BETA

Activities of Kris PEETERS

Plenary speeches (17)

The UK’s withdrawal from the EU (debate)
2019/09/18
Dossiers: 2019/2817(RSP)
Preparation of the European Council meeting of 17 and 18 October 2019 (debate)
2019/10/09
The Turkish military operation in northeast Syria and its consequences (debate)
2019/10/23
Dossiers: 2019/2886(RSP)
Compatibility between the current EU - Mercosur Free Trade Agreement and the Commission's proposal for a European Green Deal (topical debate)
2019/12/18
Annual report on the implementation of the common foreign and security policy - Annual report on the implementation of the common security and defence policy (debate)
2020/01/14
Dossiers: 2019/2135(INI)
Proposed mandate for negotiations for a new partnership with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (debate)
2020/02/11
Migration situation at the Greek-Turkish border and the EU's common response to it (debate)
2020/03/10
EU coordinated action to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences (continuation of debate)
2020/04/16
Dossiers: 2020/2616(RSP)
Preparation of the European Council meeting of 19 June 2020 - Recommendations on the negotiations for a new partnership with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (debate)
2020/06/17
Dossiers: 2020/2023(INI)
Conclusions of the extraordinary European Council meeting of 17-21 July 2020 (continuation of debate)
2020/07/23
Dossiers: 2020/2732(RSP)
Draft Council decision on the system of own resources of the European Union (continuation of debate)
2020/09/14
Dossiers: 2018/0135(CNS)
The establishment of an EU Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights (debate)
2020/10/05
Dossiers: 2020/2072(INI)
Digital Services Act: Improving the functioning of the Single Market - Digital Services Act: adapting commercial and civil law rules for commercial entities operating online - Digital Services Act and fundamental rights issues posed - Framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies - Civil liability regime for artificial intelligence - Intellectual property rights for the development of artificial intelligence technologies (debate)
2020/10/19
Dossiers: 2020/2022(INI)
Digital Services Act: Improving the functioning of the Single Market - Digital Services Act: adapting commercial and civil law rules for commercial entities operating online - Digital Services Act and fundamental rights issues posed - Framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies - Civil liability regime for artificial intelligence - Intellectual property rights for the development of artificial intelligence technologies (continuation of debate)
2020/10/19
Dossiers: 2020/2022(INI)
Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 15 and 16 October 2020, in particular the negotiations of the future relations with the UK (debate)
2020/10/21
Multiannual Financial Framework (including Own Resources), Rule of Law Conditionality Mechanism and the Recovery Fund for Europe (continuation of debate)
2020/11/11
Towards a New Consumer Agenda beyond 2020 (debate)
2020/11/23

Reports (1)

REPORT on the Digital Services Act and fundamental rights issues posed
2020/10/01
Committee: LIBE
Dossiers: 2020/2022(INI)
Documents: PDF(213 KB) DOC(76 KB)
Authors: [{'name': 'Kris PEETERS', 'mepid': 197420}]

Opinions (1)

OPINION on the recommendations on the negotiations for a new partnership with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
2020/05/28
Committee: IMCO
Dossiers: 2020/2023(INI)
Documents: PDF(158 KB) DOC(70 KB)
Authors: [{'name': 'Kris PEETERS', 'mepid': 197420}]

Shadow opinions (1)

OPINION with recommendations to the Commission on the framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies
2020/09/23
Committee: LIBE
Dossiers: 2020/2012(INL)
Documents: PDF(157 KB) DOC(77 KB)
Authors: [{'name': 'Assita KANKO', 'mepid': 197469}]

Institutional motions (5)

JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on a common charger for mobile radio equipment
2020/01/27
Dossiers: 2019/2983(RSP)
Documents: PDF(148 KB) DOC(51 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the preparation of the special European Council summit focusing on the dangerous escalation and the role of Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean
2020/09/14
Dossiers: 2020/2774(RSP)
Documents: PDF(149 KB) DOC(47 KB)
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the preparation of the special European Council summit focusing on the dangerous escalation and the role of Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean
2020/09/15
Dossiers: 2020/2774(RSP)
Documents: PDF(166 KB) DOC(54 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on escalating tensions in Varosha following the illegal actions by Turkey and the urgent need for the resumption of talks
2020/11/18
Dossiers: 2020/2844(RSP)
Documents: PDF(146 KB) DOC(50 KB)
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on escalating tensions in Varosha following the illegal actions by Turkey and the urgent need for the resumption of talks
2020/11/23
Dossiers: 2020/2844(RSP)
Documents: PDF(157 KB) DOC(51 KB)

Written questions (29)

European approach to the security of 5G networks
2019/07/26
Documents: PDF(39 KB) DOC(18 KB)
Communication of distress signals and information to rescue ships and other vessels
2019/09/09
Documents: PDF(42 KB) DOC(19 KB)
New initiatives in respect of CRISPR-Cas
2019/09/18
Documents: PDF(39 KB) DOC(18 KB)
Harmonisation of low-emission zones
2019/09/23
Documents: PDF(40 KB) DOC(18 KB)
Use of the Copernicus programme for monitoring at sea
2019/10/08
Documents: PDF(38 KB) DOC(9 KB)
Price transparency at electric car charging stations
2019/10/10
Documents: PDF(38 KB) DOC(9 KB)
Directive (EU) 2017/1564 concerning access to published works for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled
2019/11/20
Documents: PDF(40 KB) DOC(9 KB)
Online price discrimination and artificial intelligence
2019/12/09
Documents: PDF(39 KB) DOC(9 KB)
Protection of journalists in the EU
2019/12/17
Documents: PDF(42 KB) DOC(10 KB)
Processing times for asylum applications
2020/01/06
Documents: PDF(38 KB) DOC(9 KB)
Cost efficiency of forced return flights
2020/01/06
Documents: PDF(39 KB) DOC(10 KB)
Sharing of personal data by dating apps
2020/01/22
Documents: PDF(40 KB) DOC(10 KB)
E-commerce: right of withdrawal and cost-free return of goods
2020/01/28
Documents: PDF(38 KB) DOC(9 KB)
Funding for projects to collect and recycle plastic waste in rivers and the sea
2020/01/28
Documents: PDF(38 KB) DOC(9 KB)
Online sales of unsafe products
2020/02/25
Documents: PDF(39 KB) DOC(9 KB)
Crisis measures for ornamental horticulture
2020/03/23
Documents: PDF(39 KB) DOC(9 KB)
Technical inspections of private cars
2020/03/23
Documents: PDF(38 KB) DOC(9 KB)
Availability of GMO-free Vitamin B2 supplement in chicken and pig farming
2020/03/23
Documents: PDF(40 KB) DOC(10 KB)
Discrimination against Belgian businesses by the Netherlands with regard to Coronavirus support measures
2020/03/26
Documents: PDF(39 KB) DOC(9 KB)
Crisis measures for the transition from the Euro 4 to the Euro 5 standard for motorcycles
2020/03/30
Documents: PDF(38 KB) DOC(9 KB)
Temporary lowering of VAT rate during the sales period
2020/04/08
Documents: PDF(37 KB) DOC(9 KB)
Relocation of unaccompanied minors staying in hotspots on the Greek islands
2020/04/21
Documents: PDF(39 KB) DOC(10 KB)
Detention centres in Libya
2020/05/04
Documents: PDF(39 KB) DOC(10 KB)
Introduction of border controls to stem the COVID-19 pandemic
2020/05/11
Documents: PDF(45 KB) DOC(10 KB)
Misleading diamond terminology and consumer protection
2020/05/15
Documents: PDF(42 KB) DOC(10 KB)
Inconsistency between Council Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and double taxation treaties
2020/05/28
Documents: PDF(38 KB) DOC(9 KB)
Measures against market disturbance to the veal sector
2020/07/15
Documents: PDF(49 KB) DOC(10 KB)
Supporting innovation and ensuring a level playing field for European companies that substitute substances of very high concern
2020/07/23
Documents: PDF(41 KB) DOC(10 KB)
The new EU Consumer Agenda and diamond terminology
2020/10/29
Documents: PDF(38 KB) DOC(9 KB)

Individual motions (1)

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on a European Union Fire Safety day
2020/03/13
Documents: PDF(134 KB) DOC(43 KB)

Amendments (322)

Amendment 1 #
2020/07/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 2 #

2020/2131(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital 1 b (new)
1b. Whereas European SMEs are currently experiencing unprecedented challenges because of the COVID-19 crisis that threatens their very existence;
2020/07/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 3 #

2020/2131(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital 1 c (new)
1c. Whereas only 17% of SMEs have so far successfully integrated digital technology into their businesses and digitalisation is crucial for a strong economic growth and creation of jobs within the internal market;
2020/07/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 4 #
2020/07/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 5 #

2020/2131(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. WStrongly welcomes the SME strategy and shares the Commission’s view that SMEs, are essential to the European economy the backbone of the European economy and absolutely essential for economic growth and job creation as well as for a strong and well- functioning internal market; encourages the Commission to swiftly take further initiatives to properly support EU SMEs with the aim to address both the short- term consequences of the crisis and the long-term challenges such as the digitalisation and the transition to a more sustainable internal market;
2020/07/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 13 #

2020/2131(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the implementation of the SME strategy should focus primarily on supporting SMEs to help them maintain their existence and by aiming at their full recovery and growth, as the COVID-19 crisis has delivered a shock to many SMEs and their crucial role in the everyday life of Europeans; underlines that action should also be taken to support SMEs scaling-up and to enhance their cross- border activities in order to benefit the most from the internal market; recalls that further action should be taken to safeguard SMEs from unfair competition from third countries global players;
2020/07/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 18 #

2020/2131(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Stresses that improved access to finance and liquidity are necessary to support SMEs and that EU funds together with national measures are necessary to allow companies to bridge liquidity gaps caused by the crisis; highlights that SMEs need support to compensate for loss in revenues, to finance fixed costs and avoid bankruptcies; calls for supporting possible access to diverse financial resources for SMEs in order for them not to be dependant only on banking system but also to consider the use of other means including private equity and crowdfunding;
2020/07/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 19 #

2020/2131(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Calls for the synchronisation of all financial tools aimed at supporting SMEs within the internal market; insists that programmes crucial for SMEs competitiveness, development and resilience to the crisis, must be included in the next Multiannual Financial Framework and guaranteeing a necessary level of funding that supports them; COVID-19 support schemes should be tailor-made to address challenges of the different sectors affected and to coordinate EU funding with national and regional initiatives; recovery funding also needs to address additional costs that SMEs in particular have to face when complying with additional safety rules during and after the crisis; the European Investment Bank must also continue to support SMEs in particular as part of the sustainable finance approach;
2020/07/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 22 #

2020/2131(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that SMEs should not be burdened as little as possible and encourages the Commission to use strong enforcement action to ensure that the single market benefits all businesses and consumers and to counter gold-plating and other regulatory restrictions by making use of all available tools and bodies, such as the SMEs Envoy and the Regulatory Scrutiny Board, in order to create a level playing field in cross-border business in the internal market;
2020/07/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 31 #

2020/2131(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls for a roadmap towards achieving a major reduction in administrative burden and bureaucracy affecting SMEs in the internal market, to boost SMEs potential for investments and speed up EU economic recovery; this should include the following elements: - supporting SMEs to operate cross- border thus fully reaping the benefits of the internal market; - encouraging scale-up; - strengthening and mainstreaming the SMEs dimension in all impact assessments through a binding SME test performed at an early stage of the impact assessment to analyse the economic impact of legislative proposals, including the compliance costs; - applying of the one-in-one-out rule in such a way that for any additional compliance cost introduced by new legislation, the corresponding amount of compliance cost is reduced; - reducing the regulatory burden through concrete targets at EU and national level (such as a reduction by 30% or cut 1000 outdated rules and regulations), in order to make a real benefit for SMEs to grow and prosper within the EU internal market;
2020/07/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 37 #

2020/2131(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights the crucial role of data as the lifeblood of the digital economy; supports the Commission in establishing European data spaces for trusted and secure data sharing to ramp up data flows between businesses and with governments; underlines that SMEs must be given a fair share of the added value of the data they generate and highlights that interoperability and non-discriminatory access to data, including platforms’ data, are key to ensure a digital level playing field within the internal market and to successfully deal with challenges and opportunities emerging from data sharing, data security and cybersecurity issues across the whole internal market;
2020/07/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 43 #

2020/2131(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Points out that there is the need to facilitate the SMEs’ uptake of Artificial Intelligence by promoting the creation of SME cross-border Alliances for AI in strategic value chains within the internal market, as well promoting investment in the next generation of standards, tools and infrastructures to store and process data; points out that it is important to ensure SMEs’ access to and awareness of ICT standards to innovate and provide more tailored digital solutions;
2020/07/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 46 #

2020/2131(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Stresses that start-ups represent the SMEs with the higher potential to grow in new digital sectors such as AI, IOT and robotics; stresses that also microenterprises and micro-companies, that do not dispose of sufficient resources or infrastructure for digital transformation, must have access to sufficient financial resources and be adequately supported; recalls that also traditional SMEs focused on the sustainable development of the society are threatened heavily by the crisis in several sectors and should be adequately supported;
2020/07/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 50 #

2020/2131(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Encourages Member States to implement the single digital gateway in an SME-friendly way by cooperating closely with regional and local authorities as well as with the other Member States and by providing easy digital access to information, procedures, and services linked to doing business across borders, including advice on public procurement and funding sources;
2020/07/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 63 #

2020/2131(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Member States to simplify procurement tendering processes by using the flexibility of the EU’s newCommission’s new guidance within the EU’s public procurement framework and to enhance opportunities for SMEs in the internal market by using digital tools and platforms to expand cross-border procurement; stresses that greensustainable public procurement can make an important contribution to building a sustainable economythe transition to a more sustainable economy and that SMEs need the right support to bring forward this transition;
2020/07/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 64 #

2020/2131(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Stresses the need to increase the SMEs’ share of government contracts, enhancing their access to public procurement and combating tendering criteria that set requirements beyond the fundamental elements of the service or goods purchased, such as price, quality and sustainability;
2020/07/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 69 #

2020/2131(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines the fact that late payments account for a quarter of all SME bankruptcies in the EU; urges the Commission to swiftly equip the Late Payment Directive1 with strong monitoring and enforcement tools so as to ensure and promote prompt payments as a norm across the single market, including through an active use of infringement procedures in cases where the Directive is not properly implemented; to that aim, encourages Member States to appoint an independent enforcement authority in charge of monitoring the proper application of the late payment rules and empowered to impose penalties in case of delays in payment times. __________________________ 1 Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, OJ L 48, 23.2.2011, p. 1.
2020/07/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 74 #

2020/2131(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Points out the need to deepen and complete the Single Market in services, especially for SMEs; short-term cross- border service orders need to be exempt from the obligation for an A1 certificate in order not to increase the fragmentation of the internal market for services.
2020/07/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 80 #

2020/2131(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Points out that midcap companies that exceed the criteria of the SME definition contribute significantly to growth and job creation with in the internal market, but receive too little support; calls on the Commission to consider a revision of the current SMEs definition and propose an additional separate midcap definition ensuring that small midcaps with 250 to 499 employees in particular can be better relieved and promoted, while making sure that SMEs funding is not reduced for those SMEs meeting the current criteria.
2020/07/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 10 #

2020/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas according to Article 42(2) of the TEU, the common security and defence policy (CSDP) includes the progressive framing of a common EU defence policy, which couldwill lead to a common defence being put in place, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides;
2020/07/08
Committee: AFET
Amendment 57 #

2020/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G
G. whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the consequences of the EU not having enough competence when it comes to health care; whereas, by the same analogy, it would make sense to establishvolve to an EU common integrated security and defence strategy in order to be able to respond to an attack on the EU’s borders and territories; whereas PESCO constitutes an important step towards achieving the objective of a common defence;
2020/07/08
Committee: AFET
Amendment 75 #

2020/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I
I. whereas PESCO creates a binding framework between the pMS, which committed themselves to jointly investing, planning, developing and operating defence capabilities within Union framework in a permanent and structured manner by subscribing to 20 binding commitments in five areas set by the TEU; whereas these commitments should constitute a move from mere defence cooperation towards the integration of Member States’ defence forces; whereas despite these binding commitments, no effective compliance mechanism for PESCO is in place are annually evaluated in the national implementation plans by the PESCO secretariat which can be consulted by the participating Member States;
2020/07/08
Committee: AFET
Amendment 86 #

2020/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J
J. whereas the pMS do not pay enough attentionshould enhance their commitment to the 20 binding commitments to which they have subscribed, and not enough progress has been achieved with regard to significantly embedding PESCO into national d; notes that military capacity planning cycles usually take longer than 3 years; highlights that the current national military capacity planning cycles are mostly driven by the previously established NATO Defence pPlanning pProcesses;
2020/07/08
Committee: AFET
Amendment 98 #

2020/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L
L. whereas work on the first three waves of PESCO projects has led to the pMS proposing 47 projects; whereas the current list of projects lacks coherence, strategic ambition and does not adequately address priority shortfalls as identified by the pMS; whereas one of these projects has been stopped in order to avoid unnecessary duplication; whereas other projects did not make sufficient progress or are at risk of being stopped, and around 30 projects are still in the ideation and preparatory phase; whereas the development of ambitious military capacity projects can take up to 10 years;
2020/07/08
Committee: AFET
Amendment 110 #

2020/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital M
M. whereas only the mostcertain strategic PESCO projects are focussed on the operational deployment, such as EUFOR Crisis Response Operation Core (EUFOR CROC) have the potential to decisively contribute to the creation of a coherent fulland other projects are more focussed on the development of military capacities; whereas both are needed to decisively contribute to evolvement to an EU common integrated spectrum force packageurity and defence strategy;
2020/07/08
Committee: AFET
Amendment 144 #

2020/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital S
S. whereas interactions between Member States’ national priorities, EU priorities and NATO priorities should be synchronised at the earliest possible convenience; whereas PESCO can be an effective tool in order to achieveprovide military capabilities that can address EU and NATO targets simultaneously;
2020/07/08
Committee: AFET
Amendment 159 #

2020/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital V
V. whereas the prospect of receiving co- financing for the development capacities deriving from certain PESCO projects via the future European Defence Fund (EDF) has led pMS to multiply their proposals, and despite the fact that this has encouraged exchanges and cooperation, not all proposals necessarily have the EU’s best strategic interest in mind;
2020/07/08
Committee: AFET
Amendment 174 #

2020/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital W
W. whereas the, in some specific cases, participation of third countries in individual PESCO projects might be in the strategic interest of the European Union, particularly in case of the United Kingdom;
2020/07/08
Committee: AFET
Amendment 198 #

2020/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b
(b) define the Union’s strategic vision, by, inter alia, implementing the level of ambition defined by the 2016 EU Global Strategy, inter alia, through the ongoing work of the Strategic Compass, which needs to be carried out in cooperation with the Commission and, strengthen PESCO’s operational dimension;
2020/07/08
Committee: AFET
Amendment 202 #

2020/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point c
(c) prepare, on the basis of the results of the discussion on the Strategic Compass, a fully-fledged EU Security and Defence White Book; notes that the first results of the Strategic Compass are expected in the first half of 2022;
2020/07/08
Committee: AFET
Amendment 216 #

2020/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d
(d) encourage the pMS to switchevolve from a strictly national focus on defence to a European one and to undertake structured efforts to increase the use of European collaborative approach as a priority, as no individual pMS alone has the potential to address identified capacity shortfalls;
2020/07/08
Committee: AFET
Amendment 221 #

2020/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point e
(e) maintainincrease the EU’s budgetary ambition for the strengthening of defence capabilities, notably throught the sufficient financing of EDF and military mobility in the upcoming MFF;
2020/07/08
Committee: AFET
Amendment 235 #

2020/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point f
(f) ensure that PESCO is effectively used as an instrument to reach a EU defence integrationcommon integrated and defence strategy as a common goal, in line with the ambition for greater EU Strategic Autonomy;
2020/07/08
Committee: AFET
Amendment 238 #

2020/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point g
(g) ensure that the funding of capacities derived from PESCO projects by the EDF is focused on a limited set of strategic key projects, in line with the HCIG of the CDP, in order to maximise its impactigh Impact Capacity Goals (HICG) of the Capacity Development Priorities (CDP), in order to maximise its impact; ensure that the selection of PESCO project is in line with HICG of the CDP;
2020/07/08
Committee: AFET
Amendment 250 #

2020/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point i
(i) incorporate directly into the PESCO project cycle the link between PESCO and EDIDP/EDF; impose the documentation of each project, before selection on the budgetary side;deleted
2020/07/08
Committee: AFET
Amendment 260 #

2020/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point j
(j) focus PESCO efforts on projects with a strategic and integrative dimension, such as EUFOR CROC, and link those to other PESCO projects in order to create additional synergies and effects of scale where appropriate;
2020/07/08
Committee: AFET
Amendment 272 #

2020/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point k
(k) ensurcourage that future key land, sea, air and other platforms for the armed forces of the Member States are brought under PESCO or are at least closely connected to itwhere appropriate;
2020/07/08
Committee: AFET
Amendment 280 #

2020/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point l
(l) consider, as part of the reformsuggest that the study for adaptation of the EU Battleg Group system,(EU BG) as Strategic Reserve Force could advise to bring itEU BG under PESCO in order to increase its operational capacity, modularity and agility;
2020/07/08
Committee: AFET
Amendment 286 #

2020/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point m
(m) where relevant, group PESCO projects into capability clusters and make a distinction between strategically relevant and other projects;
2020/07/08
Committee: AFET
Amendment 292 #

2020/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point n
(n) promote compliance with the 20 PESCO commitments by establishing a clear and simpler definition of compliance benchmarks, and by ensuring that future project proposals must address a specific CDP pEU Capability Development Priorityies; ensure that any reviews of project progress should be based on clear and transparent criteria; ensure that such criteria serve as benchmark for all Member States participating in PESCO projects;
2020/07/08
Committee: AFET
Amendment 296 #

2020/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point o
(o) use the synergies between the PESCO project cycle and other defence capability processes such as CARD, HLGHLGP, CDP and EDFCARD in order to enable more mature and well-documented projects to be submitted; allow projects to be submitted outside the cycle in order to enable the synchronised implementation of several European initiatives, including the EDF;
2020/07/08
Committee: AFET
Amendment 311 #

2020/2080(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point q
(q) define an effective and strong project steering committee, reaffirm the central role of the PESCO secretariat as a single point of contact for all projects and invite the secretariat to carry out regular situation points on the progress of projects for the benefit of all the stakeholders, including Parliament, via information collected from Member State(s) in charge of project coordination;
2020/07/08
Committee: AFET
Amendment 5 #

2020/2023(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas the deadline for concluding the negotiations for a new partnership with the UK is ambitious, negotiations are highly complex, and the COVID-19 crisis with the consequent suspension of the negotiations makes the situation even more challenging;
2020/04/27
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 14 #

2020/2023(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Underlines that Brexit must stand as a cautionary tale to the EU27 that mainly focussing on rational economic policy cooperation might cause more exits; therefore the European Institutions and the Member States together should, also through effective communication instruments, work on fostering a common European emotion and identity, complementary to national and regional identities;
2020/04/27
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 87 #

2020/2023(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. In order to ensure that medicines and medical equipment are available in the European Union's internal market and for the reason of protecting EU consumers, it has to be considered that the United Kingdom is among the 10 most important exporters of medicines and medical equipment in the world, worth $ 19.7 billion in exports in 2018 (which represents as much as 5.3% of total world exports); for this reason, underlines that special attention in negotiations should as well be devoted to the issue of future trade in medicines and medical products between the UK and the EU.
2020/04/27
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 168 #

2020/2023(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Notes that contrary to the UK’s claim of relying on existing precedents, many proposals in the UK draft legal proposals go significantly beyond what has been negotiated by the EU in other FTAs with third countries in recent years, for example in the area of financial services, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and conformity assessment, equivalence of the SPS regime, or the cumulation of Rules of Origin;
2020/05/28
Committee: AFETINTA
Amendment 5 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 c (new)
— having regard to Directive (EU) 2018/1808 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (‘Audiovisual Media Services Directive’) in view of changing market realities;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 7 #

2020/2022(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to introduce a harmonised approach addressing obligations imposed onfor online intermediaries, in order to avoid fragmentation of the internal market while guaranteeing users fundamental rights; stresses that any measure related to fundamental rights should be carefully balanced and take into account the possible impact on the functioning of the internal market, and calls on the Commission to avoid the ‘export’ of national regulations and instead to propose the most efficient and effective solutions for the internal market as a whole without creating new administrative burdens and keeping the digital single market open and competitive;
2020/05/07
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 10 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 d (new)
— having regard to Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 11 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)
— having regard to the Commission recommendation of 1 March 2018 on measures to effectively tackle illegal content online (C(2018) 1177 final);
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 13 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 b (new)
— having regard to the Europol Internet Organised Crime Threat Assessment (IOCTA) of 18 September 2018;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 17 #

2020/2022(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. States that limited liability provisions as set out in the e-Commerce Directive1 must be maintained and strengthenwhere needed, updated in the Digital Services Act to better protect users and consumers, particularly in order to protect freedom of expression and the freedom to provide services; underlines the importance of these protections to the growth of European SMEscompanies, SMEs and microbusinesses in particular; _________________ 1 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1.
2020/05/07
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 20 #

2020/2022(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Calls on the Commission to introduce provisions protecting consumers from harmful microtargeting; in this respect, believes that specific limitations, i.e. of microtargeting based on characteristics exposing physical or psychological vulnerabilities, transparency obligations in regard to algorithms used by platforms and adequate tools empowering users to enforce fundamental rights online, are necessary in order to protect consumer rights effectively;
2020/05/07
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 24 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas the amount of user- generated content, including harmful and illegal content, shared via cloud services or online platformsonline platforms, including cloud services, has increased exponentially;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 31 #

2020/2022(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Recognises that online intermediaries, including microcompanies, SMEs and large players have differing capabilities with regard to the moderation of content; warns that overburdening businesses with disproportionate new obligations could further hinder the growth of SMEs and require recourse to automatic filtering tools, which may often lead to the removal of legal content;
2020/05/07
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 36 #

2020/2022(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Notes theat there are often significant differences between digital services and; therefore calls for the avoidance of a one-size-fits-all approach, where differentiation of instruments is needed;
2020/05/07
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 36 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E
E. whereas the political approach to tackle harmful and illegal content online in the EU has mainly focused on voluntary cooperation thus far, but a growing number of Member States are adopting national legislation to address illegal content and provisions to address certain types of content were included in recent sectoral legislation at EU level;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 39 #

2020/2022(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls the fact that mdisinformativeon and harmful content is not always illegal in every Member State; calls, therefore, for the establishment of a well-defined notice- and-takedown process; supports an intensive dialogue between authorities and relevant stakeholders with the aim of deepening the soft law approach based on good practices such as the EU-wide Code of Practice on Disinformation,action mechanism; Believes that such a process adding requirements for platforms to take any measures regarding the content they host must take note of the significant differences between digital services and be proportionate to their scale of reach and operational capacities so as to avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens for the platforms and any restrictions of fundamental rights as a result, such as any restriction on the freedom of expression; Supports greater cooperation between Member States, competent authorities and platforms with the aim of developing and improving soft law approaches in order to further tackle mdisinformation;
2020/05/07
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 55 #

2020/2022(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for the introduction of appropriate safeguards, due process obligations and counter- notice toolprocedures to allow content owners to defend their rights adequately and in a timely manner when notified of any takedown; underlines its view that delegating the responsibility to set boundaries on freedom of speech to private companies is unacceptable and creates risks for both citizens and businesses, neither of which are qualified to take such decisions.; Believes that the removal of content should be followed up by law enforcement where needed;
2020/05/07
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 56 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J
J. whereas the lack of robust public data on the prevalence and removal of illegal and harmful content online creates a deficit of accountability, both in the private and public sector; this includes the use and underlying source codes of algorithmic processes and how platforms address the erroneous removal of content;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 65 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital K
K. whereas child sexual exploitation online is shaped by technological developments, such as the increased use of end-to-end encryption and the dark web; whereas the vast amount of child sexual abuse material circulating online poses serious challenges for detection, investigation and, most of all, victim identification efforts;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 90 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Believes in the clear societal and economic benefits of a functioning digital single market for the EU and its Member States; welcomes these benefits, in particular improved access to information and the strengthening of the freedom of expression; stresses the important obligation to ensure a fair digital ecosystem in which fundamental rights and data protection are respected; calls for a minimum level of intervention based on the principles of necessity and proportionality;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 113 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that illegal content online should not only be removed by online platforms, but should be followed up by law enforcement and the judiciary; finds, in this regard, that a key issue in some Member States is not that they have unresolved cases but rather unopened ones; calls for barriers to filing complaints with competent authorities to be removed; is convinced that, given the borderless nature of the internet and the fast dissemination of illegal content online, cooperation between service providers and national competent authorities should be improved; calls, to this end, on Member States to equip their law enforcement and judicial authorities with the necessary expertise, resources and tools to allow them to effectively deal with the increasing number of cases involving illegal content online;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 121 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Acknowledges the fact that, while the illegal nature of certain types of content can be easily established, the decision is more difficult for other types of content as it requires contextualisation; warns that some automated tools are not sophisticated enough to take contextualisation into account, which could lead to unnecessary restrictions being placed on thtakedowns and harm the freedom of expression; highlights that illegal content online can easily be multiplied which greatly amplifies the negative impact within a very short period of time; therefore believes that digital service providers should be allowed to have freedom of expresscourse to automated tools with human oversight to detect, remove or block access to content whose illegality has either been established by a court or can be easily determined without contextualisation;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 126 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 (new)
considers, in this regard, that other stakeholders in the online ecosystem, such as users, right holders and media, can also play an important role in establishing whether content is illegal based on the specific context; invites these stakeholders to cooperate closely and exchange information with platforms to help them to effectively identify and address illegal content;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 130 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that a specific piece of information may be deemed illegal in one Member State but is covered by the right to freedom of expression in another; calls for a structured dialogue between Member States in order to assess the risk of specific types of content;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 136 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Strongly believes that the current EU legal framework governing digital services should be updated with a view to addressing the challenges posed by the fragmentation between the Member States and new technologies, ands well as ensuring legal clarity and respect for fundamental rights, in particular the freedom of expression; considers that the reform should build on the solid foundation of and full compliance with existing EU law, especially the General Data Protection Regulation and the Directive on privacy and electronic communications;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 147 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Calls, to this end, for legislative proposals that keep the digital single market open and competitive by requiring digital service providers to apply effective, coherent, transparent and fair procedures and procedural safeguards to remove illegal content in line with European values, while also establishing a procedure for collaboration with law enforcement and judicial authorities; firmly believes that this should be harmonised within the digital single market;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 164 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Highlights that this should include rules on the notice-and-action mechanisms and requirements for platforms to take proactive measures that are proportionate to their scale of reach and operational capacities in order to effectively address the appearance of illegal content on their services, while leaving the choice of the concrete measures to the platforms; supports a balanced duty-of-care approach and a clear chain of responsibility to avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens for the platforms and unnecessary and disproportionate restrictions on fundamental rights, including the freedom of expression;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 176 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Supports limited liability for content and the country of origin principle, but considers improved coordination for removal requests between national competent authorities to be essential; emphasises that such orders should be subject to legal safeguards in order to prevent abuse and ensure full respect of fundamental rights; highlights that removal requests from competent authorities should be specific and clearly state the legal basis for removal; stresses that sanctions should apply to those service providers that fail to comply with legitimate orders;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 190 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Believes that terms of services of digital service providers should be clear, transparent and fair, fair and be made available in an easy and accessible manner to users; deplores the fact that some terms of services from content platforms do not allow law enforcement to use non-personal accounts, which poses a threat both to possible investigations and to personal safety;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 197 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Underlines that certain types of legal, yet harmful, content should also be addressed to ensure a fair digital ecosystem; expects guidelines to include increased transparency rules on content moderation or politicaland advertising policy to ensure that the removals and the blocking of harmful content are limited to the absolute necessary; calls on the commission to consider this in a specific instrument accompanying the Digital Services Act;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 202 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Maintains that these forms of harmful content include micro targeting based on characteristics exposing physical or psychological vulnerabilities, health related content such as disinformation on COVID-19 causes or remedies and emerging issues such as the organised abuse of multiple platforms, artificial intelligence applications creating fake profiles or manipulating online content; points out that special attention should be paid to harmful content in the context of minors using the internet, especially in regard to their exposure to cyberbullying, sexual harassment, pornography, violence or self-harm;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 203 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 – indent 1 (new)
- Considers that, as a general principle, targeted advertising can have a positive economic and societal impact and points to the fact that GDPR needs to be fully and properly enforced to ensure the respect of users' privacy;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 214 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Deems that accountability-, both in the private and public sector, and evidence-based policy making requires robust data on the prevalence and removal of illegal content online;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 215 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Calls, in this regard, for a regular public reporting obligation for platforms, proportionate to their scale of reach and operational capacities, more specifically on their content moderation procedures, including standardised data about the amount of content removed and the underlying reasons, the type and justification of removal requests received, the number of requests whose execution was refused and the reasons therefore;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 221 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Calls, moreover, for a regular public reporting obligation for national authorities, including standardised data on the number of removal requests and their legal bases, on the number of removal requests which were subject to administrative or judicial remedies, on the outcome of these proceedings, and on the total number of decisions imposing penalties, including a description of the type of penalty imposed;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 233 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Supports the creation of an independent EU body to exercise effective oversight of compliance with the applicable rules; believstresses that it should guarantee a harmonised implementation of these rules across the Union and enforce procedural safeguards and transparency and provide quick and; believes that it should provide reliable guidance on contexts in which legal content is to be considered harmful;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 245 #

2020/2022(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Stresses that this EU body should not take on the role of content moderator, but that it should analyse, upon complaint or on its own initiative, whether and how digital service providers amplify illegal content, for example recommendation engines and optimisation features such as autocomplete and trending; calls for this regulator to have the power to impose proportionate fines or other corrective actions when platforms do not provide sufficient information on their procedures or algorithms in a timely manner;
2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 4 #

2020/2019(INL)

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
Ca. Whereas Regulation (EU) 2017/23941a has a pivotal role in enhancing cooperation amongst national authorities in the field of consumer protection; __________________ 1aRegulation (EU) 2017/2394 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (OJ L 345, 27.12.2017, p. 1).
2020/05/07
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 7 #

2020/2019(INL)

Draft opinion
Recital C b (new)
Cb. Whereas Regulation (EU) 2016/6791a (GDPR) establishes the rules on the processing of personal data and on the protection of personal data; __________________ 1a 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).
2020/05/07
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 9 #

2020/2019(INL)

Draft opinion
Recital C c (new)
Cc. Whereas Directive 2002/58/EC1a ensures that all communications over public networks maintain respect for a high level of data protection and privacy; __________________ 1aDirective 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37).
2020/05/07
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 10 #

2020/2019(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the “CPC Common Position COVID-19”3 issued by the Commission and the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) authorities of the Member States on the most recent reported scams and unfair practices in relation to the COVID-19 outbreak; stresses the necessity to better protect consumers by providing reliable and transparent information on malpractices, such as misleading claims and scams for products in high demand; calls on all platforms to cooperate with the Commission and the competent authorities of the CPC network and members of the European Consumer Centres (ECC) to better identify illegal practices, take down scams and asks the Commission to constantly review the common guidelines for the placement and/or sale of items and services of a false, misleading or otherwise abusive content for consumers; believes such guidelines should not only seek to apply Union and national consumer law, but to proactively seek to put in place the means to react to the crisis in the market rapidly; __________________ 3European Commission / Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Network, Common Position of CPC Authorities, “Stopping scams and tackling unfair business practices on online platforms in the context of the Coronavirus outbreak in the EU”.
2020/05/07
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 54 #

2020/2019(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. While recalling earlier efforts, asks the Commission to further review the practice of End User Licensing Agreements (EULAs) and to seek ways to allow greater and easier engagement for consumers, including in the choice of clauses; notes that EULAs are often accepted by users without reading themso far the consumer has no choice but to agree with the terms of EULAs; moreover notes that when a EULA does allow for users to opt-out of clauses, platforms may require users to do so at each use; asks the Commission to introduce guidance for platforms on how to better inform consumers about the terms of EULAs, such as a pop-up message comprising key information thereof;
2020/05/07
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 62 #

2020/2019(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines that EULAs should always make the sharing of all data with third parties optional unless vital to the functioning of the services, under the terms of EULAs, consumers should be free to give consent for sharing some or all of their data with third parties, unless there are legal grounds for the lawfulness of sharing of data; asks the Commission to ensure that consumers can still use a connected device for all its primary functions, even if a consumers do not give or withdraws their consent to share non- operational data with the device manufacturer or third parties;
2020/05/07
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 74 #

2020/2019(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. Notes the rise of “smart contracts” based on distributed ledger technologies; asks the Commission to analyse if certain aspects of “smart contracts” should, that need to be clarified and ifprovide guidance should be giventhereabout, in order to ensure legal certainty for businesses and consumers; asks especially for the Commission to work to ensure that such contracts with consumers are valid and binding throughout the Union; that they meet the standards of consumer law, for example the right of withdrawal under Directive 2011/83/EU4 ; and that they"smart contracts" are not subject to national barriers to application, such as notarisation requiremen when it comes to their validity requirements as consumer contracts; __________________ 4 Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 64).
2020/05/07
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 79 #

2020/2019(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that any future legislative proposals should seek to remove current and prevent potentially new unjustified barriers in the supply of digital services by online platforms, as well as foster an online environment free of illegal content that would be detrimental to Union consumers and the economy of the Union; underlines, at the same time, that new Union obligations on platforms must be proportional and clear in nature in order to avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens or unnecessary restrictions; underlines the need to prevent gold-plating practices of Union legislation by Member States.
2020/05/07
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 16 #

2020/2018(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1 c. Highlights that illegal content online can easily be multiplied and its negative impact amplified within a very short period of time; reminds that Facebook alone blocked 1.2 million copies of the video of the March 2019 Christchurch attacks at the point of upload and removed another 300,000 copies within 24 hours of the attack, which would not have been possible if each individual removal or blocking decision had been subject to human verification; believes, therefore, that online intermediaries should be expressly allowed to have recourse to automated tools to detect and remove or block access to content whose illegality has either been established by a court or whose illegal nature can be easily determined without contextualisation; stresses, however, that there should be no general monitoring obligation;
2020/05/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 19 #

2020/2018(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that the rapid development of digital services requires strong and future-proof legislation tohat protects privacy and a, provides reasonable duty of care to ensure digital dignity and effectively addresses illegal content; stresses therefore in this regard that all digital service providers need to fully respect Union data protection law, namely Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (GDPR)1 and Directive (EC) 2002/58 of the European Parliament and of the Council (ePrivacy)2 , currently under revision, and othe freedom of expressionr Union legislation which includes obligations upon them with the aim to balance the right of users to freedom of expression with the right to liberty and security; _________________ 1Regulation (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). 2 Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37).
2020/05/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 51 #

2020/2018(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E
E. whereas in its communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 19 February 2020 “Shaping Europe’s digital future”, the Commission committed itself to adopting, as part of the Digital Services Act package, new and revised rules for online platforms and information service provider; to reinforcing the oversight over platforms’ content policies in the EU; and, to looking into ex ante rules to ensure that large platforms with significant network effects, acting as gatekeepers, remain fair and contestable for innovators, businesses, and new market entrants; including SMEs, start-ups, entrepreneurs and new market entrants; believes that the Digital Services Act should complement the existing legal framework together with other relevant legislation, such as rules on consumer protection, enforcement, product safety, market surveillance, competition, geo-blocking, audio-visual media services, copyright and the General Data Protection Regulation;
2020/05/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 59 #

2020/2018(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Notes the potential negative impact ofat behavioural advertising, including micro-targeted advertising, and of assessment of individuals, may better address potential needs than contextual advertising but can also have negative impacts, especially on minors and other vulnerable groups, by interfering in the private life of individuals, posing questions as to the collection and use of the data used to target said advertising, offering products or services or, setting prices; calls therefore on the Commission to introduce, or influencing democratic processes and elections; calls therefore on the Commission to introduce specific requirements with regard to behavioural advertising to protect fundamental rights, including a limitation on micro-targeted advertisements, especially on vulnerable groups, and a prohibition on the use of discriminatory practices for the provision of services or products.;
2020/05/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 61 #

2020/2018(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to submit a proposal for a Digital Services Act package, consisting of a directive amending the E-Commerce Directive and a proposal for a Regulation on ex-ante rules on large platforms with a gatekeeper role, and, on the basis of Article 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), calls on the Commission to submit such a package on the basis of the relevant Articles of the Treaties, following the recommendations set out in the Annex hereto;
2020/05/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 69 #

2020/2018(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. is concerned about the fragmentation of public oversight and supervision of digital services and the frequent lack of financial and human resources for the oversight bodies needed to properly fulfil their tasks; calls for increased cooperation with regard to regulatory oversight of digital services; supports the creation of an independent EU body to ensure harmonised implementation of and compliance with applicable rules;
2020/05/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 74 #

2020/2018(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. highlights the importance of user empowerment with regard to the enforcement of their own fundamental rights online; considers that users should be provided with easy access to complaint procedures, legal remedies, educational measures and awareness-raising on data protection issues;
2020/05/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 80 #

2020/2018(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
(a) Stresses the importance to address the remaining unjustified obstacles to the Digital Single Market and avoid protectionist measures, which are sometimes used by Member States to boost national competition. For example, settling the costs of cross-border disputes, suppliers’ restrictions to selling cross- border, delivery-related matters, taxation rules, limited cross-border access to goods and services due to differences in intellectual property rights law, access to information on the relevant regulatory requirements, complex administrative procedures, as well as ensuring that no new barriers are created;
2020/05/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 103 #

2020/2018(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that a future-proof, comprehensive EU-level framework and fair competition are crucial in order to promote the growth of European small- scale platforms, small and medium enterprises (SMEs), micro companies, entrepreneurs and start-ups, prevent market fragmentation and provide European businesses with a level playing field that enables them to better profit from the digital services market and be more competitive on the world stage;
2020/05/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 133 #

2020/2018(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that the Digital Services Act should be based on public values of the Union protecting citizens’ rights should aim to foster the creation of a rich and diverse online ecosystem with a wide range of online services, favourable digital environment and legal certainty to unlock the full potential of the Digital Single Market; believes that the EU should focus on removing existing obstacles in the Digital Single Market and on ensuring consumer and fundamental rights protection as one of the main objectives of the reform of the E-Commerce Directive; considers in this context that the Single Market objective can only be achieved if consumer trust is ensured; believes that the updated E-Commerce rules must clearly establish that consumer law and product safety requirements fall within their scope of application in order to ensure legal certainty;
2020/05/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 169 #

2020/2018(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that information society services providers, and in particular online platforms andincluding social networking sites - because of their wide-reaching ability to reach and influence broader audiences, behaviour, opinions, and practices - bear significant social responsibility in terms of protecting users and society at large and preventing their services from being exploited abusively.
2020/05/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 182 #

2020/2018(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls that recent scandals regarding data harvesting and selling, Cambridge Analytica, fake news, political advertising and manipulation and a host of other online harms (from hate speech to the broadcast of terrorism) have shown the need to revisit the existing rules and reinforce protection of fundamental rights online;
2020/05/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 207 #

2020/2018(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses that this problem is aggravated by the fact that often the identity of these companies cannot be establishfraudulent companies and individuals cannot be established; and therefore, consumers cannot seek compensation for the damages and losses experienced;
2020/05/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 285 #

2020/2018(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Considers that consumers should be properly informed and their rights should be effectively guaranteed when they interact with automated decision-making systems and other innovative digital services or applications; considers it essential that automatic decision-making systems do not generate unfairly biased outputs for consumers in the single market; believes that it should be always possible for consumers to be properly informed about interacting with automated decision-making, and about how to reach a human with decision- making powers to request checks and corrections of possible mistakes resulting from automated decisions, as well as to seek redress for any damage related to the use of automated decision-making systems;
2020/05/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 296 #

2020/2018(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Underlines the importance of the use of data by digital platforms and that the accumulation of vast amounts of data by large technological enterprises creates imbalances in bargaining power and, thus, leads to the distortion of competition in the Single Market;
2020/05/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 301 #

2020/2018(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses that the existence and spread of illegal content online is a severe threat that undermines citizens' trust and confidence in the digital environment, and which also harms the economic development of healthy platform ecosystems in the Digital Single Market and severely hampers the development of legitimate markets for digital services; deems it therefore necessary that illegal content is removed swiftly and consistently;
2020/05/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 334 #

2020/2018(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Considers that voluntary actions and self-regulation by online platforms across Europe have brought some benefits, but additional measures are needed in order to ensure the swift detection and removal of illegal content online; stresses that legal obligations for digital service providers must be introduced on procedures, procedural safeguards and meaningful transparency reports;
2020/05/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 344 #

2020/2018(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Believes that where intermediaries are established in a third country, they should designate a legal representative, established in the Union, who can be held accountable for the products they offer;
2020/05/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 477 #

2020/2018(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
30. Considers that a central regulatory authority should be established which should be responsible for the oversight and compliance with the Digital Services Act and have supplementary powers to tackle cross-border issues; it should be entrusted with investigation and enforcement powers; believes it should investigate whether and how digital service providers amplify illegal content through their use of algorithms; considers that the transparency reports drawn up by digital service providers should be made available to this regulatory authority, which should be tasked with providing a structured analysis of illegal content removal and blocking at Union level;
2020/05/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 480 #

2020/2018(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
30. Considers that a central regulatory authority should be established which should be responsible for the oversight and compliance with the Digital Services Act and have supplementary powers to tackle cross-border issues; it should be entrusted with strong investigation and enforcement powers; stresses that cooperation between national as well as other Member States’ authorities, civil society and consumer organisations is of utmost importance for achieving effective enforcement;
2020/05/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 507 #

2020/2018(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part I – paragraph 1
The Digital Services Act should contribute to the strengthening of the internal market by ensuring the free movement of digital services, while at the same time guaranteeing a high level of consumer protection, includingand the improvement of users’ safety online;
2020/05/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 590 #

2020/2018(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part III – paragraph 1 – indent 5
- define "systemic operator" by establishing a set of clear economic indicators that allow regulatory authorities to identify platforms which enjoy a significant market position with a "gatekeeper" role playing a systemic role in the online economy; such indicators could include considerations such as whether the undertaking is active to a significant extent on multi-sided markets, or has predominant influence over its users, the size of its network (number of users), its financial strength, access to data, accumulation of data, vertical integration, the importance of its activity for third parties’ access to supply and markets, etc.
2020/05/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 645 #

2020/2018(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part IV – paragraph 1 – subheading 3 – indent 3
- The transparency requirements should include the obligation to disclose who is paying for the advertising, including both direct and indirect payments or any other contributions received by service providers; those requirements should apply also to platforms, even if they are established in third countries; consumers and public authorities should be able to identify who should be held accountable in case of, for example, false or misleading advertisement; these transparency requirements should also empower advertisers vis-a-vis advertising services, when it comes to where and when ads are placed; more efforts are needed to make sure that illegal activities cannot be funded via advertising services;
2020/05/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 651 #

2020/2018(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part IV – paragraph 1 – subheading 3 – indent 3 b (new)
- Specific requirements in regard to behavioural advertising, including micro targeting, should be introduced in order to protect public interest; behavioural advertising based on certain characters, i.e. exposing mental or physical vulnerabilities, should not be allowed at all, while some other characteristics should be allowed only under the opt-in condition by the users;
2020/05/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 751 #

2020/2018(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part V – paragraph 2 – indent 11
- create an obligation for the online intermediaries to verify the notified content and reply in a timely manner to the notice provider and the content uploader with a reasoned decision;
2020/05/18
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 6 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)
- having regard to the European ethical Charter on the use of Artificial Intelligence in judicial systems and their environment of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) of the Council of Europe;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 7 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 a (new)
- having regard to the ‘Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI’ of the High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence set up by the Commission of 8 April 2019;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 15 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas digital technologies in general and the proliferation of data processing and analytics enabled by artificial intelligence (AI) in particular bring with them extraordinary promise; whereas AI isdevelopment has made a big leap forward in recent years which makes it one of the strategic technologies of the 21st century, generating substantial benefits in efficiency, accuracy, and convenience, and thus bringing positive change to the European economy and society; whereas AI should not be seen as an end in itself, but as a tool for serving people, with the ultimate aim of increasing human well-being, human capabilities and safety;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 28 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas the development of AI must respect the values on which the Union is founded, in particular human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and human and fundamental rights, have to be respected throughout the life cycle of AI tools, notably during their design, development, deployment and use;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 34 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas trustworthy AI systems need to be accountable, designed for all (including consideration of vulnerable, marginalised populations in their design), be non-discriminatory, safe and transparent, and respect human autonomy and fundamental rightsnon-discriminatory, safe and transparent, and respect human autonomy and fundamental rights in order to be trustworthy, as described in the Ethics Guidelines of the High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 39 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas the Union together with the Member States bear a critical responsibility for ensuring that policy choicedecisions surrounding the development, deployment and uslife-cycle of AI applications in the field of the judiciary and law enforcement are made in a transparent manner, respect the principles of necessity and proportionality, and guarantee that the policies and measures adopted will fully safeguard fundamental rights within the Union and fully safeguard fundamental rights; whereas the relevant policy choices should respect the principles of necessity and proportionality;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 44 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E
E. whereas AI applications offer great opportunities in the field of law enforcement, in particular in improving the working methods of law enforcement agencies and judicial authorities, and preventing and combating certain types of crime more efficiently, in particular financial crime, money laundering and terrorist financing, as well as certain types of cybercrime, thereby contributing to the safety and security of EU citizens;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 48 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas a clear model for assigning legal responsibility for the potential harmful effects of AI systems in the field of criminal law is imperative;deleted
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 55 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G
G. whereas AI applications in use by law enforcement include applications such as facial recognition technologies, e.g. to search suspect databases and identify victims of human trafficking or child sexual exploitation and abuse, automated number plate recognition, speaker identification, speech identification, lip- reading technologies, aural surveillance (i.e. gunshot detection algorithms), autonomous research and analysis of identified databases, forecasting (predictive policing and crime hotspot analytics), behaviour detection tools, advanced virtual autopsy tools to help determine the cause of death, autonomous tools to identify financial fraud and terrorist financing, social media monitoring (scraping and data harvesting for mining connections), international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) catchers, and automated surveillance systems incorporating different detection capabilities (such as heartbeat detection and thermal cameras); whereas the aforementioned applications have vastly varying degrees of reliability and accuracy;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 61 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H
H. whereas AI tools and applications are also used by the judiciary worldwide, including in sentencing, calculating probabilities for reoffending and in determining probation, online dispute resolution, case law management, and the provision of facilitated access to the law;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 64 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
H a. whereas the applications of AI in law enforcement and the judiciary are in different development stages, ranging from conceptualisation through prototyping or evaluation to post-approval use; whereas new possibilities of use may arise in the future as the technology becomes more mature due to ongoing intensive scientific research worldwide;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 66 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I
I. whereas the use of AI in law enforcement entails a number of potential risks, such as opaque decision-making, different types of discrimination, and errors inherent in the underlying algorithm which can be reinforced by feedback loops, as well as risks to the protection of privacy and personal data, the protection of freedom of expression and information, and the presumption of innocence; whereas the extent of these risks varies between different applications and depending on the purpose of their use;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 72 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
I a. whereas some countries make greater use of AI applications in law enforcement and the judiciary than others, which is partly due to a lack of regulation and regulatory differences which enable or prohibit AI use for certain purposes;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 74 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J
J. whereas AI systems used by law enforcement and judiciary are also vulnerable to AI- empowered attacks or data poisoning, whereby a wrong data set is included on purpose to produce biased results; whereas in these situations the resulting damage is potentially even morery significant, and can result in exponentially greater levels of harm to both individuals and groups;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 83 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. RWelcomes the positive contribution of AI applications to the work of law enforcement and judicial authorities across the Union as a key enabling technology to ensure safety and security of citizens; highlights e.g. the enhanced case law management achieved by tools allowing for additional search options; believes that there is a wide range of other potential uses for AI by law enforcement and the judiciary which should be explored, subject to methodological precautions and scientific assessments; reiterates that, as processing large quantities of data is at the heart of AI, the right to the protection of private life and the right to the protection of personal data apply to all areas of AI, and that the Union legal framework for data protection and privacy must be fully complied with;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 92 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Reaffirms that all AI solutions for law enforcement and the judiciary also need to fully respect the principles of non- discrimination, freedom of movement, the presumption of innocence and right of defence, freedom of expression and information, freedom of assembly and of association, equality before the law, the principle of equality of arms, and the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 95 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Acknowledges that the speed at which AI applications are developed around the world necessitates a future- oriented approach and that any attempts at exhaustive listing of applications will quickly become outdated; calls, in this regard, for a clear and coherent governance model that guarantees the respect of fundamental rights, but also allows companies and organizations to further develop artificial intelligence applications;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 99 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Considers, in this regard, that safeguards should be proportionate to potential risks associated with the use specific AI applications; believes that any AI tool either developed or used by law enforcement or judiciary should, as a minimum, be safe, robust, secure and fit for purpose, respect the principles of fairness, accountability, transparency and, non- discrimination as well as explainability, with their deployment subject to a strict necessity and proportionality test;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 112 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights the importance of preventing mass surveillance by means, which per definition does not correspond to the principles of necessity and proportionality; strongly supports high thresholds for and transparency in the use of AI technologies, and of banning applications that would result in it; applications that could result in it; calls for law enforcement or the judiciary to use AI applications that adhere to the privacy-by- design principle whenever possible to avoid function creep;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 124 #

2020/2016(INI)

5. Stresses the potential for bias and discrimination arising from the use of machine learning and AI applications; notes that biases can beAI applications such as machine learning; notes that discrimination can result from biases inherent in underlying datasets, especially when historical data is being used, introduced by the developers of the algorithms, or generated when the systems are implemented in real world settings;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 130 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines the fact that many algorithmically driven identification technologies that are currently in use disproportionately misidentify non-white people, childaccording to ethnicity, age and gender; considers, thereforen, the elderly, as well as womenat strong scientific and ethical standards are needed and that strong efforts should be made to avoid automated discrimination and bias;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 134 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Calls for strong additional safeguards in case AI systems in law enforcement or the judiciary are used on or in relation to minors, who are particularly vulnerable;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 137 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Highlights the power asymmetry between those who develop and employ AI technologies and those who interact and are subject to them;deleted
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 141 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. UTakes note of the risks related to data leaks, data security breaches and unauthorised access to personal data and other information related to criminal investigations or court cases that are processed by AI systems; underlines that security and safety aspects of AI systems used in law enforcement need to be carefully considered, and be sufficiently robust and resilient to prevent the potentially catastrophic consequences of malicious attacks on AI systems;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 148 #

2020/2016(INI)

9. Considers it necessary to create a clear and fair regime for assigning legal responsibility and liability for the potential adverse consequences produced by these advanced digital technologies;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 151 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Calls for the adoption of appropriate procurement processes for AI systems by Member States and EU agencies when used in law enforcement or judicial context, so as to ensure their compliance with fundamental rights;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 157 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Underlines that in judicial and law enforcement contexts, the final decision always needs to be taken by a human, who can be held accountable for the decisions made, and includeTakes the view that law enforcement and judicial authorities that make use of AI systems need to uphold high legal standards, in particular when analysing data; underlines the need to ensure human intervention and accountability throughout the different stages of decision-making, to assess both the quality of the data and the appropriateness of each decision taken on the basis of that information; considers that persons subject to these systems should be given the possibility of a recourse for a remedy;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 163 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Calls for algorithmic explainability and transparency as a necessary part of oversight in order to ensure that the development, deployment and use of AI systems for judiciary and law enforcement comply with fundamental rights, and are trusted by citizens, as well as in order to ensure that results generated by AI algorithms can be rendered intelligible to users and to those subject to these systems, and that there is transparency on the source data and how the system arrived at a certain conclusion;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 167 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Calls for traceability of AI systems that defines the capabilitiethe decision making process of AI systems within law enforcement and the judiciary which outlines the functions and limitations of the systems, and keeps track of where the defining attributes for a decision originate, for instance through compulsory documentation obligations;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 172 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Calls for a compulsory fundamental rights impact assessment to be conducted prior to the implementation or deployment of any AI systems for law enforcement or judiciary purposes, in order to assess any potential risks to fundamental rights and, where necessary, define appropriate safeguards to address these risks;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 174 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13 a. Deplores that many law enforcement and judicial authorities in the EU lack the funding, capacities and capabilities to reap the benefits AI tools can offer for their work; encourages law enforcement and judicial authorities to identify, structure and categorise their needs to enable the development of tailor- made AI solutions and to exchange best practices on AI deployment; stresses the need to provide the authorities with the necessary funding, as well as to equip them with the necessary expertise to guarantee full compliance with the ethical, legal and technical requirements attached to AI deployment;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 175 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13 b. Supports the establishment of awareness-raising and educational initiatives to ensure that individuals working in law enforcement or the judiciary are aware of and understand the limitations, capabilities and risks that the use of AI systems entail, including the risk of automation bias;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 176 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Calls for periodic mandatory auditing of all AI systems used by law enforcement and the judiciary to test and evaluatean adequate institutional framework, including proper regulatory and supervisory oversight, to ensure proper implementation; calls for periodic mandatory auditing of all AI systems used by law enforcement and the judiciary by an independent authority to test and evaluate the context, purpose, accuracy, performance, and scale of algorithmic systems once they are in operation, in order to detect, investigate, diagnose and rectify any unwanted and adverse effects and thereby ensure continuous compliance with the applicable regulatory framework;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 179 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14 a. Supports the recommendations of the Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on AI for a ban on AI-enabled mass scale scoring of individuals; considers that any form of normative citizen scoring on a large scale by public authorities, in particular within the field of law enforcement and the judiciary, leads to the loss of autonomy, endangers the principle of non-discrimination and cannot be considered in line with European values;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 181 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)
14 b. Welcomes the recommendations of the Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on AI for a proportionate use of biometric recognition technology; shares the view that the use of remote biometric identification should always be considered “high risk” and therefore be subject to additional requirements;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 182 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Calls for a moratoriumStrongly believes that the deployment of facial recognition systems by law enforcement should be limited to clearly warranted purposes in full respect onf the deployment of facial recognition systems for law enforcement, until the technical standardapplicable law; reaffirms that as a minimum, the use of facial recognition technology must comply with the requirements of data minimisation, data accuracy, storage limitation, data security and accountability, as well as being lawful, fair, transparent and following a specific, explicit and legitimate purpose that is clearly defined in Member State or Union law; reminds that these systems are already successfully used, inter alia to search suspect databases and identify victims of human trafficking or child sexual exploitation and abuse; emphasises the need to ensure that the technical standards and underlying algorithms can be considered fully fundamental rights compliant, and that results derived are non-discriminatory, and there is public trust ; believes that this will be decisive to ensure public trust and support regarding the necessity and proportionality ofor the deployment of such technologies;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 190 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Notes that predictive policing is among the AI applications used in the area of law enforcement; acknowledges that this can allow law enforcement to work more effectively and proactively, but warns that while predictive policing can analyse the necessary data sets for the identification of patterns and correlations, it cannot answer the question of causality and therefore cannot constitute the sole basis for an intervention;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 194 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Calls for greater overall transparency from Member States, and for a comprehensive understanregarding of the use of AI applications in the Union, broken down by Member State law enforcement and judicial authority, the type of tool in use, the types of crime they are applied to, and the companies whose tools are being used; requests Member States to provide an overview of the tools used by their law enforcement and judicial authorities, the purposes for which they are used, and the names of the companies or organizations which have developed those tools;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 197 #

2020/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Reminds that AI applications, including applications used in the context of law enforcement and the judiciary, are being developed globally at a rapid pace; urges all European stakeholders, including the Commission and EU agencies, to ensure international cooperation and to engage third country partners in order to find a common and complementary ethical framework for the use of AI, in particular for law enforcement and the judiciary;
2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1 #

2020/2014(INL)

Draft opinion
Recital A
A. whereas Artificial Intelligence (AI) playsemerging digital technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things and of Services (IoT/IoS) or robotics, play and will continue to play an increasing role in our everyday lives and hasve the potential to contribute to the development of innovations in many sectors and offer benefits for consumers through innovative products and services and, for businesses, through optimised performance;
2020/05/27
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 8 #

2020/2014(INL)

Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas the Union's existing safety and liability framework might need to be adapted, as highlighted by the Commission's Report on the safety and liability implications for Artificial Intelligence, the Internet of Things and robotics;
2020/05/27
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 9 #

2020/2014(INL)

Draft opinion
Recital A c (new)
Ac. whereas product safety and product liability are two complementary mechanisms pursuing the same policy goal of a functioning single market for goods and services, and this Opinion suggests possible adjustments to the Union liability frameworks in light of the increased importance of emerging digital technologies;
2020/05/27
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 11 #

2020/2014(INL)

Draft opinion
Recital B
B. whereas the use and development of AI applications in productartificial intelligence and other emerging digital technologies might also present challenges to the existing legaliability frameworks on products and reduce their effectiveness, thus potentially undermining consumer trust and welfare due to their specific characteristics;
2020/05/27
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 15 #

2020/2014(INL)

Draft opinion
Recital C
C. whereas robust liability mechanisms remedying damage contribute to better protection of consumers, creation of trust in new technologies integrated in products and acceptance for innovationitizens and consumers from harm, creation of trust in emerging digital technologies while ensuring legal certainty for businesses and enabling them to innovate;
2020/05/27
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 21 #

2020/2014(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission’s aim, which is to make the Union legal framework fit the new technological developments, ensuring a high level of protection for consumers from harm caused by new technologies while maintaining the balance with the needs of technological innovation;deleted
2020/05/27
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 26 #

2020/2014(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. StressesPoints out the need to assess to what extent thedapt the Union's existing liability framework, and in particular the Council Directive 85/374/EEC1 (the Product Liability Directive), needs to be updated in order to guarantee effective consumer protection and - PLD), to the digital world; calls on the Commission to revise the PLD, by addressing the challenges posed by emerging digital technologies such as artificial intelligence, the Internet of things (IoT) or robotics, thereby ensuring effective citizen and consumer protection from harm as well as legal clariertainty for businesses, while avoiding high costs and risks especially for small and medium enterprises and start- ups; __________________ 1 Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ L 210, 7.8.1985, p. 29).
2020/05/27
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 35 #

2020/2014(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises that any revision of the existing liability framework should aim to further harmonise liability rules in order to avoid fragmentation of the single market; asks the Commission to assess whether a Regulation on general product liability could contribute to this aim; stresses, however, the importance of ensuring that Union regulation remains limited to clearly identified problems for which feasible solutions exist and leaves room for further technological developments;
2020/05/27
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 41 #

2020/2014(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to assess whether definitions and concepts in the product liability framework need to be updated due to the specific characteristics of AI apprevise the product liability framework by taking into account the specific challenges of digitalicsations for liability law such as complexity, autonomy and opacconnectivity, openness, autonomy, opacity (un)predictability, data- drivenness and vulnerability;
2020/05/27
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 48 #

2020/2014(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Urges the Commission to scrutinise whether it is necessary to include software inclarify the definition of ‘products’ under the Product Liability Directive and to update concepts such, by determining whether digital content and digital services fall under its scope and to consider adapting such concepts as ‘producer’, ‘damage’ and ‘defect’, and if so, to what extent; asks the Commission to also examine whether the product liability framework needs to be revised in order to protect injured parties efficiently as regards products that are purchased as a bundle with related services;
2020/05/27
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 55 #

2020/2014(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Asks the Commission to consider the liability of online marketplaces by qualifying them as 'supplier' under the Product Liability Directive;
2020/05/27
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 56 #

2020/2014(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Calls on the Commission to consider, in close coordination with corresponding possible adjustments to the Union safety framework, whether the notion of 'time when the product was put into circulation' currently used by the Product Liability Directive, is fit for purpose for emerging digital technologies, taking into account that they may be changed or altered under the producer's control after they have been placed on the market;
2020/05/27
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 57 #

2020/2014(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Asks the Commission to consider holding a producer of specific emerging digital technologies liable for unforeseeable defects, in cases where it was predictable that unforeseen developments might occur;
2020/05/27
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 59 #

2020/2014(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses the importance of ensuring a fair liability system thatand efficient allocation of loss in order to attribute liability in the most appropriate way; underlines the relevance of makesing it possible for consumervictims to prove that a defect in a product caused damage, even if third party software is involved or the cause of a defect is hard to trace, for example when products are part of a complex interconnected Internet of Things environment;
2020/05/27
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 64 #

2020/2014(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to evaluate whether and to what extent the burden of proof should be reversedconsider adapting the rules governing the burden of proof for harms caused by emerging digital technologies, in order to empower harmed consumers while preventing abuse and providing legal clariertainty for businesses;
2020/05/27
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 69 #

2020/2014(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Asks the Commission to assess the introduction of a duty on producers of emerging digital technologies to equip their products with means of recording information about the operation of the technology, in accordance with applicable data protection provisions and the rules concerning the protection of trade secrets, taking into account, amongst others, the likelihood that a risk of the technology materialises, whether such a duty is appropriate and proportionate and the technical feasibility and costs of it; failing to comply with this duty or refusing to give the victim reasonable access to this information would trigger a rebuttable liability presumption of the producer;
2020/05/27
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 77 #

2020/2014(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
8. Highlights the need for a risk based approach to AI within the existing liability framework, which takes into account different levels of risk for consumers in specific sectors and uses of AI; underlines that such an approach, that might encompass two or more levels of risk, should be based on clear criteria and provide for legal clariertainty;
2020/05/27
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 81 #

2020/2014(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
9. Asks the Commission to carefully assess the advantages and disadvantages of introducing a strict liability model for products containing AI applicationintroduction of a separate yet complementary strict liability regime for AI systems presenting a high risk to cause harm or damage to one or more persons in a manner that is rand consider it only in specific high risk areas; underlines the need to strictly respect the proportionality principle if this approach is retainedom and impossible to predict in advance, taking into account its likely impact on the protection of citizens and consumers from harm, the capacity of businesses - particularly SMEs - to innovate, the coherence of the Union's safety and liability framework and on the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
2020/05/27
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 37 #

2020/2012(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses the importance of developing an “ethics-by-default and by design” framework which fully respects the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Union law and the Treaties; calls, in this regard, for a clear and coherent governance model that allows companies to further develop artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies;
2020/06/15
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 49 #

2020/2012(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Expects the Commission to integrate a strong ethical framework into the forthcoming legislative proposal as a follow up to the White Paper on Artificial Intelligence, including on safety, liability, fundamental rights and data protection, which maximises the opportunities and minimises the risks of AI technologies;
2020/06/15
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 50 #

2020/2012(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls on the commission to consider developing a framework of criteria and indicators to label AI technology, in which developers could participate voluntarily, in order to stimulate comprehensibility, transparency, accountability and incentivise additional precautions by developers;
2020/06/15
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 56 #

2020/2012(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Is of the opinion that effective cross- border cooperation and ethical standards can be achieved only if all stakeholders seekcommit to ensure human agency and oversight, and respect the established principles oftechnical robustness and safety, privacy and data governance, transparency, non-discrimination, social and environmental wellbeing, and accountability;
2020/06/15
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 59 #

2020/2012(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Warns that possible bias in artificial intelligence applications could lead to automated discrimination, which has to be avoided by design and application rules;
2020/06/15
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 61 #

2020/2012(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Calls for a horizontal and future- oriented approach, including technology- neutral standards that apply to all sectors in which AI could be employed, complemented by a vertical approach with sector-specific standards were appropriate; strongly believes that an ethical framework should apply to anyone intending to develop or operate artificial intelligence applications in the EU; favours a binding EU-wide approach to avoid fragmentation; calls on the Union to promote strong and transparent cooperation and knowledge-sharing between the public and private sectors to create best practices;
2020/06/15
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 75 #

2020/2012(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that the protection of networks of interconnected AI and robotics must prevent security breaches, data leaks, data poisoning, cyber- attacks and the misuse of personal data; believes this will require a stronger cooperation between national and EU authorities;
2020/06/15
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 88 #

2020/2012(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that AI and, robotics and related technologyies in the area of law enforcement and border control could enhance public safety and security; stresses that its use must respect the principles of proportionality and necessity; , yet also bear significant ethical risks that must be adequately addressed; stresses, therefore, that its use must respect the principles of proportionality and necessity and guarantee the respect of fundamental rights; supports the aim for maximum transparency, both with regards to the risk assessment of individual applications, as well as a general overview of the use of AI, robotics and related technologies in the area of law enforcement and border control; believes that EU agencies, especially in the field of Justice and Home Affairs, should be properly funded to research the effectiveness of such measures and should be equipped with the latest technologies;
2020/06/15
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 90 #

2020/2012(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that AI and robotic technology in the area of law enforcement and border control could enhance public safety and security; stresses that its use must respect the principles of proportionality and necessity; considers that it should be possible for EU agencies in the field of Justice and Home Affairs to be equipped with the latest AI and robotic technologies, especially for the purposes of law enforcement and border control, and that this should be taken into account in the yearly budgets for the JHA agencies throughout the next MFF period (2021-2027);
2020/06/15
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 100 #

2020/2012(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that AI and robotics are not immune from making mistakes; emphasises the importance of the right to an explanation when persons are subjected to algorithmic decision-making; considers the need for legislators to reflect upon the complex issue of liability in the context of criminal justice.
2020/06/15
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 103 #

2020/2012(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that AI and robotics are not immune from making mistakes; considers the need for legislators to reflect upon the complex issue of liability in the context of criminal justice.
2020/06/15
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2 #

2020/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5
— having regard to the work carried out by the Council of Europe to promote the protection and safety of journalists, including Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)1[1] of the Committee of Ministers to member states on media pluralism and transparency of media ownership and the declaration by the Committee of Ministers on the financial sustainability of quality journalism in the digital age, and the Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4[1] of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors;
2020/07/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 4 #

2020/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 a (new)
— having regard to the Joint Communication of 10 June 2020 entitled ‘Tackling COVID-19 disinformation - Getting the facts right’ (JOIN(2020) 8 final),
2020/07/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 14 #

2020/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 10 a (new)
— having regard to the Commission’s Code of Practice to fight online disinformation, agreed on 26 September 2018,
2020/07/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 20 #

2020/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 a (new)
— having regard to the Council conclusions of 26 May 2020 on media literacy in an ever-changing world,
2020/07/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 56 #

2020/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas journalists and other media actors continue to be at risk of violence, threats, harassment, pressure, (self-) censorship, public shaming and even assassination in the EU as a result of their investigative activities to protect the public interest; whereas women journalists face gender-specific forms of violence, such as sexual and online harassment, whereas more than 70% of women working in the media have experienced more than one type of harassment, threat, or attack online; whereas 52% of women have experienced these types of offence in the past year alone;
2020/07/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 63 #

2020/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas some forms of intimidation may include the use of private investigators to follow journalists in order to ascertain the identity of their sources;
2020/07/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 66 #

2020/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E
E. whereas in addition to violence, intimidation and harassment of journalists there is lack of prosecution of the perpetrators of these crimes and impunity leads to a chilling effect; whereas OSCE reports that impunity prevails as e.g. less than 15% of murders of journalists in the OSCE region are solved;
2020/07/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 74 #

2020/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas the global COVID-19 crisis is having a devastating social and economic impact on the media sector; whereas media outlets have been reporting considerable losses in their revenue from advertising, whereas thousands of media workers have already lost, or are at risk of losing their jobs, either temporarily or permanently, whereas this has particularly strong impact on freelance journalists whose number is increasing throughout the EU and who constitute already a significant part of all journalists in Europe; whereas financial sustainability of the job and financial independence are a crucial part of press freedom;
2020/07/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 82 #

2020/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G
G. whereas the internet and social media play a role in spreading hate speech and fostering radicalisation leading to violent extremism, through the circulation of illegal content; whereas combating all forms of intolerance is an integral part of human-rights protection as developed by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights;
2020/07/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 91 #

2020/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H
H. whereas the AVMSD obliges the authorities in every Member State to ensure that audiovisual media services do not contain any incitement to hatred based on race, sex, religion or nationality; whereas the AVMSD obliges Member States to ensure the independence of media regulators;
2020/07/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 95 #

2020/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I
I. whereas the spread of false news and disinformation available via social media or search websites poses a threat to freedom of speech and expression and the independence of the media, and has strongly impaired the credibility of the traditional media; whereas data analysis and algorithms have an increasing impact on the information made accessible to citizens;
2020/07/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 100 #

2020/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J
J. whereas disinformation related to COVID-19 may cause panic and social unrest and needs to be addressed; whereas measures to combat disinformation cannot be used as a pretext for introducing disproportionate restrictions on press freedom; whereas reports indicate that coordinated campaigns have been running across EU Member States and neighbouring regions, promoting false health information and disinformation about the EU and its partners; whereas the Commission addresses these phenomena in its recent joint communication on tackling COVID-19 disinformation;
2020/07/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 109 #

2020/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Reiterates its continued deep concern about the state of media freedom within the EU in the context of the abuses and attacks still being perpetrated against journalists and media workers in the Member States because of their activities, as well as the growing public denigration and general weakening of the profession, weighing particularly heavily on local, investigative and cross-border journalism; stresses that, in accordance with the Council of Europe Recommendation on media pluralism (2018), Member States have a positive obligation to foster a favourable environment for freedom of expression, offline and online, in which everyone can exercise their right to freedom of expression;
2020/07/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 134 #

2020/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights the irreplaceable role of public service media and stresses that it is essential to ensure and maintain their independence from political interference; highlights as well the need to ensure the financial independence and the conditions for the sustainability of the activities of private market operators to avoid media capture; reiterates in this context Parliament’s call for an ambitious EU media action plan; condemns attempts by Member State governments to silence critical media and undermine media freedom and pluralism, in particular attempts to control public service media; deplores the fact that in some Member States public broadcasting has become an example of single political party propaganda, which often excludes opposition and minority groups from society and even incites violence; draws attention to the recommendations included in the Resolution 2255 (2019) of PACE that calls on the Member States to guarantee editorial independence, as well as sufficient and stable funding, for public service media; stresses that safeguarding independent authorities and ensuring strong independent oversight of audiovisual media against undue state and commercial intervention is crucial; calls on the Commission to present a legal framework to supervise the operation of public service media providers, including whether they fulfil the criteria of prudent management and task-based financing, and if their services fulfil the expectations of fact-based, fair and ethical journalism;
2020/07/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 157 #

2020/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Reiterates its concern that few specific legal or policy frameworks protecting journalists and media workers from violence, threats and intimidation can be identified at national level within the EU; calls on the Member States and the Commission to ensure the effective protection and safety of journalists and other media actors as well as of their sources, including in a cross-border context; firmly believes, in this regard, that Member States should prohibit the use of private investigators for the purpose of obtaining information about journalists in their professional capacity or about their sources; strongly reiterates its call on the Commission to present proposals to prevent so-called ‘Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation’ (SLAPP);
2020/07/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 158 #

2020/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Reiterates its concern that few specific legal or policy frameworks protecting journalists and media workers from violence, threats and intimidation can be identified at national level within the EU; calls on the Member States and the Commission to ensure the effective protection and safety of journalists and other media actors as well as of their sources, including in a cross-border context; reiterates its call to Member States to take a gender-sensitive approach when considering measures to address the safety of journalists; strongly reiterates its call on the Commission to present proposals to prevent so-called ‘Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation’ (SLAPP);
2020/07/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 176 #

2020/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that excessive concentration of the content-producing and content-distributing sectors may threaten citizens’ access to a range of content; underlines that media pluralism, which depends on the existence of a diversity of media ownership and of content as well as independent journalism, is key to challenging the spread of disinformation and ensuring that EU citizens are well- informed; reminds that according to the Media Pluralism Monitor conclusions the media ownership concentration remains one of the most significant risks to media pluralism and is seen as creating barriers to the diversity of information; calls on the Commission to monitor the implementation at Member States level of existing EU instruments against ownership concentration and illegal state aid to increase diversity in the media landscape;
2020/07/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 236 #

2020/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Notes that the new digital environment has exacerbated the problem of the spread of disinformation and has resulted in online platforms playing an influential role in publishing, disseminating and promoting news and other media content; reiterates its concern about the potential threat disinformation poses to freedom of expression and the, democratic discourse, independence of the media and public health;
2020/07/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 259 #

2020/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Points out that different forms of misinformation and disinformation, as well as other forms of information manipulation relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, continue to proliferate around the world and have potentially harmful consequences for public security, health and effective crisis management; recalls that all measures to combat disinformation, including those taken in the context of the COVID-19 emergency, need to be necessary, proportionate, transparent and subject to regular oversight, and may under no circumstances prevent journalists and media actors from carrying out their work or lead to content being unduly blocked on the internet; deplores that certain online platforms remove professional journalistic content based on non-transparent terms and conditions which unnecessarily limit the freedom of expression;
2020/07/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 270 #

2020/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Welcomes the Commission’s initiative to present a European Democracy Action Plan that aims to counter disinformation and to adapt to evolving threats and manipulations, as well as to support free and, independent and financially viable media; emphasises in this respect that protecting free and independent media while combating hate speech and disinformation is a fundamental factor in terms of the defence of the rule of law and democracy in the EU; welcomes the creation of the European Digital Media Observatory, a digital platform to help fighting disinformation;
2020/07/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 280 #

2020/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Reminds the Commission and the Member States as well as the private sector, in particular online platforms, and civil society as a whole of the need for joint action when it comes to the fight against disinformation, and acknowledges the positive and necessary, yet still insufficient, impact of the voluntary actions taken by service providers and platforms to counter disinformation;
2020/07/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 283 #

2020/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Calls on the Commission and Member States to improve media literacy through support for educational initiatives aimed at both students and professional educators, as well as through targeted awareness-raising campaigns within civil society, highlights that media literacy is an increasingly essential and critical skill for the modern citizen and consumer and recalls its fundamental role as one of the primary solutions to growing disinformation- and hate speech-related issues;
2020/07/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 102 #

2020/0036(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4) The Paris Agreement sets out a long-term goal to keep the global temperature increase to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to keep it to 1.5 °C above pre- industrial levels23 , and stresses the importance of adapting to the adverse impacts of climate change by fostering climate resilience and ensuring sustainable food production,24 and making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development25 . _________________ 23 Article 2.1.a of the Paris Agreement. 24 Article 2.1.b of the Paris Agreement. 25 Article 2.1.c of the Paris Agreement.
2020/06/08
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 715 #

2020/0036(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point j a (new)
(ja) the need to protect human health from adverse effects related to climate change in general and in particular the need to ensure food security in that regard, with reference to Article 2.1 (b) of the Paris Agreement;
2020/06/08
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 545 #

2020/0006(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall prepare, together with the relevant authorities of the territories concerned, one or more territorial just transition plans covering one or more affected territories corresponding to level 3 of the common classification of territorial units for statistics (‘NUTS level 3 regions’) as established by Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 868/201417 or parts thereof, in accordance with the template set out in Annex II. Those territories shall be those most negatively affected based on the economic and social impacts resulting from the transition, in particular with regard to expected job losses in fossil fuel production and use and the transformation needs of the production processes of industrial facilities with the highest greenhouse gas intensity or emissions. _________________ 17 Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the establishment of a common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS) (OJ L 154 21.6.2003, p. 1).
2020/06/03
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 2 #

2019/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
- having regard to regulation (EU) 2018/1860 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third country nationals (‘SIS return’),
2020/07/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 3 #

2019/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 b (new)
- having regard to regulation (EU) 2020/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 amending Regulation (EC)No 862/2007,
2020/07/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 4 #

2019/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 12 a (new)
- - Having regard to the Commission proposal on the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recast of Eurodac (COM(2016) 272 final),
2020/07/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 5 #

2019/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 12 b (new)
- - Having Regard to the Conclusions of the European Council of October 2016 and June 2018,
2020/07/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 21 #

2019/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas the twofold 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, the Commission focuses on the rate of returns as the primary indicator of the directive’s effectivenessnamely, to establish common rules concerning return, removal, use of coercive measures, detention and entry bans in line with fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality;
2020/07/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 29 #

2019/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas disaggregated and comparable data relating to the implementation of the directive is often not collected or publicly available; publicly available, namely through Eurostat; whereas more and better information will be available with the implementation of regulation 2018/1860 on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals (‘SIS return’) and with Regulation (EU) 2020/851 amending Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection;
2020/07/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 33 #

2019/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas between 2014 and 2018 five million people were found illegally present in the Union; whereas during the same period less than half were issued a return decision and less than 800.000 left the territory;
2020/07/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 36 #

2019/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas between 2014 and 2018 over four million peoples requested asylum in Europe and less than half were granted asylum;
2020/07/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 37 #

2019/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D c (new)
Dc. whereas Member States do not systematically share information on return decisions or entry bans issued, making impossible in practice the mutual recognition of return decisions issued by Member States and their enforcement Union-wide;
2020/07/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 38 #

2019/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D d (new)
Dd. Whereas in order to increase the efficiency of readmissions, and in order to ensure the coherence of returns at a European level, it will be necessary to adopt new EU agreements which should take preference over bilateral agreements between Member States and third countries;
2020/07/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 43 #

2019/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Reiterates the importance of an evidence-based approach to guide coherent policy-making and well-informed public discourse and calls on the Commission to urge and support Member States to collect and publish qualitative and quantitative data on the implementation of the directive; data on the implementation of the directive, making use in particular of the new instruments available, such as SIS return and Regulation (EU) 2020/851 amending Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection;
2020/07/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 88 #

2019/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses the importance of fair, swift and effective procedures for the return of third-country nationals not entitled to protection, which respects the fundamental rights of the persons concerned. Special attention needs to be paid in particular to the return of rejected asylum seekers, who represent a significant share of the irregular migrants in the EU, where significant procedural gaps between asylum and return procedures exist in the EU;
2020/07/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 236 #

2019/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Notes with concern that Member States face challenges to regularly ensure the full occupancy of all seats available for returnees in return operations by charter flights coordinated by Frontex, mainly due notably to last minute asylum requests or absconding of returnees;
2020/07/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 239 #

2019/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
19b. Notes with concern that in some cases the option to have joint return Frontex operations is excluded by bilateral agreements between organizing or participating Member States and non- EU countries of destination;
2020/07/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1
- having regard to its previous resolutions on Turkey, in particular those of 13 March 2019 on the 2018 Commission Report on Turkey1 , of 19 September 2019 on the situation in Turkey, notably the removal of elected mayors2 , of 24 October 2019 on the Turkish military operation in northeast Syria and its consequences3 , and of 17 September 2020 on the preparation of the special European Council summit focusing on the dangerous escalation and the role of Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean4 , and of 26 November 2020 on escalating tensions in Varosha following the illegal actions by Turkey and the urgent need for the resumption of talks5a; _________________ 1 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0200. 2 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0017. 3 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0049. 4 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0230. 5a Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0332.
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 4 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)
- having regard to its recent Resolution of 26 November 2020 on escalating tensions in Varosha following the illegal actions by Turkey and the urgent need for the resumption of talks,
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 7 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5
- having regard to the Negotiating Framework for Turkey of 3 October 2005, and to the fact that, as is the case for all candidate countries, Turkey’s accession to the EU depends on full compliance with the Copenhagen criteria, and to the need to normalize its relations with all EU Member States , including the Republic of Cyprus;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 9 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5
- having regard to the Negotiating Framework for Turkey of 3 October 2005, and to the fact that, as is the case for all accession countries, Turkey’s accession to the EU depends on full compliance with the Copenhagen criteria, and to the need to normalize its relations with all EU Member States, including the Republic of Cyprus;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 11 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 a (new)
- having regard to the declaration issued by the European Community and its Member States on 21 September 2005, following the declaration made by Turkey upon signature on 29 July 2005 of the Ankara Protocol, including the provision that recognition of all Member States is a necessary component of the accession process, and the need for Turkey to fully implement the Additional Protocol to the Ankara Agreement in relation to all Member States, by removing all obstacles to the free movement of goods, without restrictions or discrimination,
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 12 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 c (new)
- having regard to the declaration issued by the European Community and its Member States on 21 September 2005, following the declaration made by Turkey upon signature on 29 July 2005 of the Ankara Protocol, including the provision that recognition of all Member States is a necessary component of the accession process, and to the need for Turkey to fully implement the Additional Protocol to the Ankara Agreement in relation to all Member States, by removing all obstacles to the free movement of goods, without restrictions or discrimination;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 13 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 a (new)
- having regard to the Council’s decision of July 2019 to suspend negotiations with Turkey on the Comprehensive Air Transport Agreement;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 17 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 b (new)
- having regard to the decision of the European Investment Bank to heavily restrict its lending operations in Turkey;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 20 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6
- having regard to the Council conclusions of 26 June 2018 and 18 June 2019 on enlargement and stabilisation and association process, to the Council Conclusions of 15 July and 14 October 2019 on Turkey’s illegal drilling activities in the Eastern Mediterranean, to the European Council conclusions of 12 December 2019, 1-2 and 15-16 October 2020, to the statements of the EU Foreign Ministers of 15 May 2020 and 14 August 2020 on the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean, to the outcome of the informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers (Gymnich) of 28 August 2020, and to all previous relevant Council and European Council conclusions,
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 21 #

2019/2176(INI)

- having regard to the Council conclusions of 26 June 2018 and 18 June 2019 on enlargement and stabilisation and association process, to the Council Conclusions of 15 July and 14 October 2019 on Turkey’s illegal drilling activities in the Eastern Mediterranean, to the European Council conclusions of 12 December 2019, 1-2 and 15-16 October 2020, to the statements of the EU Foreign Ministers of 15 May 2020 and 14 August 2020 on the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean, to the outcome of the informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers (Gymnich) of 28 August 2020, and to all previous relevant Council and European Council conclusions,
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 37 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital -A (new)
-A. whereas Turkey has been linked to the EU by an Association Agreement since 1964 and a Customs Union was established in 1995, the European Council granted the status of candidate country to Turkey in December 1999 and accession negotiations were opened in October 2005;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 40 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas beingTurkey is a candidate country presumes a willingnessand an important partner of the EU and is expected to uphold the highest standards of democracy, respect of human rights and rule of law including compliance with international conventions and whereas this presumes the commitment to progressively approachlign in all aspects with the values, interests, standards and policies and the acquis of the EU;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 48 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas being a candidate country presumes a willingnessthe commitment to progressively approachlign in all aspects with the values, interests, standards and policies and the acquis of the EU;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 52 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Aa. Whereas Turkey is a NATO ally and should be encouraged to act in line with the NATO Treaty which states that members should refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 74 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas, in spite of this principled stance by Parliament and all of the current circumstances, the European Council, in its conclusions of 1-2 October 2020, offered Turkey a renewed and broad positive agenda, provided that constructive efforts by Turkey to stop illegal activities vis-à-vis Greece and Cyprus are sustained, in a further attempt to restore our relations;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 75 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas, in spite of this principled stance by Parliament and all of the current circumstances, the European Council, in its conclusions of 1-2 October 2020, offered Turkey a renewed and broad positive agenda, provided that constructive efforts by Turkey to stop illegal activities vis-à-vis Greece and Cyprus are sustained, in a further attempt to restore our relations;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 80 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas, the European Council, in the same conclusions, highlighted that, in case of renewed unilateral actions or provocations in breach of international law by Turkey, the EU will use all the instruments and the options at its disposal, including in accordance with Article 29 TEU and Article 215 TFEU, in order to defend its interests and those of its Member States, and take decisions as appropriate at the latest at its December meeting;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 81 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas, the European Council, in the same conclusions, highlighted that, in case of renewed unilateral actions or provocations in breach of international law by Turkey, the EU will use all the instruments and the options at its disposal, including in accordance with Article 29 TEU and Article 215 TFEU, in order to defend its interests and those of its Member States, and take decisions as appropriate at the latest at its December meeting;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 104 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Notes with concern that Turkey’s continuous and growing distancing from European values and standards has brought EU-Turkey relations to a historical low point, having deteriorated to such an extent that it requires both parties to profoundly reassess the current framework of relations which should effectively solve the root causes of the current conflicts;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 115 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that Turkey’s lack of commitment to carrying out the reforms assumed in the accession process has made the latter inadequate to frame a complex relationship that has progressively become more transactional and driven by circumstances; notes that within the framework of accession negotiations, only 16 of the 35 chapters had been opened and only the chapter of Science and Research was provisionally closed on 12 June 2006; stresses that Turkey's accession negotiations have therefore effectively come to a standstill and no further chapters can be considered for opening or closing;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 121 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Is concerned about the further weakened credibility of the Turkish monetary policy after the dismissal of the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey (CBRT) and recurrent political pressure; stresses that Turkey’s accession to the EU depends on full compliance with the Copenhagen criteria;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 137 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Is deeply concerned that, over the years, the lack of progress in Turkey’s convergence has now transformed into a full withdrawal, marked by a stark regression in three main areas: backsliding on the rule of law and fundamental rights, adopting regressive institutional reforms and pursuing a confrontational foreign policy; is further concerned by the fact that this regression has increasingly been accompanied by an explicit anti-EU narrative at times; calls, in this context, on Turkey to reassess the sincerity of its commitment to the EU path, as an indispensable component of the viability of the entire accession process;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 147 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that no incentive that the EU could offer can ever replace the much- needed political will to build a mature democracy and, in turn, become a member of the EU;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 173 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Regrets the current lack of understanding between the EU and Turkey, but reaffirms its firm conviction that Turkey ithe EU has a strategic neighbourinterest in a stable and secure environment in the Eastern Mediterranean and in the development of a cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship with Turkey with which the EU wishes to have the best possible relations; Pursuing dialogue in good faith and abstaining from unilateral actions which run counter to the EU interests and violate international law, the sovereignty and the sovereign rights of EU Member States is an absolute requirement in this regard;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 174 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Regrets the current lack of understanding between the EU and Turkey, but reaffirms its firm conviction that Turkey ithe EU has a strategic neighbour and ally with which the EU wishes to have the best possible relations; interest in a stable and secure environment in the Eastern Mediterranean and in the development of a cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship with Turkey with which the EU should build the best possible relations; Pursuing dialogue in good faith and abstaining from unilateral actions which run counter to the EU interests and violate international law, the sovereignty and the sovereign rights of EU Member States is an absolute requirement in this regard;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 197 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Expresses its will to strengthen and deepen mutual knowledge and understanding between Turkish and European societies, combating all manifestations of social, religious or cultural prejudice; expresses its full commitment to continue supporting Turkey’s independent civil society in whatever circumstances and framework of relations that the future may bring; believes, nevertheless, that the accession process would still be the mostrecommends to support the next generation through extended participation in the Erasmus + program and Jean Monnet scholarships to support research cooperation and the common fight against climate change and for the protection of the environment and last but not least to support the empowerment of women in society and business; believes, nevertheless, that the perspective to a new and clearly defined partnership can be a powerful tool to exercise normative pressure on the Turkish government and the besta framework to sustain the democratic and pro-European aspirations of Turkish society; stresses that a purely transactional relationship will hardly contribute to the advancement of Turkey towards a more democratic model;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 219 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Believes that this fundamental area, which is at the core of the accession process, cannot be disconnected and isolated from overall relations and that it remains along with the full respect of international law and the fundamental principle of good neighbourly relations and regional cooperation, the main obstacles to progress on any positive agenda that could be offered to Turkey;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 220 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Believes that this fundamental area, which is at the core of the accession process, cannot be disconnected and isolated from overall relations and that it remains along with the full respect of international law and the fundamental principle of good neighbourly relations and regional cooperation, the main obstacles to progress on any positive agenda that could be offered to Turkey;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 230 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Notes with deep concern that, despite the formal lifting of the state of emergency in July 2018, its impact on democracy and fundamental rights continues to be strongly felt; , as, inter alia, a plethora of legal provisions and restrictive elements of the emergency rule have been integrated into law
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 254 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Regrets that the current overly broad anti-terrorism provisions and the abuse of the anti-terror measures have become the backbone of this state policy; reiterates its firm condemnation of the violence by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has been on the EU list of terrorist organisations since 2002; regrets that the current overly broad anti- terrorism provisions and the abuse of the anti-terror measures have become the backbone of this state policy;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 310 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Is concerned about the remained and widespread corruption; stresses that the report states that no sign of progress in addressing the many gaps in the Turkish anti-corruption framework was found, calls on Turkey to present an effective anti-corruption strategy and action plan;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 356 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Notes that EU funding to Turkey will be subject to rules on conditionality, including for respecting the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and European values and principles;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 357 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Notes that EU funding to Turkey will be subject to rules on conditionality, including for respecting the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and European values and principles.
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 369 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Condemns the Turkish government's callous action against religious minorities, such as the monastics of Mor Gabriel and other monasteries in south eastern Turkey, which are obliged to do the impossible, namely the production of pre-Medieval property papers of all lands, on pain of confiscation;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 379 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Urges Turkey to protect the rights of minorities and vulnerable groups, including women, LGBTI people and ethnic and religious minorities; recalls that the representation of women in Parliament remained low, in casu 17.3%.
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 396 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Strongly condemns the Turkish decision to convert such an emblematic World Cultural Heritage Monument, as Hagia Sophia Museum, to a mosque and calls on the Turkish authorities to urgently reverse their decision;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 397 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Strongly condemns the Turkish decision to convert such an emblematic World Cultural Heritage Monument, as Hagia Sophia Museum, to a mosque and calls on the Turkish authorities to urgently reverse their decision;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 445 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Is concerned aboutStrongly condemns the ever more frequent use of a hyper-nationalist narrative among the ruling elite that increasingly gives rise to antagonistic approaches towards the EU or its Member States; is concerned about the increasing clout of religious conservatism in political lifacknowledges that Turkey remains a secular state;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 450 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Calls on the Turkish government to respect and fully implement the legal obligations deriving from the Conventions to which it is a contracting party, and to halt the destruction of the cultural heritage in the occupied areas of Cyprus; calls on Turkey to ratify the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions; calls on Turkey to cooperate with the relevant international organisations, especially the Council of Europe, in preventing and combating illicit trafficking and the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 451 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Calls on the Turkish government to respect and fully implement the legal obligations deriving from the Conventions to which it is a contracting party, and to halt the destruction of the cultural heritage in the occupied areas of Cyprus; calls on Turkey to ratify the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions; calls on Turkey to cooperate with the relevant international organisations, especially the Council of Europe, in preventing and combating illicit trafficking and the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 462 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Strongly condemns the removal of 47 democratically elected mayors from office on the basis of questionable evidence and, in particular, their arbitrary replacement by unelected trustees appointed by the central government; strongly believes these unlawful decisions constitute a direct attack on the most basic principles of democracy, depriving millions of voters of their democratically elected representation;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 463 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Strongly condemns the removal of 47 democratically elected mayors from office on the basis of questionable evidence and, in particular, their arbitrary replacement by unelected trustees appointed by the central government; strongly believes these unlawful decisions constitute a direct attack on the most basic principles of democracy, depriving millions of voters of their democratically elected representation;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 477 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
25. Recalls the laudable role played by TurkeyTurkey played and still plays in responding to the migration crisis resulting from the war in Syria; notes that the challenges in addressing this crisis have increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic; takes the view that the EU should continue to give the necessary support to Syrian refugees and host communities in Turkey; supports an objective assessment of the EU- - Turkey Statementcooperation on refugees and migration matters and underlines the importance of both parties’sides to compliancey with their respective commitments;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 493 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Is alarmed by the fact that Turkey’s foreign policy increasingly collides with the priorities and goals of EU’s common foreign and security policy; notes with deep concern that the rate of Turkey’s alignment with the common foreign policy of the EU is constantly deteriorating and is at present reduced to 14%, which is a historic low.
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 494 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Is alarmed by the fact that Turkey’s foreign policy increasingly collides with the priorities and goals of EU’s common foreign and security policy; notes with deep concern that the rate of Turkey’s alignment with the common foreign policy of the EU is constantly deteriorating and is at present reduced to 14%, which is a historic low;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 502 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
26. Stresses that a modernisation of the Customs Union could be beneficial for both parties and would keep Turkey economically and normatively anchored to the EU; reiterates that this would need to be based on strong conditionality related to human rights and fundamental freedoms and the full respect of international law and the fundamental principle of good neighbourly relations; highlights that it seemis unrealistic to envisage any modernisation of the Customs Union givenas long as Turkey continues to move further away from the cEurrent circumstances; recalls that the current Customs Union will not achieve its full potential until Turkey fullyopean Union, in accordance with Council conclusions of 26 June 2018 and 18 June 2019 recalls that the current Customs Union needs to be implemented by Turkey in a full and non- discriminatory way; this is not the case as long as Turkey has been systematically refusing to implements the Additional Protocol in relation to all Member States; and it has been systematically violating critical provisions of the current Customs Union; calls on Turkey to eliminate immediately all the technical barriers, the localisation schemes and domestic requirements that discriminate against EU products and still prevent the free movement of goods in profound breach of the Customs Union obligations;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 514 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
26. Stresses that a modernisation of the Customs Union could be beneficial for both parties and would keep Turkey economically and normatively anchored to the EU; reiterates that this would need to be based on strong conditionality related to human rights and fundamental freedoms; highlights that it seems unrealistic to envisage any modernisation of the Customs Union given the current circumstances; recalls that the current Customs Union will not achieve its full potential until Turkey fully implements the Additional Protocol in relation to all Member States;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 518 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
26. Stresses that a modernisation of the Customs Union could be beneficial for both parties and would keep Turkey economically and normatively anchored to the EU; reiterates that this would need to be based on strong conditionality related to human rights and fundamental freedoms; highlights that it seems unrealistic to envisage any modernisation of the Customs Union given the current circumstances; recalls that the current Customs Union will not achieve its full potential until Turkey fully implements the Additional Protocol in relation to all Member States and existing trade irritants are resolved;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 536 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
27. Is deeply concerned by the ongoing dispute in the Eastern Mediterranean and the related risk of a military escalation; strongly condemns Turkey’s illegal activities in Greek and Cypriot waters, which violate both the sovereign rights of EU Member States and international law; expresses its full solidarity with Greece and the Republic of Cyprus; urges Turkey to engage in the peaceful settlement of disputes and to refrain from any unilateral and illegal action or threat; recognises the right of the Republic of Cyprus to enter into bilateral agreements concerning its exclusive economic zone, explore and exploit its natural resources and calls on Turkey to respect relevant international law (UNCLOS); urges Turkey to engage in the peaceful settlement of disputes, and to refrain from any threat or action which might have negative effects on good neighbourly relations. Urges Turkey to show restraint and to respect Cyprus’ sovereignty over its territorial sea and Cyprus’ sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone.
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 543 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
27. Is deeply concerned by the ongoing dispute in the Eastern Mediterranean and the related risk of a military escalation;s; strongly condemns Turkey’s illegal activities in Greek and Cypriot waters, which violate both the sovereign rights of EU Member States and international law; expresses its full solidarity with Greece and the Republic of Cyprus; urges Turkey to engage in the peaceful settlement of disputes and to refrain from any unilateral and illegal action or threat; urges Turkey to engage in the peaceful settlement of disputes and to refrain from any unilateral and illegal action or threat, as that could have a negative impact on good neighbourly relations;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 547 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
27. Is deeply concerned by the ongoing dispute in the Eastern Mediterranean and the related risk of a military escalation; strongly condemns Turkey’s illegal activities in Greek and Cypriot waters, which violate both the sovereign rights of EU Member States and international law; expresses its full solidarity with Greece and the Republic of Cyprus; urges Turkey to engage in the peaceful settlement of disputes and to refrain from any unilateral and illegal action or threat;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 556 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
28. Condemns the partial reopening of Varosha beach, which undermines mutual trust and therefore the prospect of the resumption of direct talks on the comprehensive resolution of the Cyprus issue; calls on Turkey to reverse this action; reiterates its support for a fair, comprehensive and viable settlement on the basis of a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation with political equality, in line with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, the EU acquis, and on the basis of respect for the principles on which the Union is founded; reiterates its call on Turkey to commit and contribute to a comprehensive settlement, to begin withdrawing its troops from Cyprus, to transfer the sealed-off area of Famagusta to the UN and its lawful inhabitants in accordance with UNSC Resolution 550(1984), as an effort to pave the way for a democratic comprehensive settlement, and to refrain from actions altering the demographic balance on the island; praises the important work of the Committee on Missing Persons; recognises the right of the Republic of Cyprus to enter into bilateral agreements concerning its exclusive economic zone; urges Turkey to engage in the peaceful settlement of disputes, and to refrain from any threat or action which might have negative effects on good neighbourly relations;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 560 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
28. CStrongly condemns the partial reopening of Varosha beach, which violates international law and UN Security Council Resolutions 550 and 789 and undermines mutual trust and therefore the prospect of the resumption of direct talks on the comprehensive resolution of the Cyprus issue; underlines the importance of the status of Varosha and calls on Turkey to immediately reverse this action; reiterates its support for a fair, comprehensive and viable settlement on the basis of a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation with political equality, as set out in the relevant UN Security Council resolutions;, in accordance with International law, the EU acquis and the principles on which the Union is founded;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 561 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
28. CStrongly condemns the partial reopening of Varosha beach, which violates international law and UN Security Council Resolutions 550 and 789 and undermines mutual trust and therefore the prospect of the resumption of direct talks on the comprehensive resolution of the Cyprus issue; underlines the importance of the status of Varosha and calls on Turkey to immediately reverse this action; reiterates its support for a fair, comprehensive and viable settlement on the basis of a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation with political equality, as set out in the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, in accordance with International law, the EU acquis and the principles on which the Union is founded;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 571 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
28. CStrongly condemns the partial reopening of Varosha beach, which undermines mutual trust and therefore the prospect of the resumption of direct talks on the comprehensive resolution of the Cyprus issue; calls on Turkey to reverse this action; reiterates its support for a fair, comprehensive and viable settlement on the basis of a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation with political equality;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 635 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
31. RegretsCondemns the fact that, rather than calling for an end to the violence and for a resumption of peaceful negotiations supporting the efforts of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group, Turkey instead decided to unconditionally sustain the military actions of one of the sides in the recent conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 663 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
32. Believes that it is high time to review the EU’s relations with Turkey and to define a comprehensive, unified and coherent strategy for the medium to long term, among all EU institutions and Member States; invites Turkey to engage in a dialogue
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 687 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
33a. Takes into account not only the absence of any progress in engaging with Turkey, but also the renewed escalation on the Turkish side by unilateral actions and provocations in breach of international law by the latter, and calls on the Council to develop a list of further restrictive measures that should be sectoral and targeted; in this spirit, recalls the European Council’s conclusions of 1- 2 October 2020 that the EU will use all the instruments and the options at its disposal, including in accordance with Articles 29 TEU and 215 TFEU, in order to defend its interests and those of its Member – States;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 688 #

2019/2176(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
33a. Takes into account not only the absence of any progress in engaging with Turkey, but also the renewed escalation on the Turkish side by unilateral actions and provocations in breach of international law by the latter, and calls on the Council to develop a list of further restrictive measures that should be sectoral and targeted; in this spirit, recalls the European Council’s conclusions of 1- 2 October 2020 that the EU will use all the instruments and the options at its disposal, including in accordance with Articles 29 TEU and 215 TFEU, in order to defend its interests and those of its Member – States;
2020/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 23 #

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, hybrid warfare, jihadist terrorism, cyber attacks, uncontrolled migration, increasing threats to natural resources, climate change, etc.;
2019/11/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 40 #

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that global actors (the US, China, Russia) and an increasing number of regional actors (Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, etc.) are seeking to assert power through a combination of unilateral diplomatic posturing and, increasing military military build-upbuild-ups and withdrawing from or disrespecting non-proliferation treaties;
2019/11/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 105 #

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; which set out European strategic autonomy as a long-term objective and called for a gradual synchronisation and mutual adaptation of national defence planning and capability development practices;
2019/11/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 115 #

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 to strengthen its freedom to assess, take decisions and take action where circumstances so require in order to defend its interests and values in a spirit of multilateralism;
2019/11/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 131 #

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) and other 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;
2019/11/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 235 #

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
26. RecallHighlights the importance of organising joint training and exercises between European armed forces, as well as EU-NATO parallel and coordinated exercises, thereby promoting interoperability and military mobility, with a view to maximising mission preparedness, ensuring complementarity, avoiding unnecessary duplication and addressing a broad range of threats, both conventional and non-conventional;
2019/11/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 302 #

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
37. Stresses that strengthening European strategic autonomy will necessarily be based on the EU Capability Development Priorities which will entail an increasing of the Member States’ capabilities and defence budgets, and on strengthening the European defence technological and industrial base;
2019/11/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 354 #

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
44. NotWelcomes the Commission’s proposal to allocate EUR 6.5 billion to military mobility projects in the next MFF; stresses that military mobility has two challenges i.e. a streamlining the procedures and increasing the infrastructure;
2019/11/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 377 #

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 outcomplemented 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 autonomy;
2019/11/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 428 #

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 orbut preferably within an institutional cooperation framework (NATO, UN);
2019/11/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 452 #

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57 a (new)
57a. Welcomes the recently intensified political dialogue in, both formal and informal, settings between the EU and NATO, which remains an essential tool for strengthening mutual trust, building confidence and parliamentary awareness and understanding of the key issues affecting the security of the Euro-Atlantic area vis-à-vis the NATO allies and the EU Member States;
2019/11/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 477 #

2019/2135(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61
61. Considers that progress in European defence will pave the way for major structural changes; notwelcomes the announcement of 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; Wondersencourages the Commission to present a plan which will set out 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
Amendment 3 #

2019/2088(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises the important role of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (‘Europol’ or ‘the Agency’) in assissupporting Member States with criminal investigationto prevent and combat serious organised crimes;
2019/12/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 9 #

2019/2088(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Regrets the Court’s finding of weaknesses in contract management as well as ex ante controls linked to the Agency’s irregular prolongation and amendment of a framework contract on the provision of business travel services after it had expired; notes that the amendment introduced new price aspects not covered by the initial public procurement procedure and that the irregular payments in relation to the contract amounted to 22,188 EUR in 2018; takes note of Europol’s objection to the Court’s finding regarding contract management and ex ante controls and its commitment to due diligence as well as to sound financial management but stresses that such irregularities should be avoided in the future; urges the Agency to better respectreply that it had exerted due diligence and adhered to the principle of financial management in extending the framework contract to save costs; calls upon the Agency to ensure compliance with the Financial Regulation in order to strengthen its internal financial management controls accordingly;
2019/12/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 11 #

2019/2088(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the preparation of an action plan by the Agency to address the areas for improvement identified in the report ‘Human Resources Management and Ethics in EUROPOL’ issued by the Commission’s Internal Audit Serviceconclusion of the audit report of the Commission’s Internal Audit Service on ‘Human Resources Management and Ethics in EUROPOL’, namely that the Agency’s processes for managing HR and anti-fraud and ethics- oriented policies and procedures are adequately designed, effective and comply with the existing regulatory and legal framework; welcomes the preparation of an action plan by the Agency to address the areas for improvement identified in that report; invites the Agency to report back to the LIBE Committee on the issues identified and the corresponding follow-up measures;
2019/12/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 14 #

2019/2088(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that the Court has identified a horizontal trend across agencies in the use of external staffcontractors hired in IT consultancy roles; calls for this dependency on external recruitmentconsultancy services in this important area to be addressed; encourages the Agency to act on the single outstanding recommendation of the Court, namely to publish its vacancy notices on the website of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO);
2019/12/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 17 #

2019/2088(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. Requests the Agency to review its linguistic policy and calls onmake available, to the extent possible, financial resources for translations and urges the Budgetary Authority to provide sufficient financial resources to allow for the translation of Europol’s official reports into all official Union languages, given the importance of its work for European citizens and the fact that the Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group composed of national and European parliamentarians from all Member States should be able to do its work properly.
2019/12/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 4 #

2019/2074(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Deplores that Eurojust was faced with a significant budget decrease from EUR 48 to 38 million (-21%) and a reduction in staff from 242 to 238 (-1.6%) despite a 19% increase in the workload compared to 2017; reminds that the workload is expected to increase further with the new mandate which will enter into force at the end of 2019 and that some cases concerning complex investigations can last several years; further reminds that the number of coordination centres held in 2018 was 17, just as in 2017, demonstrating the popularity of this operational tool and its utility; stresses that the budget of Eurojust should match its tasks and priorities in order to enable it to fulfil its mandate; warns that a lack of appropriate funding undermines the work of Eurojust in prosecuting serious cross- border and organised crime and therefore presents security risks within Member States; calls on Parliament’s competent committees to invite the Administrative Director of Eurojust to present the forecasted long-term funding needs of Eurojust, including the efficiency gains expected and the operational gaps which would result from insufficient funding;
2019/12/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 10 #

2019/2028(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Highlights that the 2020 budget should contribute towards achieving the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights and the Europe 2020 targets in the social and employment area, which seem to be within reach as regards the employment rate target but remain far from being achieved as regards the target of reducing the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion; stresses, in this regard, the need for comprehensive policy reforms and integrated approaches that combat youth and long-term unemployment and the often neglected issue of elderly employability;
2019/09/06
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 27 #

2019/2028(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Calls on the European Commission and the Member States to allow for the necessary flexibility in the implementation of the Union programmes for 2020, in particular the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, to cover the impact of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on workers and entities established in the Member States; welcomes, in this regard, the Commission proposal to amend the scope of the current EGF programme to enable support to workers displaced as a result of disruptions caused by a withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU;
2019/09/06
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 31 #

2019/2028(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Acknowledges the forthcoming rationalisationstreamlining of the current ESF, the YEI, the FEAD, the EaSI and the European Health Programme under the ESF+ as of 2021; reiterates its position to increase the ESF+ to EUR 120 457 000 000 in current prices under the MFF 2021-2027; calls on the Commission to present financial information in a manner that makes it comparable with performance information; expresses concerns on the substantial decrease (by EUR 5 million) proposed by the Council on the PROGRESS axis of EaSI; stresses, in this regard, that all legislative and budgetary revisions should be based on evidence, understanding of their impacts and in line with the better regulation agenda, as well as related recommendations of the European Court of Auditors;
2019/09/06
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 324 #

2018/0108(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
(31) For the same reason, a distinction has to be made regarding the material scope of this Regulation: Orders to produce subscriber data and access data can be issued for any criminal offence as these data are essential to identify a user, whereas access to transactional and content data should be subject to stricter requirements to reflect the more sensitive nature of such data. A threshold allows for a more proportionate approach, together with a number of other ex ante and ex post conditions and safeguards provided for in the proposal to ensure respect for proportionality and the rights of the persons affected. At the same time, a threshold should not limit the effectiveness of the instrument and its use by practitioners. Allowing the issuing of Orders for investigations that carry at least a threewo-year maximum sentence limits the scope of the instrument to more serious crimes, without excessively affecting the possibilities of its use by practitioners. It excludes from the scope a significant number of crimes which are considered less serious by Member States, as expressed in a lower maximum penalty. It also has the advantage of being easily applicable in practice.
2019/12/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 351 #

2018/0108(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41 b (new)
(41 b) It should be possible to object to an order where its execution in the executing State would involve a breach in the immunity or privilege in that State. There is no common definition of what constitutes an immunity or privilege in Union law. The precise definition of these terms is therefore left to national law, which could include protections which apply to medical and legal professions, but should not be interpreted in a way to counter the obligation to abolish certain grounds for refusal as set out in the Protocol to the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union1a. _________________ 1a Protocol established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union to the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union (OJ C 326, 21.11.2001, p. 2).
2019/12/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 437 #

2018/0108(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 8
(8) ‘access data’ means data related to the commencement and termination of atechnical identifiers related to a specific user access session to a service, which is strictly necessaryshall be requested for the sole purpose of identifying the user of the service, such as the Login ID, the date and time of use, or the log-in to and log-off from the service, together withor the IP address allocated by the internet access service provider to the user of a service, data identifying the interface used and the user ID. This includes electronic communications metadata as defined in point (g) of Article 4(3) of [Regulation concerning the respect for private life and the protection of personal data in electronic communications];
2019/12/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 442 #

2018/0108(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9
(9) ‘transactional data’ means data related to the provision of a service offered by a service provider that serves to provide context or additional information about such service and is generated or processed by an information system of the service provider, such as the source and destination of a message or another type of interaction, data on the location of the device, date, time, duration, size, route, format, the protocol used and the type of compression, unless such data constitues access data. This includes electronic communications metadata as defined in point (g) of Article 4(3) of [Regulation concerning the respect for private life and the protection of personal data in electronic communications];
2019/12/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 503 #

2018/0108(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4 – point a
(a) for criminal offences punishable in the issuing State by a custodial sentence of a maximum of at least 32 years, or
2019/12/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 558 #

2018/0108(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 a (new)
Article 7 a Notification of the enforcing state regarding a European Production Order 1. Where the European Production Order concerns transactional or content data and the issuing authority has reasonable grounds to believe that the person whose data is sought it not residing on its own territory, the issuing authority shall submit a copy of the EPOC to the enforcing authority at the same time the EPOC is submitted to the addressee in accordance with Article 7. 2. The notification shall not have a suspensive effect on the obligations of the addressee under this Regulation. 3. The notified authority may raise any of the following grounds for objections with the issuing authority: (a) the requested data is protected by immunities or privileges granted under the national law of the enforcing State; (b) the requested data is related to rules on the determination or limitation of criminal liability that relate the freedom of press or the freedom of expression in other media; (c) the disclosure of the requested data may impact fundamental interests of the enforcing State such as the national security and defence; (d) the EPOC is incomplete or manifestly incorrect; (e) the enforcing authority has substantial and clear indications that the EPOC manifestly violates the Charter or is manifestly abusive. The objection shall be raised as soon as possible but no later than ten days after the receipt of the EPOC or the additional information referred to in paragraph 5. 4. Where the power to waive the privilege or immunity as set out in (3) (a) lies with an authority of the enforcing State, the issuing authority may ask the enforcing authority to request the relevant authority to exercise its power without undue delay. Where the power to waive the privilege or immunity lies with an authority of another Member State or a third country or with an international organisation, the issuing authority may request the authority concerned to exercise that power. 5. Where the enforcing authority requires additional information in order to establish whether one of the grounds for objection under paragraph 3 is fulfilled, it shall contact the issuing authority as soon as possible but no later than 10 days after the receipt of the EPOC with a request for this information to be provided. The issuing authority shall reply to any such request within 10 days or withdraw the European Production Order. In the latter case, it shall inform the enforcing authority and the addressee about the withdrawal. 6. Where the enforcing authority raises a ground for objection under paragraph 3 within the applicable deadline, it shall inform the issuing authority of the reasons why the data may not be used or may only be used under conditions specified by the enforcing authority. The issuing authority shall be obliged to follow the conditions specified by the enforcing authority. 7. Where the issuing authority decides to withdraw the European Production Order or the enforcing authority finally objects to the use of the data according to paragraph 6 but the requested data has already been obtained, the issuing authority shall make no further use but immediately delete the obtained data.
2019/12/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 29 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 3 a (new)
- the functioning of a free and independent media;
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 39 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Expresses its deep concern that, despite three hearings of Poland having been held in the Council, multiple exchanges of views in the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, alarming reports by the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe, and four infringements procedures launched by the Commission, the rule of law situation in Poland has not only not been addressed but has seriously deteriorated since the triggering of Article 7(1) TEU;
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 83 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Notes that the Venice Commission provides clear guidelines on the holding of general elections during public emergencies including epidemics; is concerned that recent changes to the electoral law in Poland are not compatible with the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters; further notes that while the Code foresees the possibility of exceptional voting modalities, any amendments to introduce these may only be considered in accordance with best European practices ‘if the principle of free suffrage is guaranteed’; considers that this is not the case with regard to the amendments to the electoral framework for the presidential elections that are due to take place in 2020;24a _________________ 24aVenice Commission, CDL- PI(2020)005rev-e Report - Respect for Democracy Human Rights and Rule of Law during States of Emergency - Reflections, p. 23.
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 94 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Notes that upon conclusion of the term in office of the First President of the Supreme Court in April 2020, the President of Poland nominated as subsequent Acting First President of the Supreme Court a judge whose independence and impartiality could be put into question; notes that the above- mentioned Acting President, as well as his successor, also nominated as Judge of the Supreme Court by the new NCJ, were responsible for organising the election of candidates for the next First President of the Supreme Court by the General Assembly of the Supreme Court;
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 96 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 c (new)
16c. Notes with regret that doubts concerning the validity of the election process in the General Assembly as well as the impartiality and independence of the Acting Presidents during the election process could undermine the legitimacy of the new First President of the Supreme Court nominated by the President of Poland on 25 May 2020, and could thus put into question the independence of the Supreme Court;
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 97 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 d (new)
16d. Regrets that on 25 May 2020, the President of Poland nominated the new First President of the Supreme Court, although the General Assembly of the Supreme Court had not yet officially submitted a list of candidates to the President, as required by Article 183 of the Polish Constitution, which further undermines the separation of powers and negatively affects the legitimacy of the new First President of the Supreme Court; recalls that a similar violation of law by the President of Poland occurred when nominating the President of the Constitutional Tribunal;
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 119 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 11
The rules governing the organisation of the ordinary courts and, the appointment of courts presidents and the retirement regime for judges of the ordinary courts
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 121 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
27. Regrets that the Minister of Justice, who is, in the Polish system, also the Prosecutor General, obtained the power to appoint and dismiss court presidents of the lower courts at his discretion during a transitional period of six months, and that in 2017-2018 the Minister of Justice replaced over aone hundred and fifty court presidents and vice-presidents; notes that, after this period, removal of court presidents remained in the hands of the Minister of Justice, with virtually no effective checks attached to this power; notes, furthermore, that the Minister of Justice also obtained other “disciplinary” powers vis-à-vis court presidents, and presidents of higher courts, who in turn, now have large administrative powers vis- à-vis presidents of lower courts36 ; regrets this major setback for the rule of law and judicial independence in Poland37 ; _________________ 36Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, para. 45. 37See also Council of Europe, Bureau of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE-BU), CCJE- BU(2018)6REV, 18 June 2018. (The total number of Presidents and Vice- Presidents of the courts who have been expelled on the basis of the provisions cited is 158 - according to data officially provided by the Ministry of Justice upon the request by the Polish Judges’ Association ‘Iustitia’.)
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 123 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28a. Recalls that the CJEU found in its judgement of 5 November 201938a that the provisions of the Polish law amending the law on the organisation of the ordinary courts, which lowered the retirement age of judges of the ordinary courts, whilst allowing the Minister of Justice to decide on the prolongation of their active service, and which set a different retirement age depending on their gender, are contrary to Union law; _________________ 38aJudgment of the Court of Justice of 5 November 2019, Commission v Poland, C- 192/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:924.
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 132 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)
32a. Recalls that the CJEU found in its judgement of 5 November 201943a that lowering the retirement age of public prosecutors is contrary to Union law because it establishes a different retirement age for men and women who are public prosecutors in Poland; _________________ 43aJudgment of the Court of Justice of 5 November 2019, Commission v Poland, C- 192/18 ECLI:EU:C:2019:924.
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 154 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
37. Is deeply concerned by the excessive use of libel cases by some politicians against journalists, including by sentencing with criminal fines and suspension from exercising the profession of journalist; fears for a chilling effect on the profession and independence of journalists and media46 ; calls on the Commission to propose an Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) Directive that will protect the media from vexatious lawsuits in the Union that are intended to silence, intimidate or bankrupt them; _________________ 46Council of Europe Platform to Promote the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists, 2020 Annual Report, March 2020, p. 42.
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 156 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)
37a. Is concerned about reported cases of detention of journalists for doing their job when reporting on anti-lockdown protests;
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 157 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 b (new)
37b. Is concerned by the actions carried out by the Polish authorities in recent years, including a re-shaping of the public broadcaster into a pro-government broadcaster, hindering public media and their governing bodies of independent or dissenting voices and exercising control over the broadcasting content, the latest example involving the Polish public Radio Three (known as Troika), which was accused of censoring an anti-government song that topped the charts, with the internet links and news about the song disabled on the station’s website shortly after the chart show was broadcast; notes with regret that since 2015 Poland has fallen in the World Press Freedom Index from 18th to 62nd place; recalls that Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights states that the freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected; recalls that Article 54 of the Polish Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and forbids censorship;
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 171 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
40. Calls on the Polish authorities to modify the act of 15 September 2017 on the National Institute for Freedom - Centre for the Development of Civil Society49 , in order to ensure access to state funding for critical civil society groups at all levels, and a fair, impartial and transparent distribution of public funds to civil society, in a continually shrinking space for it to operate, and ensuringe pluralistic representation; calls for the rapid adoption of the Rights and Values Programme with adequate funding for the Union values strand; _________________ 49OSCE/ODIHR, Opinion on the Draft Act of Poland on the National Freedom Institute - Centre for the Development of Civil Society, Warsaw, 22 August 2017.
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 175 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 a (new)
41a. Is deeply concerned about the transmission of personal data from the Universal Electronic System for Registration of the Population (PESEL register) by the Ministry of Digital Affairs of Poland to the operator of the postal services on 22 April 2020, aimed at facilitating the organisation of the presidential election on 10 May 2020 via postal ballot, despite the lack of a proper legal basis, as the bill allowing for an all- postal election was not adopted by the Polish Parliament until 7 May 2020; notes furthermore that the PESEL register is not identical to the voters register and includes also personal data of citizens of other EU Member States, thus the above-mentioned transfer could constitute a potential breach of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679; recalls that the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) discussed this matter during its meeting on 5 May 2020 and underlined in its subsequent statement that public authorities may disclose information on individuals included in electoral lists, but only when this is specifically authorised by Member State law;
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 238 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
48. Calls on the Polish government to comply with all provisions relating to the rule of law and fundamental rights enshrined in the Treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the ECHR and international human rights standards, and to engage directly in dialogue with the Commission; stresses that such a dialogue needs to be conducted in an impartial, evidence-based and cooperative manner while also respecting the competences of the Union and its Member States as enshrined in the Treaties, and the principle of subsidiarity; calls on the Polish government to cooperate with the Commission pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation as set out in the Treaty; calls on the Polish government to swiftly implement the rulings of the CJEU and to respect the primacy of Union law;
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 253 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
50. Calls on the Commission to make full use of the tools available to it, to address a clear risk of a serious breach by Poland of the values on which the Union is founded, in particular expedited infringement procedures and applications for interim measures before the CJEU, as well as budgetary toolsexplore whether there are budgetary tools that can be introduced in this regard as a last resort; calls on the Commission to continue to keep Parliament regularly informed and closely involved;
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE