LIBE

2020/2221(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that fraud prevention and the fight against fraud by organised crime should be a priority focus of managing, certifying and audit authorities, as well as being the subject of specialised financial investigations; believes that the fight against organised criminal groups also requires enhanced rules and measures regarding the freezing and confiscation of assets; calls on the Member States to build upon their administrative, judicial and police cooperation in order to trace criminal assets across the EU, so they can be seized and confiscated;

2021/09/08
Committee: LIBE

2020/2196(INI)

Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolas BAY, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Philippe OLIVIER, Peter KOFOD, Nicolaus FEST, Mara BIZZOTTO, Laura HUHTASAARI

Motion for a resolution
Citation 10

~~– having regard to the Commission communication of 23 September 2020 on a New Pact on Migration and Asylum (COM(2020)0609),~~deleted

2021/01/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2196(INI)

Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Nicolas BAY, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Philippe OLIVIER, Peter KOFOD, Nicolaus FEST, Mara BIZZOTTO, Annalisa TARDINO, Laura HUHTASAARI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Consider~~Notes that in 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 and its view that many of the prolongations are not in line with the rules pertaining to their extension, necessity or proportionality, and arebeginning of the pandemic, rather than recommending the reintroduction of internal border checks by Member States, the Commission has deplored such measures of, and sought to delay restrictions at the external borders of the Schengen area until there were already thousands of confirmed cases on EU ther~~efore unlawful~~ritory;

2021/01/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2196(INI)

Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolas BAY, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Philippe OLIVIER, Peter KOFOD, Nicolaus FEST, Mara BIZZOTTO, Annalisa TARDINO, Laura HUHTASAARI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notes that at the beginning of 2020, just before the pandemic emergency, illegal immigration flows were increasing considerably compared to the same period last year, thereby significantly increasing the health risk within the EU; whereas despite the commonly agreed decision to completely close the external borders of the Schengen area, some Member States have scaled back their efforts to tackle illegal immigration, even carrying out mass regularisations; According to Europol, a ‘loosening of travel and movement restrictions is likely to result in an increasing movement of irregular migrants’, thereby putting the management of the EU’s external borders under pressure;

2021/01/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2196(INI)

Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolas BAY, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Philippe OLIVIER, Peter KOFOD, Nicolaus FEST, Mara BIZZOTTO, Annalisa TARDINO, Laura HUHTASAARI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Deplores the fact that internal border control~~Recalls that Member States are continuing to be introduced by some Member States as a unilateral response to new challenges, before they have given proper consideration to the common European interest in maintaining Schengen as an area without internal border controls; reiterates its call on the Commission to exercise appropriate scrutiny over the application of the Schengen acquis, including through the use of infringement procedures, and underlines the urgent need to enhance mutual trust and cooperation among the Schengen states and appropriate governance for the Schengen areatain sovereignty over border management; recognises, at the same time, that urgent measures are needed to resume national, European and international travel in order to revive the tourism industry;

2021/01/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2196(INI)

Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolas BAY, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Philippe OLIVIER, Peter KOFOD, Nicolaus FEST, Mara BIZZOTTO, Annalisa TARDINO, Laura HUHTASAARI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Expresses its deep concern about the repeated allegations concerning Frontex’s possible involvement in pushbacks and considers that internal reporting mechanisms, as well as parliamentary and public scrutiny over Frontex’s activities, must be reinforced;deleted

2021/01/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2196(INI)

Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolas BAY, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Philippe OLIVIER, Peter KOFOD, Nicolaus FEST, Mara BIZZOTTO, Annalisa TARDINO, Laura HUHTASAARI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Deeply regrets the fact that there have been persistent and serious reports about violence and pushbacks at the external border, as well as the lack of adequate monitoring mechanisms to ensure respect for fundamental rights and the rule of law at the external borders; considers that the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) must be given an enhanced operational role with regard to the monitoring of respect for fundamental rights at the external borderReiterates that an efficient external border management system is closely linked to strict external border control and swift return procedures for illegal third country nationals; Stresses the need for external borders to be managed rigorously as any weaknesses may result in the loss of control over basic public safety management, including health threats;

2021/01/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2196(INI)

Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolas BAY, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Philippe OLIVIER, Peter KOFOD, Nicolaus FEST, Mara BIZZOTTO, Laura HUHTASAARI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Considers that the Commission and the Council have seriously neglected their obligations following the detection of serious deficiencies in the UK’s use of the Schengen Information System during the 2017 evaluation; reminds all actors of its request to immediately disconnectUK, like any non-Schengen country, had no direct access to the Schengen Information System, but limited access; it lost this latter with Brexit, creating risks for all parties because the UK, a~~s expressed in the letters to the Commission and to the Council Presidency of 15 June 2020; recalls its position that ‘as a third~~lso provided a lot of relevant information to its partners; it is therefore in the interest of all parties to count~~ry, the UK cannot have access to SIS’~~inue to cooperate;

2021/01/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2172(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that a number of projects had to be deprioritised in the revised Annual Work Programme for 2019 due to budgetary constraints and that due to the Commission’s request to reduce the staffing levels for Contract Agents (CAs) Europol deferred the recruitment of all CA vacancies in 2019, emphasises that while these reductions should satisfy the principle of financial prudence in spending taxpayer's money, they should not hamper Europol's operations aimed at ensuring the safety of Union citizens;

2021/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2020/2172(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Regrets to note again the Court’s finding that there were weaknesses in contract management and ex ante controls linked that the Europol irregularly prolonged the duration of a framework contract for the provision of business travel services by signing an amendment after the contract had expired; notes that this resulted in irregular payment of EUR 32 531 in 2019., emphasises that such irregularities should not happen in the future;

2021/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2020/2158(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Deplores the fact that Eurojust was faced with a decrease in its budget from EUR 47 to 44 million (-6.38%) and a slight increase in staff from 238 to 239 (+0.4%) despite a 17% increase in workload compared to 2018; reminds that the workload is expected to increase further due to the new mandate which entered into force in 20191 ; further recalls that the number of coordination centres held in 2019 increased from 17 to 20 (+19%), demonstrating the popularity and utility of this operational tool; stresses the essential role that Eurojust plays in the Union security chain ~~and~~in fighting serious organised cross-border crime and, therefore, maintains that its budget should match its tasks and priorities in order to enable it to fulfil its mandate; _________________ 1Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), and replacing and repealing Council Decision 2002/187/JHA https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018 R1727

2021/01/15
Committee: LIBE

2020/2152(DEC)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes the fact that the Court of Auditors (‘the Court’) has declared the transactions underlying the annual accounts of the Agency for the financial year 2019 to be legal and regular in all material respects and that its financial position on 31 December 2019 is fairly presented; ~~deplore~~accepts the fact that the budget of the Agency of EUR 30 million decreased in 2019 to EUR 29 million and notes the slight staff increase from 110 to 114 in 2019;

2021/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2020/2129(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that globalisation has created interdependencies between societies, where any product results from complex transnational supply and value chains and where decisions taken by European firms impact on peoples’ ability to enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms worldwide; deplores the fact that globalisation has led to an increasing dependence of European economies, illustrated in particular, in light of the Covid-19 crisis, with regard to China, on medical and pharmaceutical products;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

2020/2129(INL)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses that the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) highlight the duty of states to protect against human rights abuses within their territories, jurisdictions, or both, by third parties, including businesses; further emphasises that, independently of the ability and willingness of states to fulfil their human rights obligations, businesses have the responsibility to respect human rights wherever they operate and to address adverse human rights impacts with which they are connected, including by enabling providing remedies to victims; notes, however, that in this area companies cannot take the place of the sovereign and regulatory powers of the Member States;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

2020/2129(INL)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Deplores the fact that the economic model prioritises employees’ productivity over their mental and physical health; notes, for example, the number of premature births linked to the work of the mothers concerned;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

2020/2129(INL)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Urges the Commission to propose Union~~Calls for European companies to exercise mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence ~~legislation imposing legal obligations on Union companies and companies domiciled or operating in the Union in~~; calls on companies from EU Member States, in their recruitment, investment and supply policies, to put in place measures to encourage, in the first place, the use of maternial ~~market and establishing effective monitoring, enforcement and remedy mechanism~~and human resources in their respective countries, and secondly those from EU Member States;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

2020/2129(INL)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15

~~15. Recommends that Union legislation cover all companies and all sectors, including state-owned enterprises, the banking sector and financial institutions, including the European Investment Bank;~~deleted

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

2020/2129(INL)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 17

17. ~~Recommends that Union mandat~~Calls fory due diligence ~~legislation be adopted~~ to require companies to identify and address their impacts with reference to all internationally recognised human rights including, as a minimum, those encompassed by the UDHR, all nine core international human rights treaties, the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and all fundamental ILO conventions, as well as the ECHR and ICESCR, which are binding on Council of Europe member states and also bind Member States as a result of Union law and the common constitutional traditions of the Member States; calls for due diligence with regard to embryo research; calls, in particular, for the creation of chimeric embryos to be firmly and definitively condemned;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

2020/2129(INL)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 27

27. Is of the view that businesses have a responsibility to ensure that their activities do not undermine or harm the protection of human and environmental rights; insists they must not promote, participate or in any manner contribute to, or endorse policies and activities, which can lead to human rights violations; underlines that businesses must do everything possible, within their capacities, to prevent and mitigate the effect of adverse impacts; deplores, in this connection, the fact that companies promote surrogacy even though the practice is prohibited in the majority of European countries;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

2020/2129(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 28

28. Stresses that human rights impacts can be specific to certain rights holders and vulnerable groups due to intersecting factors such as ~~gender,~~ ethnicity, social and employment status, ~~migrant or refugee status,~~ exposure to conflict or violence or other factors; this must be reflected in the due diligence processes, including the human rights impact assessment phase and remedy procedures; stresses that, in accordance with the rights of persons, more specific and enhanced protection should be extended to certain categories of more vulnerable people, such as people with disabilities, the elderly and children;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

2020/2129(INL)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 29 a (new)

29a. Recalls that one of the first human rights is freedom of conscience; recalls that the right to conscientious objection must be protected, particularly in the area of health, and that no one may force an employee to act against his or her conscience;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

2020/2129(INL)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 36

36. In this context, underlines the importance of the freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, as well as free, prior and informed consent by indigenous communities, while respecting the political and legal sovereignty of the states concerned;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

2020/2129(INL)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 44

44. ~~Insist~~Stresses that, a~~ccess to evidence and time limitations can be major prac~~s with any essentical and procedural barriers faced by victims of human rights abuses in third countries, obstructing their access to effective legal remedies; stresses that that the burden of proof should be shifted from the victims to the company and that the legislation must require companies to disclose all necessary information for interested parties to engage in judicial proceedings and for victims to access remediesrule of criminal procedure, the burden of proof must lie with the applicant, not the defendant;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 10

— having regard to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the conventions, recommendations, resolutions and reports of the Parliamentary Assembly, the Committee of Ministers, the Human Rights Commissioner and the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe,deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 11

~~— having regard to the Memorandum of Understanding between the Council of Europe and the European Union of 23 May 2007,~~deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Nicolaus FEST, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Citation 12

~~— having regard to the Rule of Law Checklist adopted by the Venice Commission at its 106th Plenary Session on 18 March 2016,~~deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 13

~~— having regard to the Council of Europe’s toolkit for Member States “Respecting democracy, rule of law and human rights in the framework of the COVID-19 sanitary crisis” of 7 April 2020,~~deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Nicolaus FEST, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Citation 14

~~— having regard to the 2020 Annual Report by the partner organisations to the Council of Europe Platform to Promote the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists,~~deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 15

~~— having regard to the Commission communication of 17 July 2019 'Strengthening the rule of law within the Union - A blueprint for action' (COM(2019)0343),~~deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 16

— having regard to the Commission communication of 29 January 2020 containing the Commission Work Programme 2020 (COM(2020)0027) and the adjusted Commission Work Programme of 27 May 2020 (COM(2020)440),deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17

— having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2016 with recommendations to the Commission on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights1 , _________________ 1deleted OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 162.

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 18

— having regards to its resolution of 19 April 2018 on the need to establish a European Values Instrument to support civil society organisations which promote fundamental values within the European Union at local and national level2 , _________________ 2 OJ C 390, 18.11.2019, p. 117.deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 19

— having regard to its legislative resolution of 17 April 2019 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Rights and Values programme3 , _________________ 3 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0407.deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 20

— having regard to its resolution of 14 November 2018 on the need for a comprehensive EU mechanism for the protection of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights4 , _________________ 4 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0456.deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 21

~~— having regard to its resolution of 16 January 2019 on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union in 20175 , _________________ 5~~deleted Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0032.

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Nicolaus FEST, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Citation 22

— having regard to its resolution of 28 March 2019 on the situation of rule of law and fight against corruption in the EU, specifically in Malta and Slovakia6 _________________ 6 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0328.deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 23

~~— having regard to its resolution of 18 December 2019 on public discrimination and hate speech against LGBTI people, including LGBTI free zones7 , _________________ 7~~deleted Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0101.

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Nicolaus FEST, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Citation 24

— having regard to its resolution of 15 January 2020 on human rights and democracy in the world and the European Union’s policy on the matter – annual report 20188 , _________________ 8 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0007.deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 25

~~— having regard to its resolution of 16 January 2020 on ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) of the TEU regarding Poland and Hungary9 , _________________ 9~~deleted Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0014.

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Nicolaus FEST, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Citation 26

~~— having regard to its resolution of 17 April 2020 on EU coordinated action to combat the Covid-19 pandemic and its consequences10 , _________________ 10 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0054.~~deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Nicolaus FEST, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Citation 27

— having regard to the joint civil society organisation recommendations 'From blueprint to footprint: Safeguarding media freedom and pluralism through the European Rule of Law Mechanism' of April 2020,deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 28

~~— having regard to the report of the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions 'The Rule of Law in the European Union' of 11 May 2020,~~deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 29

— having regard to the Human Rights and Democracy Network Working Group on EU Internal Human Rights Policy’s submission of 4 May 2020 to the European Commission in the framework of the stakeholder consultation for the Rule of Law Report,deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 30

~~— having regard to its European added value assessment accompanying the legislative initiative report on an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights of October 2016,~~deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 31

~~— having regard to the Parliament’s Preliminary Assessment on the European added value of an EU mechanism on democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights of April 2020,~~deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 34

~~— having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0000/2020),~~deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
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 (TEU); ~~whereas those values are values which are common to the Member States and to which all Member States have freely subscribed;~~

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Nicolaus FEST, Annalisa TARDINO, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the preceding decade has seen brazen attacks against Union values in several Member States; whereas international comparisons and Parliament resolutions have evidenced considerable democratic backsliding in Hungary and Poland in particular; whereas Parliament has been calling since 2016 for a comprehensive, preventive and evidence-based monitoring in this field via an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights;deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Nicolaus FEST, Annalisa TARDINO, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas breaches of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU may weaken the cohesion of the ~~Europea~~Union project, the rights of all Union citizens and mutual trust among the Member States;

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Nicolaus FEST, Annalisa TARDINO, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the Commission ~~is preparing to publish an annual rule of law report, to be followed by a Strategy for the Implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and a European Democracy Action Pla~~has shown a tendency to instrumentalise the principle of the rule of law in an obviously politically driven fashion;

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Nicolaus FEST, Annalisa TARDINO, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas a regulation on the protection of the Union’s budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States~~, once adopted, would become an indispensable tool in saf~~ would raise serious concerns about the political use of such tools towards Member States which are not aligned with the Commission's political vision, particularly reguarding ~~the rule of law within the Union~~migration strategies;

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Nicolaus FEST, Annalisa TARDINO, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas any monitoring mechanism must closely involve stakeholders active in the protection and promotion of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, including civil society, Council of Europe and United Nations bodies, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, national human rights institutions, national parliaments and local authorities;

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

Fa. whereas many so-called civil society organisations allegedly dedicated to the protection and promotion of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are actually ultimately pursuing political goals and therefore should not be considered as legitimate and independent stakeholders and should not be eligible for Union funds; whereas the activities of those organisations can often be described as foreign political interference;

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas Parliament, the Commission and the Council share political responsibility for upholding Union values, within the limits of the powers conferred on them by the Treaties; whereas an interinstitutional agreement based on Article 295 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) would ensure the necessary arrangements to facilitate the cooperation of the three institutions in that regard; whereas, pursuant to Article 295 TFEU, any of the three institutions may propose such an agreement;

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~emphasises the urgent need for the Union to develop a robust and positive agenda for protecting and reinforcing~~recalls that democracy, and the rule of law a~~nd fundamental rights for all its citizens; insists that the Union must remain a champion of freedom and justice in Europe and the world~~re core components of the European civilization; stresses that these concepts are protean and can have different yet legitimate acceptations;

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Nicolaus FEST, Annalisa TARDINO, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. regrets the growing and concerning use of the procedure provided for in Article 7 TEU for political and ideological purposes;

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Nicolaus FEST, Annalisa TARDINO, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. warns that ~~the Union is~~Member States are facing an unprecedented and escalating ~~crisis of its founding values,~~migration crisis which threatens ~~its~~the long- term survival as a democratic peace project; is gravely concerned by the rise and entrenchment of autocratic and illiberal tendencies, further compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic and economic recession, as well as corruption and state capture, in several Member States; underlines the dangers of this trend for the cohesion of the Union’s legal order, the functioning of its single market, the effectiveness of its common policies and its international credibilityof their identities, traditions and common civilization;

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Nicolaus FEST, Annalisa TARDINO, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. recognises that the Union remains structurally ill-equipped to tackle democratic and rule of law backsliding in the Member States; regrets the inability of the Council to make meaningful progress in enforcing Union values in ongoing Article 7 TEU procedures; notes with concern the disjointed nature of the Union’s toolkit in that fieldalready interferes with national policies on the alleged ground of democratic and rule of law backsliding in the Member States; believes that the Council is adequately enforcing Union values in ongoing Article 7 TEU procedures and insists that open procedures should be concluded shortly;

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Nicolaus FEST, Annalisa TARDINO, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~welcomes~~takes note of the Commission’s work on the Annual Rule of Law Report; notes, however, that it fails to encompass the areas of democracy and fundamental rights; reiterates the need for a comprehensive monitoring mechanism enshrined in a legal act binding Parliament, the Council and the Commission to a transparent and regularised process, with clearly defined responsibilities, so that the protection and promotion of Union values becomes a permanent and visible part of the Union agendareiterates that a monitoring mechanism enshrined in a legal act binding Parliament, the Council and the Commission would be disproportionate and undemocratic as rule of law cannot be evaluated with quantitative indicators;

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Nicolaus FEST, Annalisa TARDINO, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~proposes~~rejects the proposal for the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (the ‘Mechanism’), building on Parliament’s 2016 proposal and the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report, to be governed by an interinstitutional agreement between Parliament, the Council and the Commission, consisting of an Annual Monitoring Cycle on Union values, covering all aspects of Article 2 TEU, and applying equally, objectively and fairly to all Member States;

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Nicolaus FEST, Annalisa TARDINO, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. underlines that the Annual Monitoring Cycle must contain country- specific recommendations, with timelines and targets for implementation, to be followed up in subsequent annual or urgent reports; stresses that failures to implement the recommendations must be linked to concrete Union enforcement measures;deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Nicolaus FEST, Annalisa TARDINO, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. points out that the Mechanism should consolidate and supersede existing instruments, in particular the Annual Rule of Law Report, the Commission’s Rule of Law Framework, the Council’s Rule of Law Dialogue and the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), while increasing complementarity and coherence with other available tools, including infringement procedures under Article 7 TEU, budgetary conditionality once in force, and the European Semester; is of the opinion that the Annual Monitoring Cycle can fulfil the objectives of the CVM for Bulgaria and Romania, thus contributing to equal treatment of all Member States; considers that the three institutions should use the findings from the Annual Monitoring Cycle in their assessment for the purposes of triggering Article 7 TEU and Regulation (EU) 2020/xxxx of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the Union's budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States11 ; _________________ 11[instead of xxxx insert final number of 2018/136(COD) in the text and correct OJ reference in footnote] OJ C ..., ....., p. ....deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Nicolaus FEST, Annalisa TARDINO, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. recalls the indispensable role played by civil society, national human rights institutions and other relevant actors in all stages of the Annual Monitoring Cycle, from providing input to facilitating implementation; points out that the accreditation status of national human rights institutions and the space for civil society may themselves serve as indicators for assessment purposes; considers that national parliaments must hold public debates and adopt positions on the outcome of the monitoring cycle;deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. reaffirms the limited role of Parliament, in accordance with Article 7 TEU, in monitoring compliance with Union values; reiterates the call for Parliament to be present in Article 7 hearings when it is Parliament that initiated the procedure; believes that the Mechanism, underpinned by an interinstitutional agreement, will provide the necessary framework for better coordination;

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. is of the view that, in the long- term, strengthening the Union’s ability to promote and defend its constitutional core will require Treaty change; looks forward to the reflection and conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe in that regard;deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Nicolaus FEST, Annalisa TARDINO, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. strongly believes that addressing the crisis of Union values, including through the proposed Mechanism, is a precondition for re-establishing mutual trust among Member States, thus enabling the Union as a whole to sustain and further all common policies;deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. invites the Commission and the Council to ~~enter without delay into~~decline any request for negotiations with Parliament on an interinstitutional agreement in accordance with Article 295 TFEU; ~~considers the proposal set out in the Annex hereto to constitute an appropriate basis for such negotiations;~~

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I

~~[...]~~deleted

2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2042(INI)

Annalisa TARDINO, Nicolas BAY, Mara BIZZOTTO, Silvia SARDONE, Jaak MADISON

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas ~~climate change and consequential natural disasters have become common drivers of migration, which will be further exacerbated as the climate crisis worsen~~there is recent scientific proof that natural disasters are not being exacerbated by climate change; whereas all the predictions about ‘climate refugees’ have so far been disproven by the facts, as have very many others about the effects of climate change, due to the use of unreliable models and unlikely scenarios;

2020/09/08
Committee: LIBE

2020/2042(INI)

Annalisa TARDINO, Nicolas BAY, Mara BIZZOTTO, Silvia SARDONE, Peter KOFOD, Jaak MADISON

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas ~~climate-induced migration is strongly related to other factors, including poverty, since when a country lacks the appropriate resources to~~in non-industrialised societies, environmental factors, as well as the lack of economic resources and appropriate infrastructure for adapting to climate change, ~~this can aggravate poverty and force people to move; whereas climate~~may still be a reason for emigration which, inter alia, chan~~ge is an important risk multiplier for conflict, drought, famine and migration~~ aggravate the risk of conflicts with neighbouring populations on account of resource grabbing;

2020/09/08
Committee: LIBE

2020/2042(INI)

Annalisa TARDINO, Nicolas BAY, Mara BIZZOTTO, Silvia SARDONE, Peter KOFOD, Jaak MADISON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that climate migration does not requires a specific normative framework ~~to bridge existing~~for humanitarian protection, g~~aps, via various and complementary methods; highlights the definition of climate migration offered by the IOM~~iven that such kind of migration is fully covered by the criteria of economic migration;

2020/09/08
Committee: LIBE

2020/2042(INI)

Annalisa TARDINO, Nicolas BAY, Mara BIZZOTTO, Silvia SARDONE, Jaak MADISON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Deplores the fact that, while climate migration is a reality that is set to intensify, people who move for long-term, climate change-related reasons have no effective access to protection in the EU; calls on the Member States and the Commission to put in place protection pathways, which include promoting humanitarian visas, temporary protection, authorisation to stay, and regional and bilateral free movement agreements; proposes that a climate passport be issued to persons coming from a country, or part of it, that will become uninhabitable due to climate change as a way to offer them protection from vulnerability and statelessness; proposes that any change in the environment due to climate change be explicitly listed among eligibility criteria for humanitarian protection; calls on the Commission and Member States to put forward such proposals in international forums, in parallel to other EU initiativesReiterates that under international law, emigration on economic grounds does not, by itself, grant the right to humanitarian protection or asylum in a third country; stresses, furthermore, that because ‘climate migration’ as a concept is extremely vague, it is a source for abuse of the humanitarian protection offered by developed countries; reminds the Member States and the Commission that ever vaguer eligibility criteria for humanitarian protection will create ever more incentives for immigration-related illegal commerce, starting with human trafficking;

2020/09/08
Committee: LIBE

2020/2042(INI)

Annalisa TARDINO, Nicolas BAY, Mara BIZZOTTO, Silvia SARDONE, Jaak MADISON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls for the effective implementation of the Global Compact on Refugees, to ensure more effective protection, via complementary pathways and appropriate financing, for persons displaced by the consequences of climate change or natural disasters;deleted

2020/09/08
Committee: LIBE

2020/2042(INI)

Annalisa TARDINO, Nicolas BAY, Mara BIZZOTTO, Silvia SARDONE, Jaak MADISON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Highlight~~Notes that the Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration ~~identifies~~suggests that climate change ~~as a driver of migration and urges countries to introduce channels and to plan for people who move due to natural disasters and climate change~~could be one of the drivers of migration;

2020/09/08
Committee: LIBE

2020/2042(INI)

Annalisa TARDINO, Nicolas BAY, Mara BIZZOTTO, Silvia SARDONE, Jaak MADISON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the ~~Commission to enhance and better~~Member States to coordinate ~~less~~ restrictive legal channels for third-country workers and their families~~, which would include mobility schemes and preferential access for workers coming from a country, or part of it, affected by climate change~~;

2020/09/08
Committee: LIBE

2020/2042(INI)

Annalisa TARDINO, Nicolas BAY, Mara BIZZOTTO, Silvia SARDONE, Jaak MADISON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Underlines the ruling of the UN Human Rights Committee of 20 January 2020, which states that countries may not deport individuals facing climate change- induced conditions that violate the right to life; calls on the Member States to consider the risk of violations of the right to life due to climate change as part of their return decisions, notably triggering non-refoulement obligations;deleted

2020/09/08
Committee: LIBE

2020/2042(INI)

Annalisa TARDINO, Nicolas BAY, Mara BIZZOTTO, Silvia SARDONE, Peter KOFOD, Jaak MADISON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that, as part of the reform of the Union’s Migration and Asylum Policy, ~~a comprehensive framework should be established~~there is no need to establish a specific regulatory framework, which includes climate change -induced migration and displacement ~~as core part of this process.~~;

2020/09/08
Committee: LIBE

2020/2041(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that the issue of migration must be prioritised, particularly in view of the latest figures published by FRONTEX2a which show a very slight drop in numbers of arrivals despite this being during a serious health crisis, leading logically to an expectation that migration flows will increase or even explode in the future; reiterates that in a context in which more than half of all asylum applications in the EU are rejected in a final court decision3~~; takes the view, therefore, that we must~~, we must therefore focus on making returns more effective by signing readmission agreements and issuing consular laissez- passers; _________________ 2ahttps://frontex.europa.eu/media- centre/news-release/situation-at-eu- external-borders-in-may-detections- rebound-from-record-lows-M5smNj 3 Source: EUROSTAT

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2041(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Points out that 17% of the world's population, namely 1.3 billion people, live at present in Africa; notes that according to forecasts, the population of sub- Saharan Africa is projected to double by 2050 and that more than half of global population growth by 2050 is expected to occur in Africa3 a ; _________________ 3ahttps://www.un.org/en/sections/issues- depth/population/index.html

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2041(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Calls on the EU and the Member States to take account of these demographic facts in policies in order to prepare for the unavoidable future migration crisis;

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2041(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls for the idea of mandatory solidarity in receiving and allocating migrants among Member States, due to figure in the next pact on migration and asylum, to be dropped and for the ban on the principle of mass regularisation by Member States to be included therein;

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2041(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Calls on the EU and the Member States to make aid granted to African countries conditional upon agreements on the effective readmission of all illegal immigrants present in the EU who are eligible for return;

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2041(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for the security, European identity and interests of the European continent and its citizens to be taken into account.

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2041(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Calls for cooperation between the EU, the Member States and the African States to be developed even more and for a massive increase in resources for controlling the external and internal borders to stop the movement of populations towards Europe;

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2041(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that the EU is among the first to bear the costs of ~~all destructive policies employed against African nations~~development aid to Africa whose long-term impact has been limited and even damaging, while other players~~, especially~~ such as China and Russia, are focused onprimarily on their own ~~benefits at the expense of African sovereignty and European security~~interests; urges the European Union and its Member States to change strategy and copy them;

2020/07/02
Committee: AFET

2020/2041(INI)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY, Susanna CECCARDI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Shares the opinion that the matter of the security of Africa should eventually be transferred into the hands of Africans ~~and that the EU should assist its African partners in the successful accomplishment of this ultimate goal.~~; notes that in order to achieve this goal a transitional phase is needed requiring increased investment by the African States themselves and greater support for states such as France that make a substantial contribution to African security and hence to the security of the EU and its Member States;

2020/07/02
Committee: AFET

2020/2023(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

~~A. whereas the EU mandate, adopted by the Council on 25 February, lays the groundwork for a comprehensive new partnership forming a coherent structure and an overall governance framework;~~deleted

2020/05/28
Committee: AFET INTA

2020/2023(INI)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY, Susanna CECCARDI

~~E. whereas the future agreement should be embedded in an overall governance framework and whereas the Court of Justice of the EU should be the sole body responsible for interpreting EU law;~~deleted

2020/2023(INI)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Anna BONFRISCO, France JAMET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Points out that, at all events, there must be agreement as soon as possible on fishery provisions so that they are introduced right from the first post- transition period year;

2020/05/28
Committee: AFET INTA

2020/2023(INI)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY, Anna BONFRISCO, Susanna CECCARDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 – point vii

(vii) there should be opportunities for access to public procurement markets beyond WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) commitments, guaranteeing market access for EU companies in strategic sectors at all levels of government and a degree of openness equal to the EU’s public procurement markets; regrets the fact, in this regard, that the UK’s initial negotiating position does not cover public procurementstates must be able to favour domestic or EU enterprises as regards government procurement access;

2020/05/28
Committee: AFET INTA

2020/2023(INI)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY, Anna BONFRISCO, Susanna CECCARDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 – point xi

(xi) in order to safeguard financial and regulatory stability and to ensure the full respect of the EU regulatory regime and standards and their application, prudential carve-out and limitations in the cross- border provisions of financial services are a customary feature of EU trade agreements ~~and~~, should be included in this one and should be expandable where a Member State so requests;

2020/05/28
Committee: AFET INTA

2020/2023(INI)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY, Anna BONFRISCO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 – point xii

(xii) ambitious provisions allowing for the development of digital trade, and to address unjustified barriers to trade by electronic means, and ensure an open, secure and trustworthy online environment for businesses and consumers, and regulating cross-border data flows, including principles such as fair competition and ambitious rules for cross- border data transfers, in full compliance with, and without prejudice to, the EU’s current and future data protection and privacy rules; calls on the Commission to state what its position is on the numerous sites located in Gibraltar, to do with on- line gambling in particular, which pose a serious threat to the gambling and betting sector in the EU Member States and, as far as many of them are concerned, fail to provide basic security guarantees;

2020/05/28
Committee: AFET INTA

2020/2023(INI)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY, Anna BONFRISCO, Susanna CECCARDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 – point xiii

(xiii) as the FTA would lead to customs checks and verification as soon as goods start entering into the single market, affecting global supply chains and manufacturing processes, customs authorities should be strengthened both with regard to personnel and technical equipment, in order to cope with their additional tasks; accordingly, Member States must be able to freely carry out the necessary checks; the operational procedures of the FTA must be aimed at preserving the rules of the Union’s single market for goods and integrity of the customs union, inter alia by establishing a timely and efficient working arrangement between the EU and the UK in this area; it is of utmost importance to safeguard the compliance of the goods with single market rules;

2020/05/28
Committee: AFET INTA

2020/2023(INI)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY, Anna BONFRISCO, Susanna CECCARDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. ~~Regrets the fact~~Notes that the UK negotiating objectives published on 27 February stated that foreign policy will be determined within a framework of broader friendly dialogue and cooperation between the UK and the EU;

2020/05/28
Committee: AFET INTA

2020/2023(INI)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY, Susanna CECCARDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Deplores the fact that the UK is showing no ambition for relations with the EU in the field of foreign policy, security and defence and that these were explicitly not covered by the UK mandate and therefore do not form part of the 11 negotiating tables;deleted

2020/05/28
Committee: AFET INTA

2020/2023(INI)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY, Anna BONFRISCO, Susanna CECCARDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Recalls that ~~both the EU and the UK share principles, values and~~the Member States and the UK share interests and a commitment to promoting global prosperity, security and effective multilateralism; stresses that it is in ~~both sides’~~the interests of all to maintain an ambitious, close and lasting cooperation that serves the security of Europe and its citizens and contributes to ~~global~~ stability~~, the protection of human rights and peace in line with the objectives and principles set out in Article 21 of the TEU~~ and peace;

2020/05/28
Committee: AFET INTA

2020/2023(INI)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY, Anna BONFRISCO, Susanna CECCARDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Underlines the fact that the ~~EU i~~Member States anre important partners for the UK in foreign and security policy~~, as the need for common responses to address foreign, security and defence policy challenges is crucial to both sides~~; encourages the exchange of information and intelligence as well as close cooperation in the areas of illegal immigration, counter-terrorism, space policy, cyberwarfare and chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) defence;

2020/05/28
Committee: AFET INTA

2020/2023(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Considers that it is in the common interest of the UK and the EU to cooperate on the development of effective and genuinely interoperable defence capabilities, including within the European Defence Agency, and to continue the highly valuable partnerships within NATO and EU programmes on defence and exthe Member States and the UK should be able, where appropriate, to establish partnerships through inter-state bilateral and multilaternal ~~security, such as the European Defence Fund, Galileo and~~frameworks for defence policy, cyber-security and satellite programmes;

2020/05/28
Committee: AFET INTA

2020/2023(INI)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY, Anna BONFRISCO, Susanna CECCARDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Recalls that a number of restrictive measures (sanctions regimes) are currently in force in the UK under EU legislation; underlines the fact that the UK will still be bound to apply UN sanctions regimes following its withdrawal; calls for the establishment of a proper coordination mechanism for sanctions between both parties in order to maximise their impact and to ensure convergence and that mutual interests are pursued and met in the promotion of common values;deleted

2020/05/28
Committee: AFET INTA

2020/2023(INI)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Encourages the UK to participate in EU crisis management operations and in CSDP missions and operations, through the signing of a framework participation agreement, as well as in projects under Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), with the corresponding rights and obligations of third countries and based on effective reciprocity;deleted

2020/05/28
Committee: AFET INTA

2020/2023(INI)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Points out that the entire Agreement with the UK as a third country, including provisions on the level playing field, should include the establishment of a coherent and solid governance system as an overarching framework, covering the joint continuous supervision and management of the Agreement as well as dispute settlement and enforcement mechanisms with sanctions and interim measures where necessary with respect to the interpretation and application of the Agreement’s provisions; stresses that this governance system must be placed under the control of the Council;

2020/05/28
Committee: AFET INTA

2020/2023(INI)

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY, Anna BONFRISCO, Susanna CECCARDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34

34. Emphasises that the Agreement in its entirety should be covered by provisions on civil society dialogue, stakeholder involvement and consultation by both parties; insists on the establishment of domestic advisory groups supervising the implementation of the Agreement;deleted

2020/05/28
Committee: AFET INTA

2020/2012(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights that, based on a human-centric approach, the Union follows a path of responsibility, of protecting our citizens, and of defending our values, whilst seizing the opportunities that those technologies offer;deleted

2020/05/11
Committee: AFET

2020/2012(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that for any defence application of AI enabled systems, the ~~Union~~Member States should set technical and organisational standards to ensure their resilience against cyber-attacks and digital influence, as well as their compliance with the highest possible trustworthiness standards as regards the collection and exploitation of operational data;

2020/05/11
Committee: AFET

2020/2012(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Stresses the need to overcome the current fragmentation within the Union as regards national AI-related law, research, innovation and expertise in the area of AI, which puts in jeopardy the internal market and the objective to ensure trustworthy and secure development of AI in Europe; in this respect welcomes the inclusion of AI- related projects under the European Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP); believes that the future European Defence Fund (EDF) and the Permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) also offer well adapted frameworks for future AI-related projects that would help to better streamline Union efforts in this field;deleted

2020/05/11
Committee: AFET

2020/2004(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital N

N. whereas the worsening of the global security environment is further exacerbated by growing mistrust among states and nations, and the modernisation of arsenals has been advanced by new technologies that increase global security risks, in particular in relation with possible cyberattacks against nuclear weapons, their command, control and early warning systems, as well as by an increasing role of nuclear weapons in national policies, strategies and doctrines; whereas some states are pursuing nuclear weapons that allow for battlefield use;deleted

2020/01/29
Committee: AFET

2020/2004(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital U

U. whereas the ‘stepping stone’ approach, presented by Sweden, introduces incremental, more easily achievable steps in four main areas aimed at building habits of cooperation, reducing the salience of nuclear weapons, enhancing transparency and reducing nuclear risks, which would allow for the existing disarmament objectives to be fulfilled;deleted

2020/01/29
Committee: AFET

2020/2004(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point u

(u) uphold the ‘stepping-stone approach’ proposal put forward by Sweden with the aim of building political support for pragmatic, short-term, achievable commitments to the global disarmament regime, the overall goal of which is to rebuild trust and confidence; support measures focused on reducing the salience of nuclear weapons; enhance habits of cooperation among states; reduce nuclear risks; and enhance transparency, as intermediate steps towards facilitating the fulfilment of existing obligations by state parties;deleted

2020/01/29
Committee: AFET

2020/2004(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point aa

(aa) reaffirm the EU’s continuing commitment to the JCPOA as the best possible means for obtaining assurances of an exclusively peaceful use of nuclear energy by Iran, and as a vital tool for enhancing stability and security in the Middle East; reiterate the EU’s regret over the withdrawal by the US from the JCPOA and the re-impositions of sanctions; call on Iran to return to full compliance with its nuclear-related commitments under the JCPOA and the NPT; call upon the United States to reconsider its position on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) relating to Iran’s nuclear programme, resume its role as a party to the JCPOA and work together with the five other partners to fully implement the Vienna agreement;

2020/01/29
Committee: AFET

2020/2004(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls its commitment to the sovereignty of States; considers that, while non-proliferation is desirable, only States can decide whether they wish to opt for total nuclear disarmament;

2020/01/29
Committee: AFET

2020/2002(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas poverty and insecurity feed off each other ~~and push young people to migrate to Europe in search of a better life,~~, thereby increasing the migratory pressure on Europe and putting its way of life in jeopardy, and whereas emigration from Africa impoverish~~ing~~es African states by depriving them of their best human resources;

2020/05/07
Committee: AFET

2020/2002(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas the EU is also supporting the establishment and operationalisation of the G5 Sahel Joint Force, operating in a region of intense Islamist activity where France, which has been heavily involved since 2012 and has suffered many military casualties, has been given no more than symbolic support by the other Member States;

2020/05/07
Committee: AFET

2020/2002(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas after years of involvement in the above-mentioned civil and military missions, the general situation has become worse and worse and a new and comprehensive strategy therefore needs to be implemendeleted;

2020/05/07
Committee: AFET

2020/2002(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

~~1. Considers that the European Union must coordinate the development and security initiatives in which it is involved as part of an integrated strategy;~~deleted

2020/05/07
Committee: AFET

2020/2002(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – introductory part

5. Considers that the sustainability and effectiveness of EU civilian and military missions in Africa have been hampered by the lack of basic equipment in the countries affected and that it is therefore necessary: that none of them takes place or is the subject of a media communication without their appropriations being properly planned and budgeted;

2020/05/07
Committee: AFET

2020/2002(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point a

~~a) for the EU budget be large enough to effectively address the current challenges relating to training and military equipment (including weapons, munitions and transport);~~deleted

2020/05/07
Committee: AFET

2020/2002(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point b

~~b) to adapt the APF in order to overcome the current limitations on the acquisition of arms and munitions;~~deleted

2020/05/07
Committee: AFET

2020/2002(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Agrees to apply to existing training programmes the same facilities for the procurement of military equipment, including weapons, as those currently provided for the deployment and training of the G5 Sahel force, including financial support if needed;deleted

2020/05/07
Committee: AFET

2020/2002(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 – point a

(a) harmonising training methods and rules of procedure and engagement ~~and ensuring they are unique~~;

2020/05/07
Committee: AFET

2020/2002(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Stresses that coordination with the countries of North Africa is desirable as well as an effective contribution to peace and reconciliation in Libya in order to prevent it from becoming a hotspot for the spread of jihadism, arms and human traffickingthe chaos in Libya, the advances made by political Islamism in North Africa and the lack of a relationship of trust with the Algerian regime are a breeding ground for jihadism and trafficking (particularly of humans) and complicate the fight against terrorist groups. Regrets the fact that the initiatives developed by the Kingdom of Morocco for improved cooperation have not been matched by its neighbours;

2020/05/07
Committee: AFET

2020/2002(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 – introductory part

25. Considers that the development of Africa ~~should be focused on:~~is necessary for the African people, so that EU Member States are no longer inundated by the waves of migrants threatening them and so that African societies can fight against Islamism with their own resources;

2020/05/07
Committee: AFET

2020/2002(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 – point a

~~a) consolidating democracy by ensuring a real parliamentary system, guaranteeing all civil society liberties;~~deleted

2020/05/07
Committee: AFET

2020/2002(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 – point b

~~b) empowering women by recognising their role as the centre of gravity of African families and promoting their participation in local and national institutions;~~deleted

2020/05/07
Committee: AFET

2020/2002(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 – point c

~~c) providing basic services such as health and education to increase people’s confidence in the state;~~deleted

2020/05/07
Committee: AFET

2020/2002(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 – point d

d~~) ensuring administrative and legal stability and fighting poverty and corruption;~~eleted

2020/05/07
Committee: AFET

2020/2002(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Considers it essential ~~to provide extraordinary assistance to the regions concerned in view of~~, since Europe is mired in economic crisis, to make the granting of aid to States addressing the extraordinary challenge presented by the COVID-19 pandemic contingent on the acceptance of other measures, in particular in the area of controls on immigration and the granting of visas to their nationals illegally resident in the EU;

2020/05/07
Committee: AFET

2020/0278(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)

(1a) However, it must be noted that there are no effective external borders, which are a prerequisite to the establishment and proper functioning of the Schengen area, and that migrant routes are used by terrorists.

2022/01/26
Committee: LIBE

2020/0278(COD)

Peter KOFOD, Jaak MADISON, Laura HUHTASAARI, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Nicolaus FEST, Roman HAIDER, Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Annalisa TARDINO, Charlie WEIMERS

Proposal for a regulation
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, whether purposely or not, 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.

2022/01/26
Committee: LIBE

2020/0278(COD)

Peter KOFOD, Jaak MADISON, Laura HUHTASAARI, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Nicolaus FEST, Roman HAIDER, Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY, Annalisa TARDINO

Proposal for a regulation
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~~efficiently and promptly refer them 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.

2022/01/26
Committee: LIBE

2020/0278(COD)

Peter KOFOD, Jaak MADISON, Laura HUHTASAARI, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Nicolaus FEST, Roman HAIDER, Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY, Annalisa TARDINO, Charlie WEIMERS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4

(4) Border control is in the interest not only of the Member States at whose external borders it is carried out but of all Member States which have abolished internal border control. Border control should ~~help to~~primarily combat illegal migration and trafficking of human beings and to prevent any threat to the Member States’ internal security, public policy, public health and international relations. As such, measures taken at the external borders are important elements of ~~a comprehensive approach to migration, allowing to address the challenge of mixed flows of migrants and persons seeking international protection~~ensuring safety of the Member States.

2022/01/26
Committee: LIBE

2020/0278(COD)

Peter KOFOD, Jaak MADISON, Laura HUHTASAARI, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Nicolaus FEST, Roman HAIDER, Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY, Charlie WEIMERS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5

(5) In accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, border control consists of border checks carried out at the border crossing points and border surveillance, which is carried out between the border crossing points, in order to prevent third-country nationals from illegally circumventing border checks. In accordance with Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 a person who has crossed a border in an unauthorised manner 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. In accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, border control should be carried out without prejudice to the rights of refugees and persons requesting international protection, in particular as regards non- refoulement.

2022/01/26
Committee: LIBE

2020/0278(COD)

Peter KOFOD, Jaak MADISON, Laura HUHTASAARI, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Nicolaus FEST, Roman HAIDER, Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY, Annalisa TARDINO, Charlie WEIMERS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6

(6) Border guards are often confronted with third-country nationals who are requesting international protection without travel documents or any other documents supporting their claims, both following apprehension during border surveillance and during checks at the border crossing points. Moreover, at some border sections the border guards are confronted with large numbers of arrivals at the same time. In such circumstances, it is particularly difficult to ensure that all relevant databases are consulted and to immediately determine the appropriate asylum or return procedure.

2022/01/26
Committee: LIBE

2020/0278(COD)

Peter KOFOD, Jaak MADISON, Laura HUHTASAARI, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Nicolaus FEST, Roman HAIDER, Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY, Annalisa TARDINO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7

(7) In order to ensure a swift and efficient 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.

2022/01/26
Committee: LIBE

2020/0278(COD)

Peter KOFOD, Annalisa TARDINO, Jaak MADISON, Laura HUHTASAARI, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Nicolaus FEST, Roman HAIDER, Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY, Charlie WEIMERS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8

(8) ~~In particular, the s~~Screening should help to ensure that the third-country nationals concerned are referred to the appropriate procedures at the earliest stage possible and that the procedures are continued without interruption and delay. ~~At the same time~~In particular, the screening should help to counter the practice whereby some applicants for international protection abscond after having been authorised to enter the territory of a Member State based on their request for international protection, in order to pursue such requests in another Member State or not at all.

2022/01/26
Committee: LIBE

2020/0278(COD)

Peter KOFOD, Jaak MADISON, Laura HUHTASAARI, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Nicolaus FEST, Roman HAIDER, Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY, Annalisa TARDINO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

(9) With regard to those persons who apply for international protection, the screening ~~should~~may be followed by an examination of the need for international protection. It ~~should~~may allow to collect and share with the authorities competent for that examination any information that is relevant for the latter to identify the appropriate procedure for the examination of the application, ~~thus~~if that would allow for speeding up that examination. The screening should also ensure that persons with special needs are identified at an early stage, so that any special reception and procedural needs are ~~fully~~ taken into account in the determination of and the pursuit of the applicable procedure.

2022/01/26
Committee: LIBE

2020/0278(COD)

Peter KOFOD, Laura HUHTASAARI, Jaak MADISON, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Nicolaus FEST, Roman HAIDER, Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY, Charlie WEIMERS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10

(10) The obligations stemming from this Regulation should be without prejudice to the provisions concerning responsibility for examining an application for international protection regulated in Regulation (EU) No XX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management Regulation] if it is not hampering the security of the external borders.

2022/01/26
Committee: LIBE

2020/0278(COD)

Peter KOFOD, Jaak MADISON, Laura HUHTASAARI, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Nicolaus FEST, Roman HAIDER, Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY, Annalisa TARDINO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11

(11) This Regulation should apply to third-country nationals and stateless persons who are apprehended in connection with the unauthorised or illegal 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

2022/01/26
Committee: LIBE

2020/0278(COD)

Peter KOFOD, Jaak MADISON, Laura HUHTASAARI, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Nicolaus FEST, Roman HAIDER, Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY, Annalisa TARDINO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12

(12) The screening should always be conducted at or in proximity to the external border, before the persons concerned are authorised to enter the territory. The Member States should apply measures pursuant to national law to prevent the persons concerned from entering the territory during the screening. ~~In individual cases, w~~Where required, this may include detention, subject to the national law regulating that matter.

2022/01/26
Committee: LIBE

2020/0278(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12 a (new)

(12a) Third-country nationals wanting to come to the European Union could also be screened in the Member States' representations abroad.

2022/01/26
Committee: LIBE

2020/0278(COD)

Peter KOFOD, Jaak MADISON, Laura HUHTASAARI, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Nicolaus FEST, Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY, Annalisa TARDINO, Charlie WEIMERS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13

(13) Wherever it becomes clear beyond any doubt during the screening that a third- country national subject to it fulfils the conditions of Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, the screening should end and the third-country national concerned should be authorised to enter the territory, without prejudice to the application of penalties as referred to in Article 5(3) of that regulation.

2022/01/26
Committee: LIBE

2020/0278(COD)

Peter KOFOD, Jaak MADISON, Laura HUHTASAARI, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Nicolaus FEST, Roman HAIDER, Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY, Charlie WEIMERS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17

(17) The screening could also be followed by relocation under the mechanism for solidarity established by Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management] where a Member State is contributing to solidarity on a voluntary basis or the applicants for international protection are not subject to the border procedure pursuant to Regulation (EU) No. XXX/XXX (Asylum Procedures Regulation), or under the mechanism addressing situations of crisis established by Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Regulation on situations of crisis].deleted

2022/01/26
Committee: LIBE

2020/0278(COD)

Peter KOFOD, Jaak MADISON, Laura HUHTASAARI, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Nicolaus FEST, Roman HAIDER, Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY, Annalisa TARDINO, Charlie WEIMERS

Proposal for a regulation
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~~should 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 even 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 clearly 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. 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.

2022/01/26
Committee: LIBE

2020/0278(COD)

Peter KOFOD, Jaak MADISON, Laura HUHTASAARI, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Nicolaus FEST, Roman HAIDER, Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY, Charlie WEIMERS

Proposal for a regulation
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 State. ~~Any extension of the 5 days’ time limit should be reserved for~~In exceptional situations at, the external borders, 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]limit can be extended if it is necessary for the proper conducting of the screening procedure.

2022/01/26
Committee: LIBE

2020/0278(COD)

Peter KOFOD, Jaak MADISON, Laura HUHTASAARI, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Nicolaus FEST, Roman HAIDER, Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY, Annalisa TARDINO, Charlie WEIMERS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20

(20) The Member States should determine appropriate locations for the screening at or in close proximity to the external border taking into account geography and existing infrastructures, ensuring that apprehended third-country nationals as well as those who present themselves at a border crossing point can be swiftly submitted to the screening. In any case, the persons under the screening procedure shall not be deemed to be on the territory of a Member State. The tasks related to the screening may be carried out in hotspot areas as referred to in point (23) of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council23 . _________________ 23 Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard, OJ L 295, 14.11.2019, p. 1.

2022/01/26
Committee: LIBE

2020/0278(COD)

Peter KOFOD, Jaak MADISON, Laura HUHTASAARI, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Nicolaus FEST, Roman HAIDER, Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22

(22) When conducting the screening, the competent authorities should comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and ensure the respect for human dignity and should not discriminate against persons on grounds of sex, racial, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinions, membership of a national minority, disability, age or sexual orientation. Particular attention should be paid to the best interests of the child.deleted

2022/01/26
Committee: LIBE

2020/0278(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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. The 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.deleted

2022/01/26
Committee: LIBE

Peter KOFOD, Jaak MADISON, Laura HUHTASAARI, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Nicolaus FEST, Roman HAIDER, Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY, Annalisa TARDINO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1

1. Third-country nationals submitted to the screening referred to in Article 3 shall be always subject to a preliminary medical examination with a view to identifying any needs for immediate 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.

2022/01/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/0278(COD)

Peter KOFOD, Jaak MADISON, Laura HUHTASAARI, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Nicolaus FEST, Roman HAIDER, Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY, Annalisa TARDINO, Charlie WEIMERS

2. Where relevant, it shall be checked whether persons referred to in paragraph 1 are in a vulnerable situation, victims of torture or have special reception or procedural needs ~~within the meaning of Article 20 of the [recast] Reception Conditions Directive~~.

2022/01/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/0278(COD)

Peter KOFOD, Jaak MADISON, Laura HUHTASAARI, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Nicolaus FEST, Roman HAIDER, Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Harald VILIMSKY, Charlie WEIMERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3

3. Where there are indications of vulnerabilities or special reception or procedural needs, the third-country national concerned ~~shall~~may receive ~~timely and adequate~~ support in view of their physical and mental health. ~~In the case of minors, support shall be given by personnel trained and qualified to deal with minors, and in cooperation with child protection authorities.~~

2022/01/27
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5

(5) This Regulation should contribute to and complete the comprehensive approach by setting out the specific procedures and mechanisms in the field of international protection and return that should apply in the exceptional circumstances of a situation of crisis. It should ensure, in particular, the effective application of the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility and the adaptation of the relevant rules on asylum and return procedures, so that the Member States and the Union have the necessary tools at their disposal including sufficient time to carry out those procedures.deleted

2022/01/28
Committee: LIBE

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Nicolaus FEST, Peter KOFOD, Mara BIZZOTTO, Annalisa TARDINO, Philippe OLIVIER

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the ~~twofold~~primary objective of the directive is effective return ~~in line with fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality; whereas in its recommendation on making returns more effective,~~; welcomes the Commission's focuses on the rate of returns as the primary indicator of the directive’s effectiveness;

2020/07/10
Committee: LIBE

16. Calls for greater coherence, consistency and complementarity between the EU’s external financing instruments and the CFSP to enable the European Union to tackle growing security and foreign policy challenges; considers that the simplified structure of external instruments proposed under the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument calls for proper checks and balances, a sufficient level of transparency, and strategic policy input and scrutiny of implementation by Parliament; stresses the need for efficient and adequate funding under the Instrument for Pre- accession Assistance for 2021-2027 (IPA III); highlights the role of the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP), particularly in supporting peace and stability around the world; expects a timely adoption of the post-2020 instruments, so as to avoid unnecessary funding gaps;deleted

2019/11/13
Committee: AFET

2019/2136(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Calls for the strengthening of ~~the EU’~~EU countries capacity to act autonomously in the area of security and defence; stresses that ~~efficient cooperation with partner organisations such as the UN or NATO is more vital than ever~~this autonomous action on security requires countries that are members of NATO to leave NATO’s Integrated Command;

2019/11/13
Committee: AFET

2019/2136(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

~~21. Welcomes the decision of the President of the Commission to build, within five years, a genuine European Defence Union;~~deleted

2019/11/13
Committee: AFET

2019/2136(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Recalls that Article 20(2) ~~of the TEU, which lays down provisions for enhanced cooperation, provides additional possibilities for Member States to move forward with the CFSP and should therefore be used~~TEU could allow for a strengthening of the CFSP, but that States would legitimately prefer to develop an independent foreign policy;

2019/11/13
Committee: AFET

2019/2136(INI)

Susanna CECCARDI, Nicolas BAY, Marco ZANNI, Thierry MARIANI, Jérôme RIVIÈRE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

~~24. Calls for stronger support to the EU maritime security strategy as freedom of navigation is an increasing challenge; insists that freedom of navigation must be respected at all times;~~deleted

2019/11/13
Committee: AFET

2019/2136(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Calls for stronger support to the EU maritime security strategy as freedom of navigation is an increasing challenge; insists that freedom of navigation must be respected at all times; nevertheless considers that priority should be given to the control of both people and goods;

2019/11/13
Committee: AFET

2019/2136(INI)

Susanna CECCARDI, Marco ZANNI, Thierry MARIANI, Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Nicolas BAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Calls for stronger support to the EU Member States ‘maritime security strategy ~~as freedom of navigation is an increasing challenge; insists that freedom of navigation must be respected at all times~~, because the defence of the European borders, in the respect of freedom of navigation is an increasing challenge;

2019/11/13
Committee: AFET

2019/2136(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

~~26. Promotes the boosting of the European Union’s strategic communication capabilities; calls, in that connection, for further support for the EEAS Strategic Communications Division;~~deleted

2019/11/13
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Notes the lasting deterioration in the Union’s strategic environment in the face of multiple challenges directly or indirectly affecting the security of its Member States and citizens: armed conflicts immediately to the east and south of the European continent, jihadist terrorism, cyber attacks, uncontrolled migration, increasing threats to natural resources, climate change, presence of foreign influence networks defending interests contrary to those of the Member States, etc.;

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. C~~onsiders~~riticises the fact that instability and unpredictability on the Union’s borders and in its immediate neighbourhood (north Africa, the Middle East, Ukraine, the Caucasus, the Balkans, etc.) pose a direct threat to the security of the continent; stresses the inextricable link between internal and external security; is concerned about some Member States' support for forces causing instability in the immediate neighbourhood (for example, the destruction of Libya, the destabilisation of Egypt and the severance of diplomatic relations with Syria);

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Deplores the fact that, in this context, some of these actors are deliberately circumventing or attempting to destroy the multilateral mechanisms essential to maintaining peace; criticises the fact that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on nuclear capacity in Iran has been abandoned, affecting the international credibility of multinational solutions to conflicts;

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes, in this adverse and volatile context, the belated but real recognition of shared security interests and the growing political will on the part of European countries ~~and the European institutions~~ to act collectively for their security by endowing themselves with greater means to act autonomously;

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Is convinced that the response to the ~~Union’s~~Member States' security challenges lies primarily in st~~rengthening its strategic autonomy~~epping up their cooperation; highlights the strategic instability caused by Turkish diplomacy; is concerned about the return of a number of jihadis to Member States and the Western Balkans;

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Notes that the ambition of achieving European strategic autonomy was recognised for the first time in June 2016 by the 28 Heads of State and Government in the ‘Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy’, presented by the Vice- President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) on 28 June 2016;deleted

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Considers that the principle of European strategic autonomy is based on the ability of the ~~Union~~Member States to strengthen ~~its~~their freedom to assess, take decisions and take action where circumstances so require in order to defend ~~its~~their interests ~~and values~~, which sometimes coincide;

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Considers, therefore, that European strategic autonomy is based, above all, on the ability of the Union to assess a crisis situation and take a decision autonomously, which necessarily entails an independent decision-making process, the availability of means of assessment and a freedom to analyse and take action; considers, also, that European strategic autonomy is based on the ability of the Union to act alone when its interests are at stake (theatres of operations not considered as priorities by its European partners) or within the framework of existing cooperation arrangements; considers, lastly, that European strategic autonomy is part of a multilateral framework which respects commitments within the UN and complements the (NATO) alliances and partnerships to which most Member States are signed up; stresses that strategic autonomy does not mean that the Union will systematically act alone, everywhere and always;deleted

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Considers that the affirmation of European strategic autonomy depends on the establishment of European defence cooperation in the technological, capability, industrial and operational fields; considers that only practical and flexible cooperation based on pragmatic initiatives will make it possible to gradually overcome the difficulties, forge a genuine common strategic culture and shape common responses tailored to the continent’s main security and defence issues; states that these collaborations must, above all, be part of an inter-state cooperation policy;

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Stresses that European strategic autonomy can only be genuinely achieved if Member States demonstrate ~~solidarity~~cooperation, which is reflected in particular in the ~~need~~capacity to prioritise the procurement of European capabilities where equipment is available and competitive; points out that the CJEU explicitly stated in its judgment of 10 March 2005 (Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union) that the concept of Community preference is a political principle rather than a legal principle and cannot therefore be used as a counter-argument against the free-trade dogma that the EU continues to impose; recognises the sovereignty of the Member States in their strategic and military choices, particularly with regard to supplying their armed forces with the requisite equipment;

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

~~15. Considers that Europe’s defence is based largely on the Union’s capacity to intervene militarily, in a credible manner, in external theatres of operations;~~deleted

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Notes that the Union currently has a presence on three continents through the deployment of 16 civilian or military missions (10 civilian and six military, of which three are executive and three are non-executive missions); recognises the contribution made by these missions to peace and international security and stability; ~~stresses that their implementation must be accompanied by an overhaul of the instruments laid down in the Lisbon Treaty and introduced in recent years, in order to make them more effective;~~

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Notes, however, that the effectiveness of CSDP missions and operations in general is being hampered by an increasing reluctance on the part of Member States and the European institutions to make such missions and operations more robust, both in terms of human resources and their mandates; noteswelcomes the fact that CSDP military operations increasingly tend to be based on armed forces training (EUTM), with no executive dimension;

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

~~22. Notes with concern that the effectiveness of the most recent CSDP civilian and military operations has been hampered by persistent structural weaknesses;~~deleted

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Deplores the lengthy decision- making and implementation processes; points out that very few recent military operations have been given an executive mandate because of the different speeds at which commitment decisions are made, and calls, in this connection, for changes to CSDP structures and procedures so that missions can be deployed in a more rapid, flexible and coherent manner; notes the use of a new crisis management tool – the launching of mini-missions under Article 28 TEU – with a view to responding to crises more quickly and flexibly;deleted

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Notes the decision of 26 September 2019 to extend the EU maritime operation in the Mediterranean (EUNAVFORMED Sophia) by six months to 31 March 2020; ~~deeply deplores the decision temporarily to suspend the naval~~stresses the urgent need to reach agreement among the Member States; calls for the operation to include the objective of presven~~ce; stresses the urgent need to reach agreement among the Member States and calls for the redeployment of naval assets and~~ting departures and, where necessary, repatriating migrants in their country of departure when it is not possible to repatriate them in their country of origin, as this is the only strategy that will dissuade people from leaving, tackle people-smuggling mafias and save lives; calls for a European 'No Way' policy to be introduced, fuoll ~~implementation of the mandate~~owing the Australian model, which has proved its worth;

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Supports the creation of the Military Planning and Conduct Capability (MPCC) for executive missions to enable all CSDP military operations to be carried out; calls for enhanced cooperation between the MPCC and the Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability; draws attention to the problems of recruitment and resource provision, which need to be overcome in order for the MPCC to be fully effective; calls on the EEAS to transform the MPCC from a virtual entity, with multiple-assignment posts, into a robust civilian-military entity which can plan and conduct operations;deleted

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33

33. Notes the failure of the Union’s battlegroup project; the battlegroups have never been deployed since their creation in 2007, owing in particular to ~~opposition on the part of all the Member States and~~ the complexity of their implementation and funding, which is at odds with the original objective of speed and efficiency;

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36

36. Expects the Union to make effective use of all existing CSDP policy instruments in the areas of diplomacy, cooperation, development, conflict management and peacekeeping; stresses that CSDP military and civilian instruments cannot, under any circumstances, be the only solution to security issues and that a ‘comprehensive approach’ should always be adopted; considers that only the use of all these instruments on the basis of a ‘comprehensive approach’ will provide the flexibility needed to effectively achieve the most ambitious security objectivesCalls for a common European security and defence policy to be based on cooperation among states, with decisions being taken solely on the basis of unanimity;

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39

39. Welcomes the recent efforts by the European institutions and the Member States, following on from the publication of the ‘EU Global Strategy’, to breathe new life into the hitherto virtual instruments of the CSDP and to fully implement the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty; stresses that these promising ambitions must now be consolidated and followed up with practical action so that they make an effective contribution to security on the European continent;deleted

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40

40. Notes ~~with satisfaction~~ the Commission’s proposal of 2 May 2018 to establish a EUR 13 billion budget line for defence in the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) under the heading of industrial policy; notes that this proposal, which reflects an unprecedented commitment by the Commission, remains subject to the unanimous agreement of the Member States in the next MFF; calls for the funds to be allocated to suitable but not necessarily military cooperation programmes (for example, programmes involving satellites or intelligence cooperation, or tackling cybercrime or terrorism);

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41

41. Welcomes the Commission’s proposal of June 2017 to create a European Defence Fund (EDF), which would foster cooperation between Member States and support the European defence industry; notes that this proposal is the first initiative for which Community funds are to be used in direct support of defence projects; recognises that this is a major step forward for European defence, from both a political and an industrial perspective; notes that the EDF could finance structural projects such as the future European aircraft or tank or a European anti-missile defence capability; notes that the 2019 work programme for the preparatory action will focus on electromagnetic spectrum dominance and future disruptive defence technologies, two key areas for maintaining Europe’s technological independence in the long term; welcomes, also, the adoption by the Commission in March 2019 of the first European Defence Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP) and the publication of nine calls for proposals for 2019, including for the Eurodrone, which is a key capability for Europe’s strategic autonomy; points out that 12 further calls for proposals will follow in 2020, covering priority areas in all domains (air, land, sea, cyber and space); notes the link between the procurement decisions taken today by the Member States and the prospects for industrial and technological cooperation under the EDF;deleted

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42

42. Welcomes the effective implementation of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) as an important step towards closer cooperation in security and defence among Member States; stresses that this provision, introduced in the 2009 Lisbon Treaty (Article 46 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), is legally binding and includes a set of ambitious commitments to enable European countries wishing to do so to move ahead faster on common defence projects; recognises the role that PESCO can play in structuring European demand; notes that a significant number of EDIDP-eligible projects are being developed within the PESCO framework and may also benefit from higher rates of subsidy; supports full consistency between PESCO projects and the EDF;deleted

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

43. Highlights the close link between PESCO, with the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD) launched in 2017, and the EDF for enhancing the Member States’ defence capabilities; stresses that new projects should be covered by the Capability Development Plan (CDP), which will serve to foster cooperation between Member States with a view to closing the capability gap through the work of the European Defence Agency; considers that the CARD should make an effective contribution to harmonising the investments and capabilities of national armed forces in an effective manner, guaranteeing the Union’s strategic and operational autonomy and allowing Member States to invest more efficiently in defence;deleted

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45

45. Questions the slow start-up of the 34 projects and the delays to the launch of a third wave of 13 projects, given that none are as yet up and running; notes that only four projects will reach their initial operational capacity in 2019; highlights the lack of ambition and scale of some projects, which do not address the most obvious capability gaps, particularly those in the first wave, which are primarily capability projects involving as many Member States as possible; notes that the desired inclusion of participation in PESCO projects should not jeopardise a high level of ambition on the part of the participating Member States; considers that third countries’ involvement should be subject to stringent conditions and based on established and effective reciprocity; calls on the Member States to submit projects with a strategic European dimension, thereby strengthening the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB), which is an essential part of the strategic autonomisation process and relates more to the operational side in order to respond directly to the operational needs of European armed forces;deleted

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46

46. Stresses the still virtual nature of the European Defence Fund; points out that that this instrument has not yet been finally approved, with only partial and political agreement having been given in April 2019; stresses the importance of maintaining Parliament’s position concerning the amount of the EDF, the involvement of third countries and the establishment of an appropriate intellectual property policy in relation to security and defence in order to protect research results; draws attention, in that connection, to the highly sensitive and strategic nature of defence research, both for industrial competitiveness and for the strategic autonomy of the Union; calls for the initial lessons learned from the implementation of the EDIDP (in particular concerning the application of derogations for eligible entities), the pilot project and the preparatory action on defence research to be properly taken into account; calls on the Member States to be fully involved in the decision-making process in order to avoid bureaucratic excesses and to ensure that the programmes included address the strategic needs of the CSDP and the Member States; considers that the success of the EDF will depend on its ability to cater for the specific defence needs of the participating states and to guarantee the availability of sufficient budgetary resources, whilst ensuring that industrial know-how is not duplicated, national defence investment is not crowded out and cooperation does not become over- complicated; considers that developing the European defence industry by regulating access for entities controlled by non-EU third parties to projects financed by the Fund is fully consistent with the European ambition of strategic autonomyCalls for the European Defence Fund, in its current configuration (i.e. under the exclusive control of the Commission), to be abolished and calls for it to be managed on a permanent basis by the Council, under the unanimity rule;

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49

49. Is convinced that the Union has a vital interest in creating a ~~safe and open~~ maritime environment which makes ~~for the free passage of~~it possible to monitor the transit of both goods and people more closely; notes that most of the strategic assets, critical infrastructure and capabilities are under the control of Member States and that their willingness to enhance cooperation is paramount for European security; reaffirms the Union’s role as a global maritime security provider, and stresses the importance of developing relevant military and civilian capabilities; welcomes in that connection the adoption of the revised EU Maritime Security Strategy Action Plan in June 2018;

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51

51. Welcomes efforts to strengthen the ~~Union’s~~Member States’ capacity to address ‘hybrid’ threats, which are combinations of ambiguous posturing, direct and indirect pressure and the involvement of military and non-military capabilities, and are just some of the range of internal and external security challenges facing the Union; notes the reflections on the triggering of the mutual assistance clause with regard to hybrid threats in order to provide the Union with an effective common response;

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52

52. Recognises the increasingly prominent role of artificial intelligence (AI) in European defence; notes, in particular, the many military applications stemming from AI for managing and simulating operational environments, assisting the decision-making process, detecting threats and processing intelligence; stresses that the development of reliable AI in the field of defence is essential for ensuring European strategic autonomy in capability and operational areas; calls on the Member States to cooperate to that end and calls on the Union to keep up its investment in this area and in particular in disruptive technologies through existing instruments (European Defence Fund, European Innovation Council, future Horizon Europe, Digital Europe programme);

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54

54. Stresses that the ambition of European strategic autonomy is based on the ability of Europeans to take action to defend their interests, either independently or within an in~~stitutional~~ter-country cooperation framework ~~(NATO, UN)~~;

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57

57. Draws attention to NATO’s fundamental role in collective defence, as explicitly recognised in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; believes that the EU-NATO partnership is essential for addressing the security challenges facing Europe and its neighbourhood; believes that EU-NATO cooperation should be complementary and takes full account of each of the two institution’s specific features and roleTakes the view that a genuine policy of independence for Europe would imply states that are signatories to the Washington Treaty leaving NATO; is keen for an alliance of European nations to be established to guarantee Europe’s security and the diplomatic and strategic independence of its members; calls for a strategic partnership to be established with Russia and the United States, based on the defence of the common interests of the European nations;

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60

60. Supports, in parallel with institutional cooperation and partnerships, the combining of different forms of flexible, multifaceted, open and, at the same time, operational, ambitious and demanding cooperation, both within and outside EU, NATO and UN structures, which could facilitate joint commitments in operations, thereby strengthening the Union’s operational strategic autonomy; stresses, in this connection, that examples of cooperation such as the European Intervention Initiative, the Nordic Defence Cooperation (NORDEFCO) and the increasing integration of the German and Dutch armed forces refelct this drive for closer military cooperation between Member States;deleted

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61

~~61. Considers that progress in 61. European defence will pave the way for major structural changes; notes the announcement of~~Opposes the creation of a Directorate-General for Defence and Space at the Commission under the responsibility of the Commissioner-designate for the Internal Market; notes that this new DG should be responsible for supporting, coordinating or complementing the Member States’ actions in the area of European defence and would thus contribute to strengthening European strategic autonomy; notes the definition of its five main tasks (implementation and oversight of the EDF, creation of an open and competitive European defence equipment market, implementation of the action plan on military mobility, enhancement of a strong and innovative space industry, implementation of the future space programme), but calls on the Commission to provide further details on the role and responsibilities of the new DG; Wonders how it will coordinate its work with that of other defence policy structures which have other responsibilities (EDA, EEAS, etc.);

2019/11/12
Committee: AFET

2019/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 a (new)

– having regard to Article 3 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights which affirms the prohibition on making the human body and its parts as such a source of financial gain,

2019/10/28
Committee: AFET

2019/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 a (new)

– having regard to Article 21 of the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedecine, known as the Oviedo Convention and entered into force on 1 December 1999, which prohibits the use of human body for financial gain,

2019/10/28
Committee: AFET

2019/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 12

– having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989 and in particular Article 7(1),

2019/10/28
Committee: AFET

2019/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 15

~~– having regard to the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 and 11 December 2018,~~deleted

2019/10/28
Committee: AFET

2019/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 16

~~– having regard to the Global Compact on Refugees, affirmed by the UN General Assembly on 17 December 2018,~~deleted

2019/10/28
Committee: AFET

2019/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 22 a (new)

– having regard to the EU Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World 2015 condemning all forms of gestational surrogacy,

2019/10/28
Committee: AFET

2019/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Expresses its deep concern at the escalation in attacks on democracy and the rule of law worldwide in 2018~~, which reflect the rise of authoritarianism as a political project~~ by consolidated totalitarian regimes, dictatorships and tyrannies, embodying disregard for human rights, repression of dissent, politicised justice and predetermined elections; is of the opinion that ~~countries falling into authoritarian regim~~the citizens of those countries become more vulnerable to instability, conflict, and to becoming the victims of corruption and violen~~t extremism~~ce; welcomes the fact that, at the same time, a number of countries have launched peace and democratisation processes, implemented constitutional and judicial reforms, and engaged with civil society in open and public debates with the objective of promoting fundamental freedoms and human rights, including the abolition of the death penalty;

2019/10/28
Committee: AFET

2019/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses the importance of advancing gender equality and women’s rights worldwide; emphasises that, in spite of progress, women and girls continue to suffer discrimination ~~and violence~~, violence and reproductive exploitation; stresses that many societies still struggle to provide women and girls with equal rights under the law and equal access to education, healthcare, respect of their intimacy and reproductive capacity which encompasses the condemnation of any forms of gestational surrogacy, decent work and political and economic representation;

2019/10/28
Committee: AFET

2019/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Draws attention to instances of persecution and discrimination based on ethnicity, nationality, class, caste, religion, belief, language, sex, sexual orientation and age, which remain rife in many countries and societies; is seriously concerned at the increasingly intolerant and hate-filled responses targeting people who are the victims of these human rights violations;

2019/10/28
Committee: AFET

2019/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Notes that the number of persons forcibly displaced in 2018 exceeded 70 million, of whom 26 million were refugees3 ; takes the view that wars, Islamic terrorism, conflicts, political oppression, poverty and food insecurity, uneven economic development conditions and the adverse effects of climate change on the world’s poorest countries in particular, fuel the risks of triggering new conflicts and the further displacement of populations; __________________ 3UNHCR – Global Trends 2018 report (19 June 2019).

2019/10/28
Committee: AFET

2019/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Highlights that trade and human rights reinforce each other~~, and that~~ but that though the business community has an important role to play inonly nation-States have the capacity to offer~~ing~~ positive incentives in terms of promoting human rights, democracy and corporate responsibility; reminds the Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) of the need to make effective use of human rights clauses within international agreements, based on political dialogue, the regular assessment of progress and recourse to the consultation procedure upon request from a party; requests that robust implementation and monitoring mechanisms of human rights clauses be put in place, involving Parliament, local civil society and relevant international organisations, as well as establishing a complaints mechanism for groups of citizens and stakeholders who are affected by human rights violations;

2019/10/28
Committee: AFET

2019/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls for the EU and the Member States to continue to closely monitor developments that negatively affect governance and civil society space worldwide, and to systematically respond, using all appropriate means, to policies and legislative changes led by authoritarian governments, that are aimed at undermining governance based on fundamental democratic principles and at shrinking civil society space; ~~is of the opinion that synergy between the Commission, the EEAS and Parliament should be strengthened in relation to this matter;~~

2019/10/28
Committee: AFET

2019/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Strongly supports the EU’s strategic engagement for gender equality and its ongoing efforts to improve the human rights situation of women and girls, in line with the 2030 SDGs; calls on the Commission and the EEAS to further contribute to gender equality and girls’ and women’s empowerment by working closely with international organisations and non-EU countries, in order to develop and implement new legal frameworks regarding gender equality, and to eradicate harmful practices targeted at women and girls, such as child marriage ~~and~~, female genital mutilation and commercialisation of bodies through gestational surrogacy;

2019/10/28
Committee: AFET

2019/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Calls for new EU initiatives to prevent and combat child abuse in the world, to rehabilitate conflict-affected children and to provide them with a sheltered environment in which care and education are fundamental; calls for the EU to initiate an international movement to advocate the rights of the child, inter alia by organising an international conference on the protection of children in fragile environments; stresses the importance for a child to know, as far as possible, his biological father and mother;

2019/10/28
Committee: AFET

2019/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Stresses the urgent need to tackle the root causes of migration flows ~~such as~~, which lead to major destabilisation in arrival countries, such as Islamic terrorism, wars, conflicts, persecution, networks of illegal migration, trafficking, smuggling and climate change; calls for the external dimension of the refugee crisis to be addressed, including by finding sustainable solutions to conflicts through building cooperation and partnerships with the third countries concerned; insists that the implementation of the Global Compacts on migration and refugees must therefore go hand in hand with the implementation of the UN’s 2030 Agenda as set out in the Strategic Development Goals, as well as with increased investment in developing countries;

2019/10/28
Committee: AFET

2019/2125(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Stresses that the EU should continue to actively support democratic and effective human rights institutions and civil society in their efforts to promote democratisation; positively notes, in this context, the European Endowment for Democracy’s consistent engagement in the eastern and southern neighbourhoods of the EU to promote democracy and respect for fundamental rights and freedoms; recalls that the experience gained and the lessons learned from transitions to democracy in the framework of the enlargement and neighbourhood policies could make a positive contribution to the identification of best practices that could be used to support and consolidate other democratisation processes worldwide;

2019/10/28
Committee: AFET

2018/2855(RSP)

Recital B a (new)

B a. whereas Facebook revealed the mobile phone number of its users for commercial purposes, which was a clear breach of Facebook’s data-use policy that states: “We do not share information that personally identifies you … with advertising, measurement or analytics partners unless you give us permission”; whereas Facebook has also developed a "conversion pixel" — basically a type of tracking device — within ads displayed on Facebook, which allows advertisers to target users directly with ads and then measure exactly how they respond to them;

2018/10/02
Committee: LIBE

2018/2855(RSP)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Recital U

Q. whereas the investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office of the United Kingdom also covered the link between Cambridge Analytica, its parent company SCL Elections Limited and Aggregate IQ and involves allegations that personal data, obtained from Facebook, may have been misused by both sides in the UK referendum on membership of the EU and used to target voters during the 2016 American Presidential election process; whereas the investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office of the United Kingdom was mainly conducted under the Data Protection Act 1998 and under the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR) 2003, whilst also projecting forward to the General Data Protection Regulation where appropriate;deleted

2018/10/02
Committee: LIBE

2018/2855(RSP)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Recital V

V. whereas the UK House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee heard evidence that showed alleged Russian interference in electoral processes in the EU and urged the responsible national authorities to investigate these allegations; whereas in the US, a Special Counsel was appointed in May 2017 to investigate Russian interference with the 2016 Presidential elections and related matters and whereas this investigation is ongoing;deleted

2018/10/02
Committee: LIBE

2018/2855(RSP)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Recital X

X. whereas the Information Commissioner’s Office of the United Kingdom has already issued 23 Information Notices to 17 different organisations and individuals, including Facebook on 23 February 2018, to request provision of information from the organisations in a structured way; ~~while Facebook confirmed on 18 May 2018 that Aggregate IQ created and, in some cases, placed advertisements on behalf of the DUP Vote to Leave campaign, Vote Leave, BeLeave and Veterans for Britain;~~

2018/10/02
Committee: LIBE

2018/2855(RSP)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Recital Z

Z. whereas figures from the Electoral Commission of the UK have shown that the political parties in the United Kingdom spent £3.2 million on direct Facebook advertising during the 2017 general election;deleted

2018/10/02
Committee: LIBE

2018/2855(RSP)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Recital Z b a (new)

Z b a. whereas Facebook has been accused by political representatives, media outlets and a growing part of its employees of having a strong political liberal bias which Mark Zuckerberg did not deny during his audition in front of the US Senate;

2018/10/02
Committee: LIBE

2018/2855(RSP)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Paragraph 1

1. Expects all online platforms to ensure full compliance with Union data protection law, namely the GDPR and Directive 2002/58/EC (e-Privacy) and to help users understand how their personal information is processed in the targeted advertising model of only users that opt in for providing this data, and that effective controls are available, which includes greater transparency in relation to the privacy settings, and the design and prominence of privacy notices;

2018/10/02
Committee: LIBE

2018/2855(RSP)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Emphasises that it is strictly forbidden for any online platforms to follow and process any non-user’s data;

2018/10/02
Committee: LIBE

2018/2855(RSP)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Takes the view that in case the online platform is not able to guarantee a high level of security and protection of personal data, the platform should be banned;

2018/10/02
Committee: LIBE

2018/2855(RSP)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Paragraph 3

3. ~~Takes note of Facebook's statement that it~~Finds it unacceptable that Facebook exclusively uses data of non- Facebook users to create aggregated datasets from which it derives conclusions about how the service is used;

2018/10/02
Committee: LIBE

2018/2855(RSP)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Paragraph 5

5. Takes the view that the digital age requires electoral laws to be adapted to this new digital reality ~~and suggests~~; it remains the sole decision of Member States whether to introduce an obligatory system of digital imprints for electronic campaigning and advertising. Any form of political advertising should include easily accessible and understandable information on the publishing organisation and who is legally responsible for spending so that it is clear who sponsored campaigns, similar to existing requirements for printed campaign materials currently in place in various Member States;

2018/10/02
Committee: LIBE

2018/2855(RSP)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Paragraph 11

11. Considers election interference to be a great challenge for democracy which requires a joint effort involving service providers, regulators and political actors and parties; welcomes the intention of the Commission to provide recommendations in this regard;deleted

2018/10/02
Committee: LIBE

2018/2855(RSP)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Paragraph 12

12. Is of the opinion that if companies fail to agree and implement such a Code of Conduct on ethical campaigning, the European Commission should introduce regulation to make such ethical rules compulsory;deleted

2018/10/02
Committee: LIBE

2018/2855(RSP)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Paragraph 24

24. Takes the view that data protection authorities should have the same, if not more technical expert knowledge as those organisations under scrutiny. Suggests this objective could be reached by introducing funding by a levy on the sector concerned;deleted

2018/10/02
Committee: LIBE

2018/2855(RSP)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Paragraph 33

33. Is of the opinion Eurojust should urgently initiate, in cooperation with Member States authorities a special investigation into the alleged misuse of the online political space by foreign forces; calls on the Commission to swiftly come up with the necessary proposals to enlarge the competences of EPPO to include prosecution of crimes against electoral infrastructure;deleted

2018/10/02
Committee: LIBE

2018/2271(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)

– Stresses that a report on the same subject was rejected by the Parliament on 14 November 2018, therefore proceeding with a new vote in such a short time without any further analysis and substantial modification of the text shows a worrying contempt for the basic principles of democracy;

2018/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2018/2271(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Requests the Commission to submit, by 31 March 2019, on the basis of point (a) of Article 77(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), a proposal for a Regulation on establishing a European Humanitarian Visa, followalizes that the introduction of a Humanitarian Visa will not only create an unmanageable administrative burden for consulates and embassies but also preserve fundamental problems regarding secondary movements within the EU, serious deficits ing the ~~recommendations set out in the Annex hereto~~EU return policies and the security problems resulting from it;

2018/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2018/2271(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers that Member States should be able to issue a European humanitarian visa to persons seeking international protection, to allow those persons to enter the territory of the Member State issuing the visa for the sole purpose of makUrges the Commission to examine the feasibility of refugee centres outside of the EU in order to offer the necessary protection ing an ~~application for international protection in that Member State~~efficient and controlled manner;

2018/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2018/2271(INL)

Gilles LEBRETON, Nicolas BAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Instructs its President to forward this resolution and the accompanying recommendations to the Commission and the Council, and to the national parliaments, the Court of Justice, the European External Action Service, the European Asylum Support Office, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation and the European Union Agency for Fundamental RighUrges the Commission to assess the relations with third countries on the basis of the cooperation in EU return policies and to propose efficient approaches to eliminate deficits.

2018/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51 a (new)

51a. Calls for discussion to determine what should be done with the proceeds of fines imposed under European regulations for unlawful State aid, the object being to ensure that, when fines relate to laws or rulings which allow aggressive tax optimisation, they benefit countries whose public finances have been wrongfully deprived of revenue and not countries which have passed such laws or granted such rulings;

2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3

Harald VILIMSKY, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 1

~~– reside on the territory of that state,~~deleted

2018/06/22
Committee: LIBE

3. To mitigate the risk of putting in jeopardy the Schengen area, the Co~~mmission~~uncil decision referred to in paragraph 1 shall provide for one or more of the following measures to be taken by the Agency:

2018/12/11
Committee: LIBE

Regulation (EC) No 862/2007
Recital 9

(-1) Recital 9 is replaced by the following: "(9) This Regulation ~~does not~~shall cover estimates of the number of persons illegally resident in the Member States. Member States sh~~ould not~~all provide such estimates orand data on such persons to the Commission (Eurostat)~~, although they may be included in population stocks due to surveys. lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:199:0023:0029:en:PDF)~~. " Or. en (https://eur-

2018/10/12
Committee: LIBE

2018/0153(COD)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolas BAY, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a regulation
–

The European Parliament rejects the Commission's proposal.

2018/11/26
Committee: LIBE

2018/0136(COD)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Proposal for a regulation
–

The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs calls on the Committees on Budgets and on Budgetary Control, as the committees responsible, to propose a rejection of the Commission proposal.

2018/11/15
Committee: LIBE

2018/0136(COD)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)

(1 a) The Commission´s interference in the Member States´ internal affairs is misleadingly presented as protecting the Union´s financial interests.

2018/11/15
Committee: LIBE

2018/0136(COD)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 a (new)

(2 a) The Treaty defines the Commission as an impartial referee: the Commission however sees itself as a political body, thereby jeopardizing the EU.

2018/11/15
Committee: LIBE

2018/0136(COD)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8 a (new)

(8 a) Reaffirms its commitment to the overriding principles of cultural identity and national sovereignty, principles that form an indivisible whole with the principle of freedom.

2018/11/15
Committee: LIBE

2018/0104(COD)

Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY

Proposal for a regulation
–

The European Parliament rejects the Commission proposal.

2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE

2018/0104(COD)

Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2

(2) The document title ('Identity card') shall appear in the official language or languages of the issuing Member State ~~and at least on~~; the issuing Member State may add the translation of the document title in one or more other official language ~~of the institution~~s of the Union.;

2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE

2018/0104(COD)

Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) the title of the document in the official language or languages of the Member State concerned; the Member State may andd ~~at least on~~the translation of the document title in one or more other official language ~~of the institution~~s of the Union;

2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE

2018/0104(COD)

Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)

(d a) the sex of the holder (male or female);

2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE

2017/2270(INL)

Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Re~~quest~~alises that Commission submit, by 31 March 2019, on the basis of Articles 77(2)(b) and 78(2)(g) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a proposal for a Regulation on establishing a European Humanitarian Visa, followthe introduction of a Humanitarian Visa will not only create an unmanageable administrative burden for consulates and embassies but also preserve fundamental problems regarding secondary movements within the EU, serious deficits ing the ~~recommendations set out in the Annex to this resolution~~EU return policies and the security problems resulting from it;

2018/09/03
Committee: LIBE

2017/2270(INL)

Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers that part of the financial implications of the requested proposal should be covered by the general budget of the Union as a practical expression of the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, including its financial implications, between the Member States, in accordance with Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European UnionUrges the Commission to examine the feasibility of refugee centres outside of the EU in order to offer the necessary protection in an efficient and controlled manner;

2018/09/03
Committee: LIBE

2017/2270(INL)

Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Instructs its President to forward this resolution and the accompanying recommendations to the Commission and the Council, and to the national Parliaments, the European Court of Justice, the European External Action Service, the European Asylum Support Office, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation and the European Union Agency for Fundamental RighUrges the Commission to assess the relations with third countries on the basis of the cooperation in EU return policies and to propose efficient approaches to eliminate deficits.;

2018/09/03
Committee: LIBE

2017/2256(INI)

Nicolas BAY, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the Schengen area is a unique arrangement and one of the greatest ~~achievement~~failures of the European Union, allowing free movement of people within the Schengen area without controls at internal borders; whereas this has been made possible through a variety of compensating measures, such as re- enforcing the exchange of information through the establishment of the Schengen Information System (SIS) and creating an evaluation mechanism to verify the implementation of the Schengen acquis by Member States and foster mutual trust in the functioning of the Schengen areaterrorists, drugs, illegal weapons and illegal migrants within the Schengen area without controls at internal borders; whereas mutual trust also demands solidarity, judicial and police cooperation in criminal matters and ~~common views on migration, visa and asylum policie~~respected boundaries such as national borders;

2018/03/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/2256(INI)

Nicolas BAY, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Gilles LEBRETON, Janice ATKINSON, Harald VILIMSKY, Lorenzo FONTANA

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas in recent years several factors have impacted the functioning of the Schengen area; whereas these factors include a significant numbers of ~~asylum seekers and irregular~~illegal migrants with related secondary movements; whereas these factors also include terrorism and a heightened threat to public policy and the internal security of the Member States; whereas several Member States have also reintroduced and subsequently prolonged controls at internal borders since 2014;

2018/03/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/2256(INI)

Nicolas BAY, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON, Lorenzo FONTANA

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the permanent reintroduction of border controls would have serious beneficial impacts on citizens’ lives and seriously undermine their trust in European integration; whereas Schengen countries would face tremendous direct operational and investment costs, with crippling effects on their economies; whereas the estimations of those costs alone amount to more than EUR 18 billion per year for cross-border workers, tourists, road freight transporters and public administeveryday security and be the natural consequence of their lack of trust in European integrations;

2018/03/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/2256(INI)

Nicolas BAY, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

~~E. whereas the Schengen area is at a crossroads and requires decisive action to bring back the benefits it provides to the citizens;~~deleted

2018/03/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/2256(INI)

Nicolas BAY, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas the Working Group on Schengen Scrutiny has followed closely the implementation of the Schengen acquis through the findings of the Schengen evaluation mechanism, the vulnerability assessment methodology, committee hearings and missions to Member States and third countries; whereas it has identified the measures that have been or are about to be implemented, the major shortcomings in the functioning of the Schengen area and the necessary actions to be taken in the future;deleted

2018/03/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/2256(INI)

Nicolas BAY, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON, Harald VILIMSKY, Lorenzo FONTANA

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

Fa. Whereas the collusion between some NGOs and smuggler networks have been documented, encouraging illegal migration toward Member States;

2018/03/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/2256(INI)

Nicolas BAY, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON, Harald VILIMSKY, Lorenzo FONTANA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Notes the effectiveness of the measures taken at the external borders, such as Hungary’s fence, and the creation of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex); notes the efforts of the Agency in implementing the new regulation, especially through joint operations in the field of border surveillance and return, and by supporting the Member States particularly affected by migratory pressure; sees the importance of the newly introduced vulnerability assessment mechanism in uncovering weaknesses at the common external borders and preventing crises; ~~emphasises the concerted efforts and cooperation between agencies and o~~asks the Commission to fully use Frontex’s capacities, especially in helping Member States to send back all illegal migrants to their ~~stakeholders in organising the ‘Hotspot’ approach~~home countries or partnered third countries which agreed to accept them, based on the Australian “No Way” policy;

2018/03/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/2256(INI)

Nicolas BAY, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON, Harald VILIMSKY, Lorenzo FONTANA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Emphasises the support and capacity-building measures taken in the countries of origin to address the root causes of irregular migration; considers it crucial that adequate maritime search-~~and-~~ rescue-and-send-back aspects and capabilities are embedded into all operational planning and execution~~, as provided for in Regulation (EU) No 656/2014~~;

2018/03/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/2256(INI)

Nicolas BAY, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Sees great value in the renewed Schengen evaluation mechanism as it promotes transparency, mutual trust and accountability between the Member States by scrutinising the way they implement the different fields of the Schengen acquis;deleted

2018/03/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/2256(INI)

Nicolas BAY, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Stresses that the current state of Schengen and the issues it has encountered are ~~not~~ due to problems in the structure and construction of Schengen itself ~~but rather~~and also to the connected fields of the acquis, such as ~~shortcoming~~irresponsabilities in the area of the Common European Asylum System, including the Dublin Regulation, and especially the lack of control of the external borders;

2018/03/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/2256(INI)

Nicolas BAY, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON, Harald VILIMSKY, Lorenzo FONTANA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. ~~Condemn~~Welcomes the continued reintroduction of internal border checks as this undermines the basic principles of the Schengen area, and expresses doubts about the lawfulness of some prolongations of controls; is also of the opinion that Member States have not taken the proper measures to ensure cooperation with other affected Member States to minimise the effects of these measures, nor have they provided enough information on the results of such controls, therefore hindering the analysis by the Commission and scrutiny by Parliament; considers the economic, political and social impacts of this practice to be detrimental to the unity of the Schengen area and harmful to the prosperity of European citizenallow Member States to protect their citizens with effectiveness; recalls that Member States ~~have~~’ other tools available, namely targeted police controls, a~~s recommended by the Commission~~re not sufficient as demonstrated by the recent wave of islamic terror strikes;

2018/03/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/2256(INI)

Nicolas BAY, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Appreciat~~Deplores, as part of efforts to restore the normal functioning of Schengen, the proposal to amend the Schengen Borders Code; recalls that these changes ~~should merely reflect~~will not be sufficient given the new challenges and diffuse threats to internal security and should ~~not~~rather be a further avenue for ~~prolonging inter~~definitively restoring national border ~~control~~s; considers that the~~se steps are to be made carefully in order not to inflict irreversible damage on the basic idea of free movemen~~ utopic idea of free movement is an obvious failure and should be put to rest;

2018/03/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/2256(INI)

Nicolas BAY, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON, Harald VILIMSKY, Lorenzo FONTANA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that all the Member States should do their utmost to ensure a high level of control at their external borders, as enshrined in the Treaties, by allocating sufficient resources through staffing ~~and~~, expertise, establishing the necessary command and control structures and formulating up-to-date risk analyses in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 for all tiers of command to facilitate effective operationsand a border fence such as the one in Hungary or a “No Way” policy based on the Australian model;

2018/03/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/2256(INI)

Nicolas BAY, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON, Harald VILIMSKY, Lorenzo FONTANA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Considers that cooperation at national level between different law enforcement services, the military, border guards and customs is ~~often inadequate, resulting in fragmented situational awareness and low effectiveness~~without the slightest doubt the best way to ensure both national and common security while respecting each Member States’ sovereignty;

2018/03/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/2256(INI)

Nicolas BAY, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON, Lorenzo FONTANA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Stresses the urgent need to ~~address the identified critical shortcomings without delay in order to return to the normal functioning of Schengen without~~restore internal border controls;

2018/03/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/2256(INI)

Nicolas BAY, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls on all Member States to implement fully the existing regulations and calls on the Commission to act decisively in matters of violations of commonly agreed rules by imposing proportionate and necessary measures on the Member States in question, in order to safeguard the interests of the other Member States and of the Union as a whole;deleted

2018/03/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/2256(INI)

Nicolas BAY, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON, Harald VILIMSKY, Lorenzo FONTANA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Calls on the Member States to ensure swift return procedures ~~once a return decision has been issued; calls on the Member States to take specif~~every time an illegal migrant is detected, as illegally crossing a border is a crime which steps to ensure adequate infrastructure, accommodation and living conditions for arriving asylum seekers, especially taking into consideration the needs of unaccompanied minors and families with minors; calls on hould not be taken lightly; recalls that because of Schengen any illegal migrant who successfully violates the external borders of the EU is then free to travel to another Member State~~s to bring their detention facilities into line with the requirements so as to meet capacity demand, and to increase the use of alternative measures to detention~~, potentially with harmful intentions as it has been witnessed numerous times; stresses that every single successful illegal migrant gives hope to others and accentuate the whole migration crisis;

2018/03/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/2256(INI)

Nicolas BAY, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON, Harald VILIMSKY, Lorenzo FONTANA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Recalls the high priority given to the reform of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) as part of the holistic approach to tackling the refugee and migration crisis and the Commission’s Agenda on Migration; calls on the Council to swiftly follow Parliament in adopting a mandate for negotiations on every proposal in this regard; highlights that the new European Agency for Asylum has still to be approved and urges the Council to unblock this file as a matter of urgency;deleted

2018/03/14
Committee: LIBE

2017/2216(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Welcom~~Deplores the progress made in the Council in 2016 on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), which led to the agreement between 20 Member States on the basis of the enhanced cooperation procedure provided for in Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; hopes that all Member States will eventually participate in this initiative; recalls that the role of the EPPO will be to investigate, prosecute and bring to court the perpetrators of criminal offences affecting the EU’s financial interests, as defined in the PIF Directive;

2018/02/02
Committee: LIBE

2017/2216(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the participating Member States and the Commission to begin the preparatory work to launch the EPPO as soon as possible and to keep Parliament closely associated with the procedures, in particular the appointment of the Chief Prosecutor; reiterates that the EPPO must be independent;deleted

2018/02/02
Committee: LIBE

2017/2216(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Gilles LEBRETON, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for effective cooperation among EPPO, OLAF and Eurojust; recalls the pending negotiations on the Eurojust Regulation; stresses that the respective competences of Eurojust and EPPO need to be clearly defined;deleted

2018/02/02
Committee: LIBE

2017/2209(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 15 a (new)

- having regard to the fact that the EU is making frightening steps towards deciding what opinions are allowed according to the EU and thereby threatening freedom of speech for EU citizens by enabling censorship and EU propaganda;

2018/01/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/2209(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Gilles LEBRETON, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Citation 18

~~— having regard to its resolution of 21 May 2013 on the EU Charter: standard settings for media freedom across the EU1 , _________________ 1 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0203.~~deleted

2018/01/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/2209(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Citation 22 a (new)

- having regard to the fact that propaganda is spread to eliminate political incorrectness from Brussels;

2018/01/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/2209(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Citation 23 a (new)

- having regard to the fact that the EU stated their plans to combat 'euroscepticism' in the Union in the EU for Citizens report and the current developments of the suggestion of an EU media quality mark where chair De Cock Buning proactively researches 'fake news' with her taskforce, is demonstrating that freedom in the EU is under serious threat;

2018/01/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/2209(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of opinion are fundamental human rights and indispensable conditions for the full development of the person, for the realisation of the principles of transparency ~~and~~, accountability and ~~for the fulfilment of other human rights and fundamental freedoms~~discovery of truth; therefore should we safeguard these precious rights of freedom of expression and freedom of opinion at all cost and not allow the EU to judge what is the truth;

2018/01/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/2209(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

B a. whereas freedom of speech and freedom of expression are the cornerstones of our societies and should remain protected at all cost;

2018/01/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/2209(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Gilles LEBRETON, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas, in the context of the enlargement policy, the Commission has the duty to demand full compliance with the Copenhagen criteria, including freedom of expression and the media; whereas, once Members of the EU, States are continuously bound by human rights obligations by virtue of the EU Treaties and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights;deleted

2018/01/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/2209(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)

H a. whereas Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the right to freedom of expression and information, which includes the right of freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas;

2018/01/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/2209(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Gilles LEBRETON, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas, recalling the Council of Europe, whistleblowing is a fundamental aspect of freedom of expression and plays a central role in deterring and preventing wrongdoing, and in strengthening democratic accountability and transparency; whereas the adequate protection of whistleblowers at ~~EU, national and inter~~national level is a precondition for ensuring the effectiveness of such a role;

2018/01/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/2209(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Calls on~~Welcomes the Member States to take adequate measures to safeguard and promote a pluralist, independent and free media landscape in the service of democratic society, including the independence and sustainability of ~~public service media and community~~the media, which are crucial elements of a favourable environment for freedom of expression;

2018/01/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/2209(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Gilles LEBRETON, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Calls on~~Reminds the EU institutions to guarantee full implementation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in all their decisions, actions and policies, as a means to thoroughly uphold media pluralism and media freedom; asks the Commission, in this regard, to introduce human rights impact assessments for the evaluation of its legislative proposals and to present a proposal for the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in line with the relevant Parliament resolutionhat all citizens have a guaranteed right to freedom of speech; calls on the EU institutions to respect this right of EU citizens to freedom of speech in all their decisions, actions and policies, as a means to thoroughly uphold media pluralism and media freedom;

2018/01/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/2209(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Expresses its deep concern at the abuses, crimes and deadly attacks still being committed against journalists and media workers in the Member States; urges the Member States to do their utmost to prevent such violence, to ensure accountability and avoid impunity ~~and to guarantee that victims and their families have access to the appropriate legal remedies; calls on the~~; welcomes Member States, moreover, to fully implement Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4 on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors;

2018/01/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/2209(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Calls on the~~Welcomes initiatives of Member States to create and maintain, in law and in practice, a safe and secure environment for journalists and other media actors, enabling them to perform their work in full independence and without undue interference – such as the threat of violence, harassment, financial, economic and political pressure, pressure to disclose confidential sources and materials, ~~and~~ targeted surveillance~~; highlights the importance of taking a gender-sensitive approach when considering measures to address the safety of journalists~~, and the opinion of the 'EU versus disinformation';

2018/01/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/2209(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Underlines the importance of ensuring adequate working conditions for journalists and media workers~~, in full compliance with the requirements of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Social Charter,~~ as a means to avoid undue internal and external pressure, dependency, vulnerability and instability, and hence the risk of self- censorship; highlights that independent journalism cannot be guaranteed and fostered by the market alone; asks the Commission and the Member States, therefore, to promote and elaborate new socially sustainable economic models aimed at financing and supporting quality and independent journalism;

2018/01/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/2209(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that the participation in democratic processes is founded, first and foremost, on effective and non- discriminatory access to information and knowledge; ~~calls for the EU and its Member States to develop adequate policies to attain universal access to the internet and to recognise internet access – including net neutrality – as a fundamental righ~~welcomes initiatives of the EU Member States to guarantee freedom of access to the internet and to recognise the neutrality of the internet;

2018/01/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/2209(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Gilles LEBRETON, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Stresses that any measures restricting internet content should only be adopted in well-defined circumstances and under strict judicial oversight, in line with international standards, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, and Article 52 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights;deleted

2018/01/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/2209(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Deplores the broad and extremely imprecise scope of the Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online, promoted by the Commission, and the large margin of manoeuvre left to private companies to determine what constitutes ‘illegality’, which ~~could potentially~~ leads to censorship and arbitrary restrictions on freedom of expression; stresses that such censorship and attempts to limit freedom of expression are already happening in Germany and may occur in France soon too;

2018/01/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/2209(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Recognises that the new digital environment has exacerbated the problem of the spread of disinformation, or the so- called ‘fake’ or ‘false’ news; recalls, however, that this is not a new phenomenon, nor is it restricted to the online sphere; stresses the importance of effective systems of self-regulation which are based on the principles of accuracy and transparency and which provide for proper obligations and instruments regarding source verification and fact checkingnabled citizens to discover the truth about various issues that before where only to be found in newspapers and books; stresses the importance of maintaining a citizens' fundamental right of freedom of speech and free access to pluralistic and diverse media, including self-published opinions such as blogs;

2018/01/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/2209(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13 a. Stresses the importance of media pluralism and media freedom and that by allowing the EU to judge what is the truth and what is not the truth is threatening the freedom civilians have in the Union;

2018/01/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/2209(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Gilles LEBRETON, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Reiterates its call on the Commission and the Member States to adopt and implement adequate, advanced and comprehensive whistleblower protection systems by fully endorsing the Council of Europe’s recommendations and by providing appropriate follow-up to the recent Parliament Resolutions of 14 February 2017 and 24 October 2017;deleted

2018/01/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/2209(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14 a. Reminds the EU institutions that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights gives EU citizens the right of freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers;

2018/01/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/2209(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15 a. Deplores the fact that the monopoly position of certain social media enterprises is being enforced by some Member States who are assigning them with a special duty to provide so-called ‘uncensored’ and ‘unbiased’ information;

2018/01/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/2179(DEC)

Harald VILIMSKY, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that the budgets of Frontex and EASO increased significantly throughout 2016; recognises that these agencies weare confronted with costly administrative and operational challenges; notes that as a result they faced problems absorbing additional Union funds granted throughout 2016 leading to considerable cancellations and/or carry-overs as well as difficulties to comply to budgetary and financial rules due to illegal migration;

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2179(DEC)

Harald VILIMSKY, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Gilles LEBRETON, Nicolas BAY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Acknowledges that EASO, eu- LISA and to a much lesser extend EMCDDA did not fully comply with public procurement principles and rules laid down by the Financial Regulation; notes that for EUeu-LISA, Frontex and EMCDDA the Court also identified weaknesses in monitoring contract implementations; highlights also the very significant weaknesses of EASO Internal Controls; ~~welcomes however the commitment of these three Agencies to improve themselves and take the necessary corrective measur~~deems it necessary that misconduct must result in organizational measures and personnel consequences;

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2178(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Lorenzo FONTANA, Janice ATKINSON, André ELISSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Is concerned~~Deplores that the public procurement procedure launched for the further development and maintenance of the VIS system (EUR 192 million six year contract) without precisely defining the services requested required tenderers to have access to the Biometric Matching Service technology developed by one single company with no obligations to provide commercial access to tenderers; calls on the Agency to avoid being locked- in to any vendors as this would be detrimental to its long term financial interests, damaging the cost-effectiveness of procurement procedures and limiting competition; urges the Agency to conclude agreements with multiple suppliers and to define the services required precisely;

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2178(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Lorenzo FONTANA, Janice ATKINSON, André ELISSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Not~~Deplores that the Agency amended the construction contract for its premises in Strasbourg (EUR 21.2 million) to proceed with advance payments in order to increase its budget consumption; points out that by November 2016 the Agency had paid the full contract amount although less than half of the work had been completed; requests the Agency to better assess the necessity of taking such financial risks as the use of financial guarantees does not cover all financial risks;

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2178(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Lorenzo FONTANA, Janice ATKINSON, André ELISSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Regrets~~Finds it unacceptable that in 2016 the Agency received and accepted supplies amounting to EUR 2.8 million without having budget and contracts in place for it; requests the Agency to better adhere to public procurement procedures;

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2177(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Janice ATKINSON, Harald VILIMSKY, André ELISSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Highlights that in order to cover its support to Member States of first entry, in particular for the registration and interviewing of asylum applicants and ~~for the relocation scheme~~illegal migrants and for the failing relocation scheme that has not been agreed by all Member States, the budget of the European Asylum Support Office (‘the Office’) increased by an absurdly exorbitant 273 %; underlines the fact that the Office’s staff also increased by ~~only 34 % and that~~34 % while far fewer experts from Member States have been deployed to Member States of first entry ~~than actually needed~~;

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2177(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Janice ATKINSON, Harald VILIMSKY, André ELISSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that due to the migration crisis the Office has faced problems absorbing additional Union funds granted in 2016 leading to considerable cancellations and carry-overs as well as difficulties in complying with budgetary and financial rules;deleted

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2169(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Janice ATKINSON, André ELISSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Not~~Deplores the 10 % staff and budget increases of Europol in 2016 following the decision to entrust Europol with new tasks; notes the high implementation rates for commitment (99,8 %) and payment appropriations (91,0 %);

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2169(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Janice ATKINSON, André ELISSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Acknowledge~~Rejects the ever-increasing demand for Europol’s services from Member States; ~~regret~~welcomes, in that context, the fact that the ~~tight~~ ICT resources available have resulted in a re-prioritisation of core systems development activities~~, project delays and have also triggered an exploration of further outsourcing possibilities with the increased risks that that implies~~ to make them more efficient and effective;

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2164(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Janice ATKINSON, André ELISSEN, Harald VILIMSKY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Highlight~~Deplores that the mandate of Frontex was considerably extended with a budget increase of 75 % versus 18 % for its staff; notes ~~in this context,~~ the Court of Auditors' conclusions that the annual accounts of the Agency fairly present its financial position on 31 December 2016 and that its transactions are legal and regular;

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2164(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY, Janice ATKINSON, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, André ELISSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights the contribution of 4. Frontex to saving more than 250 000 people at sea in 2015; ~~welcomes the increase in the Agency’s search and rescue capacity; notes, however, that considerable efforts still have to be made in that direction~~notes that considerable efforts still have to be made in combating illegal immigration and returning illegal immigrants;

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2164(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Janice ATKINSON, Harald VILIMSKY, André ELISSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

~~6. Notes with concern a significant gender imbalance of 93% / 7% in the Agency’s management board;~~deleted

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2164(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Lorenzo FONTANA, Janice ATKINSON, Harald VILIMSKY, André ELISSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Urges the Agency to provide its Fundamental Rights Officer with adequate resources and staff, in particular for setting up a complaint mechanism and for further developing and implementing the Agency’s strategy to monitor and ensure the protection of fundamental rights.deleted

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2163(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Janice ATKINSON, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, André ELISSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Court of Auditors' conclusions that the annual accounts of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) fairly present its financial position on 31 December 2016 and that its transactions are legal and regular;deleted

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2163(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Janice ATKINSON, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, André ELISSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Points out~~Deplores that the budget and the staff of CEPOL increased by about 22% in 2016; notes in that context that carry-overs of committed appropriations were a high for Title II (expenditure for support activities) at 140 055 euro, i.e. 30 % and mainly related to IT consulting and IT related goods and services ordered late in the year;

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2163(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Janice ATKINSON, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, André ELISSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

~~5. Agrees with the Management Board that CEPOL has effectively delivered the expected products and services in accordance with its 2016 Work Programme;~~deleted

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2163(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Janice ATKINSON, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, André ELISSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notes that 2016 was the first full year of implementation of the ‘EU/MENA Counter-Terrorism Training Partnership project’; acknowledges that this project is now recognised as a flagship project in EU cooperation with MENA countries on Counter Terrorism;deleted

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2155(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, André ELISSEN, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Janice ATKINSON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the strengthening of the Eurojust’s position as the centre for judicial cooperation and coordination against cross-border crime and as a centre of judicial expertise within the Union; highlights the launch of the European Judicial Cybercrime Network; notes that Eurojust received requests for assistance in 2306 cases (+4%), that it organised 249 coordination meetings on 288 cases and provided support to 148 joint investigation teams, including financial support to 90 of them (+32%); notes the publication of the forth Eurojust report “Foreign Terrorist Fighters: Eurojust’s Views on the Phenomenon and the Criminal Justice Response” of December 2016;deleted

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2155(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Lorenzo FONTANA, Gilles LEBRETON, Janice ATKINSON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Deplores that Eurojust faced budgetary availability issues due to known structural problems with its funding and that for the second successive year was forced to resort to mitigation measures subject to an amending budget, leading to the postponement of some of its ongoing activities and the deferral of valuable technological developments;deleted

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2150(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON, André ELISSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Court of Auditors' (“the Court”) conclusions that the annual accounts of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (“the Centre”) present fairly its financial position on 31 December 2016 and that its transactions are legal and regular;deleted

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2150(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON, André ELISSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Welcom~~Deplores the high budget execution rate of the Centre, with commitment and payment appropriation reaching respectively 99.95 % and 95.64 % and consumption of carry-over credits reaching 94%; ~~notes however~~welcomes that the budget of the Centre decreased by 17% in 2016 compared to 2015;

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2150(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, André ELISSEN, Nicolas BAY, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Stresse~~Condemns that the Centre did not respect the ceiling of a framework contract, which was signed in 2012 with a maximum amount for signing specific contracts of EUR 250 000, as by the end of 2015 the total payments made under this contract amounted to EUR 382 181; calls on the Centre to improve the procedure for monitoring framework contracts;

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2149(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Lorenzo FONTANA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Janice ATKINSON, André ELISSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Court of Auditors' conclusions that the annual accounts of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (“the Agency”) present fairly its financial position on 31 December 2016 and that its transactions are legal and regular;deleted

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2149(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Lorenzo FONTANA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Janice ATKINSON, André ELISSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes with concern that, as in 2015, carry-overs of committed appropriations were too high for Title III (operating expenditure) at EUR 5,2 million~~, i.e. 68 %; acknowledges that this year, as in the previous year, this simply reflects the multi-annual nature of the Agency’s activities~~ and stresses that these should be reduced;

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2149(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Lorenzo FONTANA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Janice ATKINSON, André ELISSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Regrets the fact that the Agency’s mandate still limits its role as regards the support for fundamental rights; stresses that the Agency should be able to offer opinions on legislative proposals on its own initiative and that its remit should extend to all areas of rights protected under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including issues of judicial and police cooperation in criminal matters; recommends the inclusion of the those thematic areas in the new multiannual financial framework;deleted

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2149(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Lorenzo FONTANA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Janice ATKINSON, André ELISSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Notes with concern a significant gender imbalance, in particular in the senior management positions of the Agency; urges the Agency to step up its efforts to correct this imbalance and to communicate the results in due time to the discharge authority.deleted

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2144(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON, André ELISSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Encourag~~Notes the growing contribution of the EDPS to solutions driving innovation and enhancing privacy and data protection, especially by increasing transparency, user control and accountability in big data processing; ~~calls for effective actions maximising benefits of new technologies ensuring full respect for all the fundamental rights;~~

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2144(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Janice ATKINSON, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, André ELISSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Welcom~~Notes the aim of the Agency, as set out in the Strategy for its mandate, to make data protection as simple and effective as possible for all involved;

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2136(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON, Lorenzo FONTANA, André ELISSEN, Harald VILIMSKY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the opinion of the European Court of Auditors on the 2016 accounts of the Union; highlights especially the further reduction of payment errors in 2016 to the all-time low of 3.1 % and notes that this is the first time that the Court issues a qualified opinion on payments since 1994; regrets however that the payment error rate for Heading 3 (Security and Citizenship) was not calculated by the Court as only 15 transactions have been audited;deleted

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2136(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON, Lorenzo FONTANA, André ELISSEN, Harald VILIMSKY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that shared management payments for Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and Internal Security Fund was slow considering that 2016 was already the third year of the implementation of the current Multiannual financial framework (MFF); stresses the importance of reducing risks of delays in the implementation of national plans and in the correction of deficiencies in Member States control systems; highlights the importance of assessing Member States control systems based on sufficiently detailed information;deleted

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2136(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON, Lorenzo FONTANA, André ELISSEN, Harald VILIMSKY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Reminds that special instruments were used extensively in 2015, 2016 and 2017 to respond notably to the humanitarian situation faced by asylum- seekers in the EU and that there is therefore a risk that the amounts left until the end of the current MFF may not be sufficient to respond to unexpected events that may occur before 2020; requests the Commission to solve this structural issue in the next MFFand illegal migrants in the EU;

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2136(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON, Lorenzo FONTANA, André ELISSEN, Harald VILIMSKY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Urges the development of a coherent and systematic strategy with clearer political and operational priorities for protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms, while ensuring its effective implementation also by granting sufficient funds for this purpose;deleted

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2136(DEC)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Janice ATKINSON, Gilles LEBRETON, Lorenzo FONTANA, André ELISSEN, Harald VILIMSKY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Stress~~Deplores that only one third of the projects examined had a performance measurement system with output and result indicators linked to the operational programme objectives, while the majority of the projects met their output objectives at least partially; highlights that for 42 % of the projects it was not possible to identify and measure a specific contribution to the overall programme objectives since no result indicators or targets were defined at project level.

2018/01/19
Committee: LIBE

2017/2125(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY, Gilles LEBRETON, Nicolas BAY

Motion for a resolution
Citation 3

~~— having regard to the reports by national, European and international NGOs,~~deleted

2017/11/20
Committee: LIBE

2017/2125(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the aberrant governance practices seen in some Member States reflect a selective approach to the benefits and responsibilities of EU membership, and whereas the refusal by those Member States to fully uphold EU law, the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary and the predictability of State actions is undermining the credibility of the EU as a legal area;deleted

2017/11/20
Committee: LIBE

2017/2125(INI)

Gilles LEBRETON, Nicolas BAY, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas the ~~dangers faced by refugee and migrant children include separation from their families, detention, sexual and gender-based violence, exploitation and physical and psychological damage~~rights of children must be respected according to national law of the Nation States;

2017/11/20
Committee: LIBE

2017/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas the ongoing wave of terrorist attacks across the EU has fuelled widespread mistrust of Muslim migrants, and whereas certain political parties are employing the rhetoric of cultural isolationism and hatred of those who are different;deleted

2017/11/20
Committee: LIBE

2017/2125(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY, Gilles LEBRETON, Nicolas BAY

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas th~~e systematic use of states of emergency and border controls does very little to deter terrorists, who have all, thus far, been long-term residents of EU Member State~~ose who have been long-term residents of EU Nation States but follow radical Islam, must be observed and the right to residence inside the EU must be revoked if a threat to the national security of any Nation State exists;

2017/11/20
Committee: LIBE

2017/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas hate speech includes all forms of expression which propagate, encourage, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance; whereas the development of new kinds of media is making it easier to engage in online hate speech;deleted

2017/11/20
Committee: LIBE

2017/2125(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY, Gilles LEBRETON, Nicolas BAY

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas there is a risk that the increased levels of hatred, xenophobia and Afrophobia, whether expressed in the form of hate crimes, anonymous messages spread on social networks, protests or political propaganda, will come to be seen as normal in the Member States;deleted

2017/11/20
Committee: LIBE

2017/2125(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY, Gilles LEBRETON, Nicolas BAY

Motion for a resolution
Recital K

K. whereas , as the Council of Europe has stated, the phenomenon of online hate speech requires further analysis and action with a view to regulating and finding new ways of combating rhetoric of this kind;deleted

2017/11/20
Committee: LIBE

2017/2125(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY, Gilles LEBRETON, Nicolas BAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Asserts that ~~neither~~the concept of national sovereignty ~~nor~~and subsidiarity ~~can justify or legitimise the systematic refusal on the part of a Member State to comply with the principles of governance which inspired the introductory articles of the European Trea~~for all Nation States must be respected at all times;

2017/11/20
Committee: LIBE

2017/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes the Commission’s efforts to ensure that all Member States fully uphold the rule of law, but also the ineffectiveness of the instruments used thus far; insists that Article 7 of the TEU should no longer be regarded merely as a hypothetical tool, but should be employed if all other remedies have failed;deleted

2017/11/20
Committee: LIBE

2017/2125(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY, Gilles LEBRETON, Nicolas BAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

~~3. Stresses that the EU needs a common approach to governance, which does not yet exist, and which must be developed by pooling experiences of European governance;~~deleted

2017/11/20
Committee: LIBE

2017/2125(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY, Gilles LEBRETON, Nicolas BAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Points out that in its resolution of 25 October 20161 it recommends the establishment of a European mechanism for democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights; ~~points out that this mechanism would be central to the coordinated European approach to governance which is currently lacking; _________________ 1~~_________________ 1 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0409. Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0409.

2017/11/20
Committee: LIBE

2017/2125(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY, Gilles LEBRETON, Nicolas BAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

~~5. Urges the Commission to put forward a proposal to establish such a mechanism, as the resolution of 25 October 2016 calls on it to do;~~deleted

2017/11/20
Committee: LIBE

2017/2125(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY, Gilles LEBRETON, Nicolas BAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Takes the view, therefore, that a clear distinction should be drawn between migrants who can legitimately claim refugee status and those who cannot; calls for migrants to be identified ~~and for their requests for entry into the EU to be processed before they come~~before attaining entry into the EU;

2017/11/20
Committee: LIBE

2017/2125(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY, Gilles LEBRETON, Nicolas BAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Strongly condemns the upsurge in the trafficking of human beings in Africa and towards Europe, the perpetrators of which – including official and governmental players, as well as NGO's – should be made to feel the full force of the law;

2017/11/20
Committee: LIBE

2017/2125(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY, Gilles LEBRETON, Nicolas BAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Takes the view that the existing legal channels should be available for migration, including from Africa, but not for all the men and women hoping to come to Europe; takes the view that the best way to protect the rights of persons who cannot legally enter Europe would be to bring about the rapid and robust development of Africa, which Europe could promote by stepping up its involvement on the African continof Nation States that are already available for migration are sufficient;

2017/11/20
Committee: LIBE

2017/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Stresses the need for measures to be taken as a matter of priority in all the Member States to give immigrant children access to education, language learning, healthcare, good living conditions and the opportunity to be reunited with their family;deleted

2017/11/20
Committee: LIBE

2017/2125(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY, Gilles LEBRETON, Nicolas BAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Takes the view that particular attention should be paid to the situation of women and the rights of women in the EU, be they immigrants, victims of abuse or modern slavery, alone or accompanied by children; ~~points out that the EU and the Member States must set an example in this regard;~~

2017/11/20
Committee: LIBE

2017/2125(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

~~15. Expresses concern at the rhetoric of hatred and fear directed at migrants entering Europe and the upsurge in anti- Islamic, anti-Semitic and anti-African rhetoric;~~deleted

2017/11/20
Committee: LIBE

2017/2125(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Points out that social networks and the anonymity guaranteed by many different media platforms encourage many forms of expression of hatred, from jihadist preaching to anti-Islam speech, and calls for this phenomenon to be curbed through closer monitoring and the identification and prosecution of the authors of statements or words incompatible with European culture and law;deleted

2017/11/20
Committee: LIBE

2017/2125(INI)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

~~19. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.~~deleted

2017/11/20
Committee: LIBE

2017/2083(INI)

Lorenzo FONTANA, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY, Gilles LEBRETON, Nicolas BAY, Janice ATKINSON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Notes that mass migration policy enforced by the EU is never the solution to solve the demographic challenges

2017/09/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/2083(INI)

Lorenzo FONTANA, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Draws attention to the fact that the Africa-EU Migration and Mobility Dialogue should facilitate ~~mobility and free movement of people in Africa and between Africa and the EU on the basis of a well-managed rights-based approach including safe and legal channels for migration;~~concrete actions for the revival of the African continent,

2017/09/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/2083(INI)

Lorenzo FONTANA, Harald VILIMSKY, Gilles LEBRETON, Nicolas BAY, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Janice ATKINSON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Recognises the ~~strategic potential of the~~ African diaspora world-wide i~~n terms of both financial remittances an~~s often a trauma for the local development of African countries, the development of a country can not be based non- a financial ~~values, as regards capacity to build and promote peace, democracy, good governance and social stability~~remittance system and Europe should not support such a development model;

2017/09/12
Committee: LIBE

2017/2052(INI)

Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Lorenzo FONTANA, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Points out that the structure of the new multiannual financial framework (MFF) must correspond to the top five political priorities of the EU; calls for more ~~coherence betwee~~budgetary restraint in the funding of the EU budget and its objectives, ~~if needed by break~~by lowering the 1 % glass ceiling of Member State GDP contributions and~~/or~~ by adapting and reducing the EU’s objectives in line with a strict interpretation of the principal of subsidiarity as enshrined in article 5.3 of the TEU;

2017/11/23
Committee: LIBE

2017/2052(INI)

Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Lorenzo FONTANA, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Recommends separating the asylum, border and justice programmes into three ~~comprehensive~~ MFF headings corresponding to clear EU objectives in the framework of ‘S~~olida~~ecurity’, ‘~~Security’ and ‘Respect for the Rule of Law~~Improved Returns’ and ‘Reintroduction of Internal Border Controls by Member States’, which are understandable and identifiable by EU citizens;

2017/11/23
Committee: LIBE

2017/2052(INI)

Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Lorenzo FONTANA, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses the importance of the different EU funds and highlights that actions in the field of security and migration should not only be covered by dedicated, yet limited, instruments, such as the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) or the Internal Security Fund (ISF), but should also be included by design in more generic future instruments such as the European Social Fund (ESF), the Cohesion Fund or Security Union Fund (corresponding to the European Agenda on Security); recommends that all Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) agencies should have access to these funds to strengthen their operational capabilities; considers it necessary that all ESI Funds be continued post-2020, and stresses that certain funds, such as the ESF, should significantly address the issue of programmes for combating radicalisation, marginalisation, hate crime and xenophobia;deleted

2017/11/23
Committee: LIBE

2017/2052(INI)

Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Lorenzo FONTANA, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls that the possible extension of the use of EU trust funds for financing humanitarian support actions inside the Union1 should require that 100 % of these funds be included in the EU budget; recalls that Parliament should be able to exercise its powers of scrutiny not only over the creation of such EU trust funds, but also over their entire disbursement; _________________ 1 As proposed by the Commission during the mid-term revision of the current MFF.deleted

2017/11/23
Committee: LIBE

2017/2052(INI)

Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Lorenzo FONTANA, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses the importance played by the JHA agencies and newly created Union bodies as part of the Security Union Agenda, as well as the significant role they play in countering trans-border crime, fraud and money laundering; calls for the allocation of appropriate resources for their operations and activities: a. regrets the insufficient provision of resources to law enforcement agencies, such as Europol, Eurojust and Cepol, under the current MFF and calls for resource programming in line with political expectations and agencies’ operational demands, including the need for technological and technical support, as well as training; b. stresses the importance of the work performed by the European Agency for the operational management of large- scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (eu-LISA) on a number of existing and new systems in the area of freedom, security and justice; calls for the allocation of adequate financial and human resources in order to ensure the continuation of this work, as well as for the smooth implementation and management of the Entry-Exit System, the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS), the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS-TCN) and upcoming actions within the New European Interoperability Framework, taking into consideration their multi-annual nature; c. recalls the Union’s commitment to fighting poverty and social exclusion, as part of the Europe 2020 growth strategy, as well as the need for a better understanding of and response to the phenomena of radicalisation, the growing marginalisation of some groups, hate speech and hate-crime; underlines the role of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) in relation to these matters; d. calls for adequate resources for the consolidation of the new mandate of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX) and underlines that its new tasks, competences and activities will require ongoing funding in the post-2020 financial framework; e. calls for the allocation of proper resources in order to ensure the smooth implementation and running of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office;deleted

2017/11/23
Committee: LIBE

2017/2052(INI)

Nicolas BAY, Lorenzo FONTANA, Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to ~~propose clear and strict rules for financially sanctioning~~stop interfering with Member States "failing to comply with ‘the rule of law’".

2017/11/23
Committee: LIBE

2017/0351(COD)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Harald VILIMSKY, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 a (new)

(2a) The Austrian and Italian governments have demonstrated to be very effective in protecting their national borders against illegal migrants.

2018/07/23
Committee: LIBE

2017/0145(COD)

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Lorenzo FONTANA

Proposal for a regulation
–

The European Parliament rejects [the Commission proposal].

2017/11/07
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out~~Rejects the Commission proposal;

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3

(3) This objective ~~presuppose~~suggests the exchange of information extracted from criminal records between the competent authorities of the Member States. Such an exchange of information is organised and facilitated by the rules set out in Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA20 and by the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) which has been established by Council Decision 2009/316/JHA21. _________________ 20 Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA of 26 February 2009 on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record between Member States (OJ L 93, 7.4.2009, p. 23). 21 Council Decision 2009/316/JHA of 6 April 2009 on the establishment of the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) in application of Article 11 of Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA (OJ L 93, 7.4.2009, p. 33).

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8

(8) This Regulation should therefore lay down rules on creating a centralised system containing personal data at the level of the Union, the division of responsibilities between the Member State and the organisation responsible for its development and maintenance, as well as any specific data protection provisions needed to supplement the existing data protection arrangements and provide for an adequate overall level of data protection and data security. The fundamental rights of the persons concerned should be protected as well.deleted

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

(9) The European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (eu-LISA) established by Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council22 to identify the Member State(s) holding information on previous convictions of third country nationals (ʻECRIS-TCN system’) should not be entrusted with the task of developing and operating another new inefficient centralised ECRIS-TCN system, given its lack of experience with managing other large scale systems in the area of justice and home affairs. IMoreover, its mandate should be ~~amended to reflect these new task~~rejected as it is the exclusive right of any nation state to ensure, manage and control their own justice system and national security, including their national security systems. _________________ 22 Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 establishing a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (OJ L 286 1.11.2011, p. 1).

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10

(10) Given the need to create close technical links between the ECRIS-TCN system and the current ECRIS system, eu- LISA should also be entrusted with the task of further developing and maintaining the ECRIS reference implementation, and its mandate should be amended to reflect this.deleted

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15

(15) Member States ~~should~~are free to decide whether they desire to create records or not in the ECRIS-TCN system regarding convicted third country nationals ~~as soon as possible~~ after their conviction was entered into the national criminal record.

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17

(17) Improving the circulation of information on convictions ~~should assist Member States in their implementation of Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA, which obliges the Member States to take account of previous conviction~~may assist Member States in the course of new criminal proceedings.

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21

(21) The European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) established by Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council23 , Eurojust established by Council Decision 2002/187/JHA24 [and the European Public Prosecutor's Office established by Regulation (EU) …/…25 ] should have access to the ECRIS-TCN system for identifying the Member State(s) holding criminal record information on a third county national in order to support their statutory tasks. _________________ 23 Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council Decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA (OJ L 135, 24.5.2016, p. 53). 24 Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime (OJ L 063, 6.3.2002, p.1). 25deleted Regulation (EU) .../... (OJ L ...).

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22

(22) This Regulation establishes strict access rules to the ECRIS-TCN system and the necessary safeguards, including the responsibility of the Member States in collecting and using the data. It also sets out the individuals' rights to compensation, access, correction, deletion and redress, in particular the right to an effective remedy and the supervision of processing operations by public independent authorities. It therefore respects the fundamental rights and freedoms and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including the right to protection of personal data, the principle of equality before the law and the general prohibition of discrimination.deleted

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23

(23) Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council26 should apply to the processing of personal data by competent national authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council27 should apply to the processing of personal data by national authorities provided that national provisions transposing Directive (EU) 2016/680 do not apply. Coordinated supervision should be ensured in accordance with Article 62 of [the new data protection regulation for Union institutions and bodies]. _________________ 26 Directive (EU 2016/680 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 by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89) 27 Regulation (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).deleted

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24

~~(24) Rules on the liability of the Member States in respect to damage arising from any breach of this Regulation should be laid down.~~deleted

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25

(25) ~~Since t~~The objective of this Regulation, namely to enable the rapid and efficient exchange of criminal record information on third country nationals, can~~not~~ be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can rather, by reason of the necessary synergy and interoperability, 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. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objec by own initiative.

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26

(26) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the establishment and operational management of the ECRIS- TCN system, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and the Council28 . _________________ 28 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p.13)deleted

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30

(30) The European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted in accordance with Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council29 and delivered an opinion on …30 , _________________ 29 Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 008, 12.1.2001, p.1). 30deleted OJ C …

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) establishes ano new system to identify the Member State(s) holding information on previous convictions of third country nationals (’ECRIS-TCN system’);

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point h

(h) 'Central System' means the database(s) holding identity information on third country nationals who have been subject to final decisions against them of criminal courts in the Member States, developed and maintained by eu-LISA;deleted

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point p

~~(p) 'ECRIS reference implementation' means the software developed by the Commission and made available to the Member States for the exchange of criminal records information through ECRIS.~~deleted

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2

~~2. The Central System shall be hosted by eu-LISA in its two technical sites.~~deleted

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3

3. The Interface Software shall be integrated with the ECRIS reference implementation. The Member States shall use the ECRIS reference implementation to query the ECRIS-TCN system, as well as to send subsequent requests for criminal records information.deleted

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. Europol, Eurojust [and the European Public Prosecutor's Office] shall have access to the ECRIS-TCN system for identifying the Member State(s) holding criminal record information on a third county national in accordance with Articles 14, 15 and16.deleted

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1

1. The Commission shall adopt the acts necessary for the development and technical implementation of the ECRIS- TCN system, and in particular rules on: (a) the technical specifications for the processing of the alphanumeric data; (b) resolution and processing of fingerprints in the ECRIS-TCN system; (c) Interface Software referred to in point (c) of Article 4(1); (d) the technical specifications for the processing of facial images; (e) data quality, including a mechanism and procedures to carry out data quality checks; (f) entering the data in accordance with Article 5; (g) accessing the data in accordance with Article 7; (h) amending and deleting the data in accordance with Articles 8 and 9; (i) keeping and accessing the logs in accordance with Article 29; (j) providing statistics in accordance with Article 30; (k) performance and availability requirements of the ECRIS-TCN system.deleted the technical specifications for the the technical specifications of the

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2

~~2. The implementing acts referred to in paragraph 1 shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 35(2).~~deleted

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3

3. eu-LISA shall define the design of the physical architecture of the ECRIS- TCN system including its technical specifications and their evolution as regards the Central System referred to in point (a) of Article 4(1), the national central access point referred to in point (b) of Article 4(1) and the Interface Software referred to in point (c) of Article 4(1). That design shall be adopted by its Management Board, subject to a favourable opinion of the Commission.deleted

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 4

4. eu-LISA shall develop and implement the ECRIS-TCN system before [two years after the entry into force of this Regulation] and following the adoption by the Commission of the measures provided for in Article 10.deleted

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 5

5. Prior to the design and development phase, a Programme Management Board composed of a maximum of ten members shall be established by the Management Board of eu-LISA. It shall be composed of eight representatives appointed by the Management Board, the Chair of the ECRIS-TCN system Advisory Group referred to in Article 36 and one member appointed by the Commission. The members appointed by the Management Board shall be elected only from those Member States which are fully bound under Union law by the legislative instruments governing the ECRIS and which will participate in the ECRIS-TCN system. The Management Board shall ensure that the representatives it appoints shall have the necessary experience and expertise in the development and management of IT systems supporting judicial and criminal records authorities. The Programme Management Board shall meet at least once every three months, and more often when necessary. It shall ensure the adequate management of the design and development phase of the ECRIS-TCN system. The Programme Management Board shall submit written reports every month to eu-LISA’s Management Board on progress of the project. It shall have no decision-making power nor any mandate to represent the members of the Management Board.deleted

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 6

~~6. The Programme Management Boar~~deleted scha~~ll establish its rules of procedure which shall include in~~ irmanship; meeting venues; preparati~~cular rules on: (a) (b) (c) (d) meetings; (e) full information to non-participating Members of the Management Board.~~on of meetings; admission of experts to the communication plans ensuring

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 7

7. The chairmanship shall be held by the Member State holding the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, provided that it is fully bound under Union law by the legislative instruments governing the ECRIS and which will participate in the ECRIS-TCN system. If this requirement is not met, the chairmanship shall be held by the Member State which shall next hold the Presidency and which meets that requirement.deleted

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 8

8. All travel and subsistence expenses incurred by the members of the Programme Management Board shall be paid by the Agency and Article 10 of the eu-LISA Rules of Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis. The Programme Management Board’s secretariat shall be ensured by eu-LISA.deleted

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 11

~~11. eu-LISA shall be responsible for the following tasks related to the Communication Infrastructure referred to in point (d) of Article 4(1): (a) (b) (c) between the Member States and the provider.~~deleted supervision; security; the coordination of relations

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 12

~~12. The Commission shall be responsible for all other tasks relating to the Communication Infrastructure, in particular: (a) implementation of the budget; (b) (c)~~deleted tasks relating to the acquisition and renewal; contractual matters.

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 15

~~15. eu-LISA shall perform tasks related to providing training on the technical use of the ECRIS-TCN system and the ECRIS reference implementation.~~deleted

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2

2. If any failure of a Member State to comply with its obligations under this Regulation causes damage to the ECRIS- TCN system, that Member State shall be held liable for such damage, unless and insofar as eu-LISA or another Member State participating in the ECRIS-TCN system failed to take reasonable measures to prevent the damage from occurring or to minimise its impact.deleted

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that any use of data entered in the ECRIS-TCN system in contravention of this Regulation is punishable by penalties in accordance with national law, that are effective, proportionate and dissuasive.deleted

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2

~~2. eu-LISA shall be considered as data processor in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001/EU as regards the personal data entered into the Central System by the Member States.~~deleted

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 3

~~3. Member States shall ensure that their supervisory authority has sufficient resources to fulfil the tasks entrusted to it under this Regulation.~~deleted

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 4

4. Each Member State shall supply any information requested by the supervisory authorities and shall, in particular, provide them with information on the activities carried out in accordance with Articles 12, 13 and 17. Each Member State shall grant the supervisory authorities access to their records pursuant to Article 29 and allow them access at all times to all their ECRIS-TCN system related premises.deleted

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 5

5. The Member States shall provide eu-LISA with the statistics necessary to fulfil its obligations referred to in this Article. They shall provide statistics on the number of convicted third country nationals, as well as the number of convictions of third country nationals on their territory to the Commission.deleted

2017/11/30
Committee: LIBE

2017/0144(COD)