BETA

Activities of Ralf SEEKATZ

Plenary speeches (1)

The Rule of Law in Malta, after the recent revelations around the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia (debate)
2019/12/17
Dossiers: 2019/2954(RSP)

Shadow reports (1)

REPORT on the European Parliament recommendation to the Council and the Commission concerning the conclusion of an agreement, under negotiation, between the European Union and New Zealand on the exchange of personal data between the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and the New Zealand authorities competent for fighting serious crime and terrorism
2020/07/02
Committee: LIBE
Dossiers: 2020/2048(INI)
Documents: PDF(168 KB) DOC(58 KB)
Authors: [{'name': 'Annalisa TARDINO', 'mepid': 197806}]

Written explanations (1)

Stocktaking of European elections (A9-0211/2020 - Pascal Durand)

In einer repräsentativen Demokratie entsendet die Wählerschaft Abgeordnete zur Vertretung ihrer politischen Überzeugungen und ihres Wahlkreises, nicht zur Vertretung einer willkürlich definierbaren Identitätsgruppe. Wählerinnen und Wähler können selbst entscheiden, welchen Kandidaten und Parteien sie vertrauen. Die Argumentation von Quotenbefürwortern, Abgeordnete könnten nur, wenn sie einer Identitätsgruppe selbst zugehörig sind, deren Interessen auch vertreten, entmündigt Wählerinnen und Wähler bei ihrer freien Stimmabgabe und ist im Kern illiberal.Die CDU/CSU-Gruppe im Europäischen Parlament spricht sich trotz der Annahme des Berichts zur Bestandaufnahme europäischer Wahlen entschieden gegen die Absätze 4 und 5 des beschlossenen Textes aus. Der Gesetzgeber sollte unter keinen Umständen durch die Einführung von identitätsbasierten Quoten, beispielsweise nach Geschlecht, ethnischer Herkunft oder sexueller Orientierung in das passive Wahlrecht eingreifen. Die Einführung zwangsweise geschlechterparitätischer Wahllisten wäre eine schwerwiegende Verletzung unserer freiheitlich-demokratischen Grundordnung zugrundeliegenden Gleichheitsprinzips. Auf Länderebene wurde in Deutschland bereits die Verfassungswidrigkeit von Paritätsgesetzen durch die Landesverfassungsgerichte in Bayern, Brandenburg und Thüringen festgestellt. Eine entsprechende, absehbar verfassungswidrige, Einschränkung des passiven Wahlrechts auf europäischer Ebene, würde die Glaubwürdigkeit der EU als Verfechterin von Rechtsstaatlichkeit, Freiheit und Demokratie in Europa und der Welt beschädigen.
2020/11/25

Written questions (6)

Commissioner Vella’s reply to Question P-004807/2018 by Werner Langen (PPE)
2020/02/05
Documents: PDF(43 KB) DOC(9 KB)
Standardisation of gas connections in the EU
2020/03/03
Documents: PDF(38 KB) DOC(9 KB)
Introduction of border controls to stem the COVID-19 pandemic
2020/05/11
Documents: PDF(45 KB) DOC(10 KB)
European Professional Card
2020/05/19
Documents: PDF(42 KB) DOC(9 KB)
EU login
2020/06/09
Documents: PDF(39 KB) DOC(9 KB)
Fulfilment of the requirements governing the Telefónica/E-Plus merger
2020/12/14
Documents: PDF(42 KB) DOC(10 KB)

Amendments (133)

Amendment 1 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 2
— having regard to Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, signed in Maastricht on 7 February 1992, establishing in Article 2 that ‘The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and an economic and monetary union and by implementing the common policies or activities referred to in Articles 3 and 3a, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States’,
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 5 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 14
— having regard to its resolution of 26 March 2019 on financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance10 , _________________ 10 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0240.deleted
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 6 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 15
— having regard to its resolution of 18 December 2019 on ‘Fair taxation in a digitalised and globalised economy: BEPS 2.0’11 , _________________ 11 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0102.deleted
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 9 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 16
— having regard to the Commission communication of 11 December 2019 on the European Green Deal (COM(2019)0640),deleted
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 10 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17
— having regard to its resolution of 15 January 2020 on the European Green Deal12 , _________________ 12 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0005.deleted
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 15 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 34
— having regard to its resolution of 13 November 2020 on the Sustainable Europe Investment Plan - How to finance the Green Deal19 , _________________ 19 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0305.deleted
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 17 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 37
— having regard to the Commission’s public consultation on the review of the effectiveness of economic governance framework,deleted
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 19 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 37 a (new)
— having regard to the European Auditor's Special Report 03/2018 Audit of the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP),
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 20 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 37 b (new)
— having regard to the European Court of Auditor's Special Report 16/2020: The European Semester – Country Specific Recommendations address important issues but need better implementation,
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 48 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomesTakes note of the Commission communication of 3 March 2021 entitled ‘One year since the outbreak of COVID- 19: fiscal policy response’ and takes note of the proposed conditions for deactivating the general escape clause (GEC); highlights that deactivation of the GEC should be conditional upon the health, social and economic situation across Member States in order to ensure that fiscal support is provided for as long as neededthe Union;
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 58 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes that the coordinated policy response to the Covid-19 crisis proves that the current framework for economic governance provides a high degree of flexibility and counter-cyclicality;
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 64 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Agrees with the European Fiscal Board (EFB) on the importance ofthat it would be desirable to havinge a clear pathway towards a reformed fiscal framework prior to the deactivation of the GEC, but insists that it is not a necessary precondition for the deactivation of the GEC;
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 71 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Commission to put forward guidelines for a transition period until the new fiscal framework is in place, during which time no excessive deficit procedure should be activated and with the possibility to use the ‘unusual event clause’ on a country-specific basis to prevent premature fiscal consolidation;deleted
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 81 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that economic indicators and adjustment paths need to be interpreted cautiously, and therefore calls for the Vade Mecum and the code of conduct of the Stability and Growth Pact to be revised vis-à-vis the benchmarks needed to calculate such adjustment needs and paths; stresses that fiscal guidance should avoid pro-cyclical biases, promote upward convergence and counteract macroeconomic imbalances; calls for special accounting treatment for loans from Next Generation EU (NGEU) related spending;
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 90 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Calls for a continued expansionary fiscal stance for as long as needed and for it to be shifted to support the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and a green, digital and inclusive transformation while ensuring fiscal sustainability; considers that the fiscal support measures should become more targeted as the recovery progresses; calls on the Commission not to have the general escape clause activated longer than strictly necessary; calls on the Commission to develop a credible exit strategy from the crisis measures;
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 107 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Member States to embed the high-quality fiscal support in credible medium-term frameworks, bearing in mind that emergency measures are temporary, limited and targeted; calls on the Member States to monitor fiscal risks, namely contingent liabilities, as appropriate and ensure long-term fiscal sustainability;
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 112 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Welcomes the coordinated policy response of governments and EU institutions aimed at avoiding a sharp increase in corporate insolvencies and unemployment; warns that an abrupt and uncoordinated withdrawal of support measures could lead to financial distressslow down the speed of the economic recovery; points out, however, that the robust fiscal response to the Covid-19 crisis raises new concerns in relation to debt sustainability;
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 118 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Notes that the Covid-19 crisis has shown that those Member States that have built fiscal buffers ahead of time, were in a better position to quickly mobilise fiscal stimulus packages without the associated rise in borrowing costs; notes that his example proves the value of a prudent approach to fiscal policy;
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 119 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Notes that the increased private and public debt levels due to the pandemic are a burden for future generations and might be a drag on the recovery;
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 135 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses the importance ofNotes that complementarity between monetary and fiscal policies have helped to deliver the required support post- COVID-19; considers that the low interest rate environment has implications for fiscal poECB's primary objective is price stability and that monetary policy support can be withdrawn at any point in time in light of unfavourable developments in relation to price stabilicty; warns against a premature tightening of monetary and fiscal policyMember States against relying too heavily on an accommodating monetary policy stance;
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 145 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Underlines that structural factors are likely to keep rates low in the long term; considers that macroeconomic policies should address the factors underlying secular stagnation;deleted
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 152 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Calls for an appropriate fiscal and monetary policy mix that work together towards achieving the EU’s objectives;deleted
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 166 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Highlights that public debt levels have increased and that some Member States already have a sizeable debt legacy; notes with concern that the average debt- to-GDP ratio of EU Member States will surpass 100% in 2021; notes that circumstances have changed since the Maastricht criteria were defined and that inflation and interest rate levels are considerably lower today; points out that this environment will not necessarily last going forward and that the interest rate environment can change fast, while reducing debt levels may take a considerable period of time;
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 182 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses that debt service costs are expectedlikely to remain low for the foreseeablenear future and primary deficits are likely tomay be offset by favourable interest-growth differentials; further considers that as long as the differentials are negative it is possible to sustain and progressively reduce high debt levels; points out though that some Member States have had structural problems to achieve sufficiently high growth rates in the past;
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 210 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Stresses the importance of pursuing a broad and transparent DSA, transparent and thorough debt sustainability assessment in order to set an appropriate country-specific path, using innovative tools and techniques such as stress tests and stochastic analysis to better reflect risks to public debt dynamics;
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 213 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Points out that the metrics at the heart of the economic governance framework must be easily observable and controllable by political decision makers in order to increase transparency and comprehensibility for both policy makers and the public; notes that concepts such as an output gap analysis do not satisfy those criteria;
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 223 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Calls onInvites the Commission to relaunch the debate on the reformview of the economic governance of the Union with a view to coming forward with a legislative proposal by the end of 2021; calls for a rethink of EU fiscal rules, also in view of the legacies of the pandemic, and supports the EFB’s conclusion that the fiscal framework has to be adapted;
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 245 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Calls for the renewed fiscal framework to promote debt sustainability and cyclical stabilisation and to improve the quality of public expenditure through sustainable investments and reforms; calls for well-defined, transparent, simple, flexible and enforceable rules embedded in a credible and democratic framework that take into account the specificities of Member States and promote upward economic and social convergence;
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 250 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Notes that as a general rule public borrowing should only be used to finance productive investments and must not be used to finance recurring general expenditures;
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 256 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Suggests focusing the fiscal targets on the achievement of a single credible debt anchor and a declining path towards it aimed at reducing high debt ratios in a realistic and reasonable period of time and differentiated according to the existing debt level of the Member States;
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 265 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Proposes an expenditure rule with a 20 20 ceiling on nominal public expenditure when a country’s public debt exceeds a certain threshold; proposes that in such a case, the annual expenditure growth rate of that Member State shall be two percentage points lower than the average GDP growth rate of the past three years; _________________ 20 A ceiling fixed for 3-5 years that would depend on the expected potential output growth, expected inflation and the distance from the debt anchor.
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 274 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Notes that the country-specific path outcome should result from a discussion between each Member State and the Commission, after a consultation with the EFB in the context of the European Semester; considers that the expenditure rule should also include a correction mechanism to remove cyclical items;
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 281 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Underlines that expenditure rules allow forhave built-in automatic stabilisers to operate and are under the direct control of the governmentation properties1a; argues that while potential output growth is unobservable and has to be estimated, it is less likely to be subject to revisions than the output gap; _________________ 1a See. p. 89 of EBF Assessment of EU fiscal rules with a focus on the six and two-pack legislation.
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 288 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Proposes, in line with the EFB, ‘ onthat the general escape clause, should only be triggered based on an independent and thorough economic judgeassessment; notes however, that such assessment should be based on pre-defined metrics, thresholds and procedures;
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 294 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Shares the EFB’s opinion that sustainable growth-enhancing public investments should be exempt from the expenditure rule, in particular those investments that are aligned with the EU’s long-term objectives of the NGEU;deleted
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 310 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Stresses that governments’ revenues are essential to guarantee the sustainability of public finances; calls on the Member States to take action to tackle tax fraud, tax avoidance, and tax evasion, as well as money laundering;deleted
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 324 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Agrees with the opinion of the EFB and others21 that a deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) would be helped by a central fiscal capacity, which could help cushion idiosyncratic shocks, whether common or country-specific, in a timely manner; _________________ 21 International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank.deleted
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 342 #

2020/2075(INI)

25. Welcomes the creation of the NGEU, which is financed through debt issuance guaranteed by the EU budget; underlines that EU-issuance debt22 will provide a new supply of European high- quality assets, which is a step towards a permanent EU safe asset; _________________ 22 NGEU & SURE bonds.
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 357 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
26. Stresses the importance of the MIP in identifying and taking preventive and corrective actions against emerging imbalances; points out, however, that the potential of this mechanism has not been fully exploited on account of its structural weaknessespoor enforcement;
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 363 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Agrees with the European Court of Auditor's assessment that although the MIP is generally well designed, the Commission is not implementing it in such a way as to ensure the effective prevention and correction of imbalances1a; _________________ 1a https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADoc uments/SR18_03/SR_MIP_EN.pdf
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 365 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
27. Calls for the MIP to be reformed to make its indicators and recommendations more forward-looking and symmetrical with regard to over- and undershooting target values, and to focus on indicators under the control of policymakers and geared towards reducing intra-euro area imbalances; considers that greater compliance with pared-back recommendations must be achieved and MIP-relevant country- specific recommendations should focus on policy actions that can have a direct impact on imbalances;deleted
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 383 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
29. Underlines the importance of the EU institutional framework and of the community method to set and enforce the rules and to safeguard and enhance strong political ownership and legitimacy;
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 386 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)
29a. Notes that the enforcement of EU fiscal rules in the past has been poor, which is partly due to the political nature of the process; suggests therefore that the supervision and enforcement of the economic governance framework should be attributed to a completely independent authority such as the European Stability Mechanism (ESM);
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 400 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
30. Calls for a renewed European Semester as the main economic and social policy coordination framework supporting the EU’s long-standing goals of fiscal sustainability and upward convergence with stronger national ownership; calls for more rigorous democratic scrutiny and for Parliament’s full involvement in defining the overarching goals and the guidancethe European Semester to focus on fiscal discipline, competitiveness and structural reforms;
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 407 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30a. Agrees with the European Court of Auditor's assessment that the Country Specific Recommendations in the European Semester are a useful tool, but need better implementation1a; _________________ 1a https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocI tem.aspx?did=54357
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 414 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
32. Calls for more involvement of national productivity councils in the MIP process;deleted
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 429 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
34. Recalls its position23 that an ‘additional budgetary capacity for the euro area’ should be included in the fiscal capacity; _________________ 23European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2017 on budgetary capacity for the euro area, OJ C 252, 18.7.2018, p. 235.deleted
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 441 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
35. Reiterates the urgency of increasing and diversifying the EU budget’s revenue sources and of linking own resources with policy objectives;deleted
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 451 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
36. Calls for the Eurogroup’s decision- making process to be reassessed to include appropriate democratic accountability; calls for the Chair of the Eurogroup to be one of the Commission Vice-Presidents;
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 458 #

2020/2075(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
37. Recalls its call for the ESM to be integrated into EU law under the Community method;deleted
2021/04/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 2 #

2020/2058(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8
— having regard to its resolution of 18 December 2019 on fair taxation in a digitalised and globalised economy: BEPS 2.0’5 , __________________ 5 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0102.deleted
2020/07/03
Committee: BUDGECON
Amendment 99 #

2020/2058(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that the success of the EU’s aim to achieve climate neutrality will, among other factors, depend on the adequacy of the financing;
2020/07/03
Committee: BUDGECON
Amendment 178 #

2020/2058(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Calls for the gradual phasing-out of public and private investments in highly polluting and harmful industries for which economically feasible alternatives are available, while fully respecting the rights of Member States to choose their energy mix;
2020/07/03
Committee: BUDGECON
Amendment 373 #

2020/2058(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Recalls the statement of the ECB President that the ECB is supporting the development of a taxonomy as a way of facilitating the incorporation of environmental considerations in central bank portfolios; calls on the ECB to evaluate the feasibility of including sustainability criteria in its collateral framework and its annual stress testing exercise, while assessing ways to guide lending towards energy transition investments and to rebuild a sustainable economy in the aftermath of the COVID- 19 crisis;
2020/07/03
Committee: BUDGECON
Amendment 405 #

2020/2058(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Insists on the integration of social objectives in the sustainability framework, including through an evaluation of extending the scope of taxonomy and the development of an EU Social Bond Standard;deleted
2020/07/03
Committee: BUDGECON
Amendment 419 #

2020/2058(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Insists on the integration of governance objectives in the sustainability framework, including through additional voting rights for long-term shareholders, reform of remuneration structures and fiduciary duties for top-line management, and mandatory sustainability reporting and due diligence fovites the Commission to analyse how a long-term perspective can be better financial institutions and large corporates; welcomes the preparation of a sustainablcorporated into the corporate governance initiativregime;
2020/07/03
Committee: BUDGECON
Amendment 435 #

2020/2058(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Recalls that investments in unsustainable economic activities may lead to stranded assets with lock-in effects; considerspoints out that this risk needs to be insufficiently integrated in credit ratings and prudential frameworks;
2020/07/03
Committee: BUDGECON
Amendment 444 #

2020/2058(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Recalls that sustainable investments do not necessarily come with a lower risk-profile than other types of investments; points out that sustainability considerations must therefore not come at the expense of financial stability considerations;
2020/07/03
Committee: BUDGECON
Amendment 455 #

2020/2058(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Calls for the introduction of an enabling framework for public sustainable investments to achieve the goals set out in the European Green Deal, but stresses that whatever financing model is chosen must not undermine the sustainability of public finance in the EU; supports the commitment by EVP Dombrovskis to explore how taxonomy can be used in the public sector; calls for public support for airlines to be used in a sustainable and efficient mannerStresses that increased levels of public sustainable investments must not undermine the sustainability of public finance in the EU;
2020/07/03
Committee: BUDGECON
Amendment 473 #

2020/2058(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Rejects the idea of an enabling framework for public sustainable investments or any 'fast-track-procedure' under the Stability and Growth Pact;
2020/07/03
Committee: BUDGECON
Amendment 490 #

2020/2058(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Recalls that the European Semester is a framework for EU Member States to coordinate their budgetary and economic policies; believes that ithe European Semester is not the right crouldte to facilitate the implementation of the European Green Deal, the European Pillar of Social Rights and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); believes that the SDGs should be at the heart of EU’s policy making processcompetitiveness and sound fiscal policy should be at the heart of a focussed European Semester;
2020/07/03
Committee: BUDGECON
Amendment 513 #

2020/2058(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
25. Supports the Solvency Support Instrument to level the playing field in the single market, and takes note of the introduction of ‘transition plans’ for certain companies to increase the sustainability of their activities; considers that society can ask for a quid pro quo when providing support to companies; believes that transition plans should be obligatory for companies seeking state aid or EU-level support unless it is clear that they do not engage in environmentally or socially harmful activities; urges the Commission to only approve transition plans that set businesses on the path to the climate- neutral and circular economy without significantly harming any other environmental or social objectives;
2020/07/03
Committee: BUDGECON
Amendment 531 #

2020/2058(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
26. Invites the Commission to revise the Energy Tax Directive and coordinate a kerosene tax that could also feed into the EU budget;deleted
2020/07/03
Committee: BUDGECON
Amendment 548 #

2020/2058(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
27. Wishes it to be ensured that all contribute equitably to the post-corona recovery and the transition to a sustainable economy; seeks an intensified fight against tax fraud, tax evasion and tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning; calls on the Commission to create a blacklist of EU Member States facilitating tax avoidance; calls for EU- level coordination to avoid aggressive tax planning by individuals and corporates; seeks in this context an ambitious strategy for business taxation for the 21st century;deleted
2020/07/03
Committee: BUDGECON
Amendment 7 #

2020/2048(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
— having regard to the Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations with New Zealand for an agreement between the European Union and New Zealand on the exchange of personal data between the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation ('Europol') and the New Zealand authorities competent for fighting serious crime and terrorism adopted on 13 May 20201a _________________ 1a ST 7047/20 + ADD1
2020/05/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 16 #

2020/2048(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the Europol programming document 2020-20222a highlights that the full and successful implementation of EMPACT activities, in particular at the operational level, is not possible without close partnership with third states and organisations; whereas the EU and New Zealand are close in their outlook on global security issues and pursue similar approaches in this regard; _________________ 2aEuropol Programming Document 2020- 2022 adopted by Europol's Management Board on 25 March 2020, EDOC# 1003783v20E
2020/05/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 17 #

2020/2048(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas Europol and the New Zealand Police have already established a framework of enhanced cooperation through a Working Arrangement and a Memorandum of Understanding, both signed in 2019, which allow the New Zealand Police to use SIENA and to permanently deploy a liaison officer to the Europol headquarters in The Hague;
2020/05/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 18 #

2020/2048(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas ion 13 May 202018, the Council unanimously adopted its negotiation mandates to authorise the opening of negotiations with eight countries (Turkey, Israel, Tunisia, Morocco, Lebanon, Egypt, Algeria and Jordan) and Parliament set out its position on these eight mandatesNew Zealand by written procedure;
2020/05/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 20 #

2020/2048(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas Europol has already set up multipleconcluded multiple operational agreements on personal data exchange with third countries in the past and the Union launched negotiations with eight countries in the MENA region (Turkey, Israel, Tunisia, Morocco, Lebanon, Egypt, Algeria and Jordan) in 2018;
2020/05/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 25 #

2020/2048(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E
E. whereas Europol has designated the threat level from Jihadi terrorists as high, and whereas in 2018, they were responsible for all deaths from terror attacks in the EUjihadism was the most prevalent form of terrorism, accounting for all deaths from terror attacks in the EU, but whereas the number of arrests of right-wing terrorists, whilst remaining at a comparatively low level, increased for the third year in a row and effectively doubled in comparison to 2017;
2020/05/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 32 #

2020/2048(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas Europol has reportedMember States have reported to Europol that law enforcement agencies used data exchange tools to foil, disrupt or investigate Jihadi129 terrorist attacks oin 24 occasions in 2018018, of which 24 cases were attributed to Jihadi terrorism, 19 to left-wing terrorism, one to right-wing terrorism, 83 to ethno-nationalist and separatist terrorism, one to single issue terrorism, and five to an unspecified form of terrorism;
2020/05/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 33 #

2020/2048(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas Europol has pointed to the high adaptability of organised crime and its ability to extract long-term gains from crises and whereas the Agency has assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cybercrime to be the most visible and striking compared to other criminal activities, as cybercriminals have been successfully exploiting emerging opportunities and vulnerabilities;
2020/05/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 34 #

2020/2048(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G
G. whereas the EDPS has supervised Europol since 1 May 2017, and also advises the EU institutions on policies and legislation relating to data protection;deleted
2020/05/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 36 #

2020/2048(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H
H. whereas in the light of the 2019 Christchurch lone gunman attack, futureoperational cooperation to be formalised under the agreement between the EU and New Zealand, by enabling the exchange of personal data, could be essential for preventiong and prosecution shouldng other serious crimes which will be planned or perpetrated within the EU or worldwide in the future;
2020/05/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 44 #

2020/2048(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that strengthened cooperation with 1. New Zealand in the field of law enforcement couldwill help the European Union to further protect its security interests, and encourages it to work expeditiously to defespecially in the areas of preventing and combatineg the negotiating mandate for an agreement between the European Union anderrorism, disrupting organised crime and fighting cybercrime; encourages the Commission to expeditiously launch negotiations with New Zealand on the exchange of personal data between the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and the New Zealand authorities competent for fighting serious crime and terrorism in full respect of the negotiating guidelines adopted by the Council;
2020/05/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 46 #

2020/2048(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. InsistReiterates that the level of protection provided for in the agreement should be essentially equivalent to the level of protection provided for in EU law; welcomes, in this context, the formal recognition of New Zealand as a country providing an adequate level of data protection by the Commission in 2012;
2020/05/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 51 #

2020/2048(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that, since Europol recognises that the terrorist threat level from returning foreign freedom fighters, radicalised European Muslims and their families is high, it is essential fo improved cross- border information exchange byetween all relevant law enforcement agencies, within the EU and with globally, to partners, should be prioritised in order to fight serious crime and terrorism; therefore urges the Member States to work faster to secure their borders more effectively;
2020/05/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 54 #

2020/2048(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Requests that the agreement contain the necessary safeguards and controls with respect to the protection of personal data; welcomes that the transfer of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade-union membership, genetic data or data concerning a person’s health and sex life should only be permitted in exceptional cases where such transfers are strictly necessary and proportionate for preventing and combating criminal offences covered by the agreement; stresses that clear safeguards for the data subject, persons linked to the data subject and persons linked to the criminal offence such as witnesses and victims should be defined to guarantee respect for fundamental rights;
2020/05/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 60 #

2020/2048(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Is of the opinion that, in line with the principle of purpose limitation, the future agreement should explicitly lay down a list of criminal offences in relation to which personal data can be exchanged, in line with EU criminal offences definitions when available; considers that this list should include the activities covered by such crimes, and the persons, groups and organisations likely to be affected by such transferslikely effects of the transfer of personal data;
2020/05/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 69 #

2020/2048(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Urges the Council and the Commission to work with the Government of New Zealand to define, pursuant to Court of Justice case law and within the meaning of Article 8 (3) of the Charter, which independent supervisory authority is to be in charge of supervising the implementation of thevested with effective powers of investigation and intervenational agreement; is of the opinion that such an authority should be agreed on and established before is to be in charge of overseeing the implementation of the international agreement can enter into force; insists that the name of this authority and the contact detailsshould be expressly included in the agreement;
2020/05/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 72 #

2020/2048(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that eithe independent supervisory bodyr of the contracting parties should also have the power to decide to suspend or terminate the agreement in the event of a breach; considers that under the agreement, authorities should be allowed to continue to process any personal data falling within the scope of the agreement transferred prior to its suspension or termination; consideragrees that a procedure for monitoring and periodically evaluating the agreement should be established in order to evaluate both the partners’ compliance with the agreement and the functioning of the agreement in relation to the operational needs of Europol;
2020/05/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 61 #

2020/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I
I. whereas new powers to temporarily issue recovery debt, including green bonds – which make the EU the world’s biggest issuer of such debt –, require adequate implementation and strict enforcement capacities so as to avoid undermining the long-term credibility of the euro as a safe asset currency;
2020/12/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 81 #

2020/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)
Ka. whereas the long-term international role of the Euro will largely depend on the Eurozone's attractiveness as a location to do business and the soundness of the Member States' fiscal policies;
2020/12/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 108 #

2020/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Reiterates, in this context, the need to deepen and complete the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), the Banking Union and the Capital Markets Union (CMU), with a view to enhancing the international competitiveness of European markets and the stability and attractiveness of the euro;
2020/12/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 137 #

2020/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Emphasises the need for sustainable and sound fiscal and structural growth- enhancing policies that are based on a commitment to credible fiscal rules to maintain the stability and integrity of the Euro; calls for further reflection on the adequacy of the stability and growth pact framework and its enforcement despite the challenging circumstances; supports the plan outlined in Next Generation EU to use, in addition to monetary policy, a fiscal impulse, notably borrowing EUR 750 billion from capital markets bonds to finance the recovery and green transition, in addition to the issuance of EUR 100 billion in ‘social’ bonds under the European instrument for temporary support to mitigate unemployment risks in an emergency (SURE), which is intended to preserve employment; applauds the high level of interest that investors have demonstrated in European bonds;
2020/12/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 148 #

2020/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Highlights that an adequate supply of safe assets is a precondition for international currency status, and expresses its regret at the limited availability of euro- denominated safe assets; underlines, therefore, the need to create European safe assets; considers that the proposed issuance of a common debt to finance recovery will provide an EU-level reserve asset benchmark and increase the supply of euro-denominated safe assets; expects the ECB to conduct an assessment of the possibility of issuing certificates of deposit under its existing legal basis;
2020/12/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 194 #

2020/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Points out that a higher share of energy contracts being traded in Euro could enhance the international role of the Single currency and is therefore supportive of policies furthering that goal;
2020/12/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 6 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the European system of technical regulation and standardisation has demonstrated to be a driver for competitiveness, innovation and consumer safety in Europe, making European standards a global benchmark;
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 10 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the current gaps in the content of harmonised standards are an obstacle to Member States in meeting their responsibilities with regard to structural safety, health and other construction-related matters;
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 18 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Points to the specific nature of the CPR, which differs in some areas from the general principles of the new legislative framework (NLF), chiefly because it does not harmonise any specific requirements or minimum safety levels for construction products, but instead defines a common technical language for measurassessing the performance of construction products over their essential characteristics;
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 21 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Is concerned that the deficient and incomplete implementation of the CPR in some Member States has led to severe legal uncertainties and unpredictabilities for builders, contractors, planners and architects; urges the Commission to find unbureaucratic and pragmatic solutions without delay and in consent with the Member States in order to overcome these undesirable and negative effects on the European construction sector.
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 22 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Notes that the common technical language set up by the CPR is defined by harmonised European standards, and by European Assessment Documents (EADs) for products not or not fully covered by harmonised standards; acknowledges that the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) and the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation(Cenelec) are the competent organisations for the drafting of harmonised standards, while the European Organisation for Technical Assessment (EOTA) and Technical Assessment Bodies (TAB) are responsible for the preparation of EADs;
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 24 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Points out that unlike other NLF legislation, the use of harmonised standards under the CPR is mandatory, which requires an effective system of adoption to address the needs of industry, keep up with technological developments and, ensure legal clarity and meet the regulatory needs of Member States;
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 28 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Is concerned by the fact that of the 444 existing harmonised standards for construction products, only 12 were issued after the adoption of the CPR; believes that the time required for the development and citation of standards, and the backlog for revising and updating existing standards (CPR acquis) and the lack of clear and pragmatic guidance by the Commission are among the most significant problems associated with the implementation of the CPR;
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 31 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Is concerned that a significant number of standards do not fully cover all product requirements necessary for their use in construction works; stresses the urgent need to review standards which are incomplete in a way that all construction products can be used without further precautionary measures;
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 32 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Urgently calls on the Commission to find a quick and viable solution to improve the standardisation processes and remove the backlog of non-cited standards; supports, in this regard, a combination of short-term measures to tackle the backlog as well as regulatory gaps alongside long- term measures to improve the process of defining the common technical language and preferably comprehensive standards; calls for existing harmonised European standards to be considered to be part of short-term measures;
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 39 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Points to the fact that standardisation issues need to be addressed in all steps of the preparation process; calls for transparency and openness from all parties involved; highlights the need to ensure the high quality of the mandates issued by the Commission and the necessity to provide clear and pragmatic guidelines for the standardisation bodies; suggests establishing clearly defined timeframes for the Commission to assess the prepared standards and clear deadlines for all parties to ensure further revision if a mandate or the CPR is found not to have been adhered to; considers it important to define the scope of the standards more precisely so that manufacturers can have clear guidance when declaring that their products fall within the scope;
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 40 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Believes that owing to the mandatory nature of standards within the context of the CPR and the fact that they are considered part of Union legislation, the texts of issued harmonised standards should be available in all Union languages; highlights the need to ensure high-quality translation and involve national standardisation bodies in the translation process; calls on the Commission to further support and simplify the financial arrangements for the translation of harmonised standards;
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 45 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Is concerned by the fact that while the alternative route for products not or not fully covered by harmonised standards was included in the CPR also to allow innovative products to enter the market, the vast majority of EADs do not concern innovative products;
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 46 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Believes, in consequence, that the current underperformance of the standardisation system is one factor leading to an increasing use of the European Organisation for Technical Assessment (EOTA) route as an alternative means of standardisation;
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 48 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Stresses that the current procedure for developing EADs has to address the manufacturers’ goal of putting innovative products on the market as quickly as possible;
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 52 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Notes that the CE marking is a mean to allow construction products legally placed on the market in one Member State to be marketed on the territory of any other Member State; highlights, however, that the CE marking under the CPR differs from other NLF legislation since it only refers to the product performance and does not attest the conformity with specific product requirements, as it is the case for other products that are CE marked under NLF;
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 54 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13a. Regrets the fact that the CE marking is wrongly understood as a quality mark, while it does not determine whether a construction product is safe or could be used in construction works; believes that further solutions are needed to provide end-users with precise and clear information with regard to safety of construction products and their compliance with national building safety and construction works requirements;
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 59 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Commission to consider the possibility of including in the CPR minimum product requirements aimed at ensuring health and safety, structural integrity and protecting the environment and other public interests, thereby following the approach of NLF legislation, which has proven to be effective;
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 64 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Believes that digital solutions such as a ‘Smart DoP’ could be used to allow economic operators to quickly assess and compare requirements for construction works with the information provided in the DoP, so that users can benefit from the information provided by manufacturers in their declarations of performance; notes that the CPR should not only ensure the accuracy and reliability of the declared performance, but also its reliability;
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 66 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Believes that such an approach would increase trust in EU harmonisation, improve the quality of harmonised standards, strengthen the confidence of market players in the CE marking, ensure the safety of construction products placed on the market and help reduce fragmentation of the single market;
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 72 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Encourages Member States to increase the resources and expertise of their market surveillance authorities, to enhance cooperation among them, including at cross-border level, and to improve the quantity, efficiency and effectiveness of checks in order to be able to identify construction products that are not in conformity with their declared performance and prevent their circulation in the single market;
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 73 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the Commission to adopt implementing acts under Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 in order to determine the uniform conditions of checks, criteria for the determination of the frequency of checks and the amount of samples to be checked in relation to certain products or categories of products, and to lay down benchmarks and techniques for checks on harmonised products, including construction products, both by taking into account the specificities of the construction sector which still should have an impact on a revised CPR;
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 79 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Considers it necessarycrucial for national market surveillance authorities responsible for construction products to cooperate closely with national building control authorities to ensure a nuanced approach in assessing the conformity of construction products used in construction works with the declared performance or intended use, as well as ensure their compliance with building regulations, thereby guaranteeing the safety and security of end-users;
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 106 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
27. Emphasises that any revision of the CPR should be in line with the principles and objectives of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 as regards the preparation of harmonised standards in order to ensure their transparency and quality, as well as the specificities of the construction sector; highlights that any revisiond should ensure the appropriate involvement of all interested parties and Member states' regulatory needs;
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 108 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
28. Stresses the need to ensure legal clarity for a transitional period as regards any revision of the CPR and the review of the CPR acquis, in order to avoid a legal vacuum; involving all interested parties;
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 109 #

2020/2028(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
29. Is concerned that any revision of the CPR and, in particular, the review of the CPR aAcquis will take significant time, while manufacturers, building companies, builder-owners, awarding authorities, planners, member states users and end- users need immediate solutions to overcome the legal uncertainty resulting from the lack of updated harmonised standards and, among others, regulatory gaps; calls on the Commission to address this issue as a matter of priority, including a targeted short-term legal amendment to cope with the urgent legal and technical challenges and at the same time to forcefully advance a fundamental revision of the CPR; calls on the Commission to address this issue prior to any revision of the CPR and in the review of the CPR aAcquis;.
2020/10/12
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 268 #

2018/0108(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
(2) Measures to obtain and preserve electronic evidence are increasingly important to enable criminal investigations and prosecutions across the Union as well as to prevent the commission of crimes. Effective mechanisms to obtain electronic evidence are of the essencetial to combat crime, subject to conditions to ensure full accordance with fundamental rights and principles recognised in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ('the Charter') as enshrined in the Treaties, in particular the principles of necessity and proportionality, due process, data protection, secrecy of correspondenceconfidentiality of communications and privacy.
2019/12/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 273 #

2018/0108(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
(6) The European Parliament echoed these concerns in its Resolution on the fight against cybercrime of 3 October 201728 , by highlighting the challenges that the currently fragmented legal framework can create for service providers seeking to comply with law enforcement requests and calling on the Commission to put forward a Union legal framework for electronic evidence and to impose an obligation on service providers to respond to law enforcement requests from other Member States, with sufficient safeguards for the rights and freedoms of all concerned. _________________ 28 2017/2068(INI).
2019/12/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 305 #

2018/0108(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
(21) It is appropriate to single out access data as a specific data category used in this Regulation. Access data is pursued for the same objective as subscriber data, in other words to identify the underlying user, and the level of interference with fundamental rights is similar to that of subscriber data. Access data is typically recorded as part of a record of events (in other words a server log) to indicate the commencement and termination of a user access session to a service. It is often an individual IP address (static or dynamic) The specific category of 'access data' is introduced in this Regulation because technical identifiers such as IP addresses constitute a crucial starting point for criminal investigations in which the identity of a suspect is not known. In order to enable a request for subscriber data in a subsequent step, authorities will first have to acquire the server log, i.e. the record of activity on a server, for a specific access request. For each request, the logs include different information, such as the commencement and termination of a user access session, static or dynamic IP adresses of the computer making the request, or the Login ID. Given that certain data covered by the definition of access data could reveal very sensitive and personal information, the request for such data should only be allowed for other identifier th sole purpose of identifying the user. The data singles out the network interface used during the access session. If the user is unknown, it often needs to be obtained befhould not be used for any other purpose, including the request for bulk data that would allow for the profiling of a person. Given the purpose limitation regarding the use of access data in criminal investigations, this data categorey subscriber data related to that identifier can be ordered from the service providerhould not be subject to a threshold. Instead, it should be possible to request such data for all types of offenses.
2019/12/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 308 #

2018/0108(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
(22) Transactional data, on the other hand, is generally pursued to obtain more privacy-intrusive information about, such as the contacts and whereabouts of the user and may be served to establish a profile of an individual concerned. That said, access data cannot by itself serve to establish a similar purpose, for example iAccess data focus exclusively on the user but does not reveal any information on interlocutors related to the user. Hence this proposal introduces a new category of data, which is toactions with other persons. Hence, access data should be treated like subscriber data if the aim of obtaining this data, namely the identification of the suspect, is similar.
2019/12/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 311 #

2018/0108(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
(23) All data categories contain personal data, and are thus covered by the safeguards under the Union data protection acquis, but the intensity of. However, the impact on fundamental rights varies between the categories, in particular between subscriber data and access data on the one hand and transactional data and content data on the other hand. While subscriber data and access data are usefulonly serve to obtain first leads in an investigation about the identity of a suspect, transactional and content data are the most relevant as probative material which could finally lead to a conviction of the suspect. It is therefore essential that all these data categories are covered by the instrument. Because of the different degree of interference with fundamental rights, different safeguards and conditions are imposed for obtaining subscriber and access data on the one hand, and transactional and content data on the other.
2019/12/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 321 #

2018/0108(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
(30) When a European Production or Preservation Order is issued, there should always be a judicial authority involved either in the process of issuing or validating the Order. In view of the more sensitive character of transactional and content data, the issuing or validation of European Production Orders for production of these categories requires review by a judge or court. As subscriber and access data are less sensitive, European Production Orders for their disclosure can in addition be issued or validated by competent prosecutors.
2019/12/11
Committee: LIBE
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 330 #

2018/0108(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34 a (new)
(34 a) The confidentiality of the ongoing investigation, including the fact that there has been an Order to obtain relevant data, has to be protected in order not to jeopardize its success and to protect other persons involved, especially victims. For this reason, the addressee of the order and the service provider should refrain from informing the person whose data is being sought where necessary and proportionate to protect the fundamental rights and legitimate interests of another person. If the issuing authority expressly allows it, the addressee or service provider should be able to inform the respective person that his or her data is being sought.
2019/12/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 341 #

2018/0108(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
(38) The European Production and European Preservation Orders should be transmitted to the service provideraddressee through a European Production Order Certificate (EPOC) or a European Preservation Order Certificate (EPOC-PR), which should be translated. The Certificates should contain the same mandatory information as the Orders, except for the grounds for the necessity and proportionality of the measure or further details about the case to avoid jeopardising the investigations. But as they are part of the Order itself, they allow the suspect to challenge it later during the criminal proceedings. Where necessary, a Certificate needs toshould be translated into (one of) the official language(s) of the enforcing Member State of the addressee, or into another official language that the service provider has declared it will accept. in accordance with Article 4 (2) of the [Directive1a]. _________________ 1aProposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on the appointment of legal representatives for the purpose of gathering evidence in criminal proceedings (2018/0107 (COD))
2019/12/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 350 #

2018/0108(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41 a (new)
(41 a) Although the added value of this Regulation lies in the fact that the issuing authority can address the service provider without having to go through mutual legal assistance, it is reasonable to notify the enforcing authority of a European Production Order where it concerns transactional or content data, given their high level of sensitivity, and the issuing authority has reasonable grounds to believe that the person whose data is sought is not residing on the territory of the issuing Member State. In such case, the issuing authority should submit a copy of the EPOC to the enforcing authority at the same that the EPOC is submitted to the addressee. In order to ensure the efficiency of the European Production Order, the notification should not have a suspensive effect on the obligations of the addressee to produce the requested data and to send them to the issuing authority. However, the notified authority may raise objections in relation to a limited number of grounds which should be raised as soon as possible but no later than 10 days. If necessary to establish whether one of the grounds exists, the authority should be able to request additional information from the issuing authority, which should be given 10 days to provide information or withdraw the Order. As far as the objection raised concerns regarding immunities and privileges under national law of the enforcing Member State, the issuing authority should be able to request the enforcing authority to request the competent authority to waive these immunities or privileges. When raising an objection, the enforcing Member State should also inform the issuing authority whether it may consequentially not use the data or only use it only under specified conditions. The issuing authority should take this information into account. In cases where the enforcing authority informed the issuing authority that it may not use the data, the latter should make no further use of these data but delete them immediately.
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 356 #

2018/0108(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 42
(42) Upon receipt of a European Preservation Order Certificate (‘EPOC- PR’), the service provider should preserve requested data for a maximum of 60 days unless the issuing authority informs the service provider that it has launched the procedure for issuing a subsequent request for production, in which case the preservation should be continued. The 60 day period is calculated to allow for the launch of an official request. This requires that at least some formal steps have been taken, for example by sending a mutual legal assistance request to translation. Following receipt of that information, the data should be preserved as long as necessary until the data is produced in the framework of a subsequent request for production. Only when necessary to allow further assessment of the relevance of the data in ongoing investigations and prevent the issuing of European Production Order for the sake of making sure that potentially relevant data is not lost, before the referred preservation period ends, the issuing authority could send a request to prolong the preservation of data by up to 60 days.
2019/12/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 473 #

2018/0108(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) a judge, a court, an investigating judge or prosecutor competent in the case concerned; or, in accordance with national law;
2019/12/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 480 #

2018/0108(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) a judge, a court or an investigating judge competent in the case concerned; or, in accordance with national law.
2019/12/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 511 #

2018/0108(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point c
(c) the persons whose data is being requesteduser, except where the sole purpose of the order is to identify a person;the user, or any other unique identifier such as user name, Login ID to determine the data that are being sought.
2019/12/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 529 #

2018/0108(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) the persons whose data shall be preserveduser, except where the sole purpose of the order is to identify a person;the user, or any other unique identifier such as user name, Login ID to determine the data that are being sought.
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 641 #

2018/0108(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Before the preservation period referred to in paragraph 1 has ended, the issuing authority may send a request to prolong the data preservation period by up to 60 days only when necessary to allow further assessment of the relevance of the data.
2019/12/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 670 #

2018/0108(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Addressees and, if different, service providers shall take the necessary measures to ensure the confidentiality of the EPOC or the EPOC-PR and of the data produced or preserved and where requested by the issuing authority, shall refrain from informing the person whose data is being sought in order not toto avoid obstructing the relevant criminal proceedings. They shall only inform the person whose data are being sought if explicitly allowed by the issuing authority. In that case, the issuing authority shall also provide information pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Article to the addressee or, if different, to the service provider.
2019/12/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 726 #

2018/0108(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 5
5. If the competent court finds that no relevant conflict within the meaning of paragraphs 1 and 4 exists, it shall uphold the Order. If the competent court establishes that a relevant conflict within the meaning of paragraphs 1 and 4 exists, the competent courexists and that the relevant third country law serves to protect fundamental rights of the individuals concerned or fundamental interests of the third country related to national security or defence, the competent court shall consult the third country concerned. For this purpose, it shall transmit all relevant factual and legal information as regards the case, including its assessment, to the central authorities in the third country concerned, via its national central authority, with. The competent court shall set a 15 day deadline to respond. Upon reasoned request from the third country central authority, the deadline may be extended by up to 30 days. If the third country objects to the execution of the European Production Order, the competent court shall lift the Order and inform the issuing authority and the addressee. If no objection is received within the extended deadline, the competent court shall uphold the Order.
2019/12/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 728 #

2018/0108(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 6
6. If the third country central authority,competent court established that a conflict within the dmeadline, informs the competent court that it objects to the execution of the European Production Order in this case, the competent court shall lift the Order and inform the issuing authority and the addressee. If no objection is received within the (extended) deadline, the competent court shall send a reminder giving the third country central authority 5 more days to respond and informing it of the consequences of not providning of paragraph 1 exists and that the relevant third country law prohibits disclosure of the data concerned on grounds other than those enumerated in paragraph 6, the competent court shall determine whether to uphold or withdraw the Order, in particular on the basis of the following factors: (a) the interest protected by the relevant law of the third country, including the third country's interest in preventing disclosure of the data; (b) the degree of connection of the criminal case for which the Order was issued to either of the two jurisdictions, as indicated inter alia by the location, nationality and residence of the person whose data is being sought and/or of the victim(s). (c) the degree of connection between the service provider and the third country in question;the data storage location by itself does not suffice in establishing a substantial degree of connection; (d) the interests of the investigating Sate in obtaining the evidence concerned, based on the seriousness of the offence and the importance of obtaining evidence ing a response. If no objection is receivedn expeditious manner; (e) the possible consequences for the addressee or the service provider of complying within this additional deadline, the competent court shall uphold the Order. e European Production Order, including the sanctions that may be incurred.
2019/12/11
Committee: LIBE