839 Amendments of Patryk JAKI
Amendment 27 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights the need for a strong, effective and well-functioning European Border and Coast Guard Agency that is able to assist Member States in protecting and managing the common external borders of the European Union and in ensuring integrated border management in full compliance with fundamental rights;
Amendment 32 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines that the Agency’s budget grew exponentially from around EUR 114 million in 2015 to around EUR 750 million in 2022; adds, moreover, that the revised mandates of the Agency in 2016 and 2019 corresponded to major increases in the Agency’s responsibilities and competences, including in terms of staff and technical equipment; stresses that such increases in responsibility and budget for the Agency need to be accompanied by a corresponding increase in accountability and transparency and increased scrutiny of the Agency’s respect for Union lawwelcomes the Agency's efforts in enhancing transparency, and budget forecasting and implementation; welcomes budget discharge being granted for the year 2021;
Amendment 37 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that over the course of the last two years the Agency has seen significant managerial changes, including a new fundamental rights officer (FRO), a new chair of its Management Board, three new deputy executive directors and a new executive director; expects that the change in management will bring about the necessary change in culture with regard to respect for the Union’s principles and values, most notably fundamental rights, and with regard tofurther strengthen the Agency's role in ensuring safe and well- functioning external borders and security with respect for the Union’s principles and values, transparency and efficiency in internal procedures, and to increasedproper accountability towards Parliament and the Council in accordance with the applicable legal framework; welcomes the measures already implemented to improve the management culture and to strengthen integrity and accountability within the Agency; calls on the new leadership to undertake the deep reforms that are needed and calls on the Management Board to evaluate how it can step up its involvement and scrutiny of the way in which the Agency is run;
Amendment 40 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 4
4. ConsiderNotes that the second European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) investigation into management practices at the Agency, which is underway only nine months after the first OLAF investigation was closed, demonstrates the need for change in the culture of the Agency; ; underlines that following the findings of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the resignation of the former Executive Director of Frontex in April 2022, the executive management of Frontex identified areas which required immediate improvement, and the Staff Committee was consulted on areas of concern related to staff engagement, performance and well-being; welcomes the efforts made to address the identified shortcomings;
Amendment 43 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 5
Amendment 47 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 6
Amendment 70 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 12
12. Acknowledges that the Agency finally has 46 fundamental rights monitors (FRMs) in place, despite the significant delay in complying with the requirements of the updated mandate; notes that 31 FRMs have been appointed at administrator (AD) level; continues to stress that those FRMs who were hired at the lower assistant (AST) grade should be upgraded to the higher AD level as soon possible through the appropriate procedures; points out that, based on the Agency’s updated mandate, the number of FRMs should continue to grow as the overall size of the standing corps increases; looks forward, in that regard, to receiving details of the Agency’s plans to increase the number of FRMs;
Amendment 74 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 13
13. ExpStresses severe concern regarding the serious and persistent allegations made against Greek authorities in relation to pushbacks and violence against migrants; is convinthat with regards to Frontex operational presence in Greeced, that respect for the principles and values of the Union must be the condition sine qua non for Frontex to commit to a joint operation with a Member State; is further convinced that, should a Member State be unable to respect those principles and values, then the Agency should scale down and repurpose its operations towards monitoring activities in the light of Article 46 of its mandate, while maintaining its presence on the ground in order not to leave a vacuum; regrets that the Agency has so far refrained from scaling down or repurposing its operations in Greecee Agency created a working group to prepare assessments, which concluded not to trigger Article 46 but proposed improvement measures to the Greek authorities;
Amendment 90 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 15
15. Recalls that, although the Agency withdrew from operations in Hungary in January 2021 following a clear CJEU ruling in December 202011 , it continues to support Hungarian authorities in carrying out returns; reiterates the FSWG’s calls on the executive director to immediately suspend support for return-related operations from Hungary; __________________ 11 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 December 2020, Commission v Hungary, C-808/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:1029.
Amendment 93 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Points to the importance of the Agency's support to Member States in managing the EU’s external borders and tackling cross-border crime; underlines in this regard that Frontex is a hub of expertise for border control activities, sharing intelligence and knowledge with all EU Member States and neighbouring countries affected by illegal migration and cross-border crime; acknowledges the fact that each operation is based on risk analysis and uniquely tailored to the circumstances identified by Frontex in its risk analysis;
Amendment 96 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 16
16. Notes the Agency’s mandate to provide better situational awareness in the maritime domain and to transmit that information to the relevant authorities regarding competence for search and rescue operations; reiterates the obligation under the international law of the sea to render assistance to persons found in distress at sea; notes that Regulation (EU) No 656/2014 establishing rules for the surveillance of the external sea borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by Frontex lays down the rules for the Agency’s involvement in search and rescue operations; underlines that the Agency could do more to increase the capacity of the EU and Member States to carry out search and rescue operations, notably by notes the difficulties faced by the coast guard agents and the lack of cooperation from neighbouring countries and advocates for solutions to end the businvesting in appropriate assets for such operations model of human traffickers and human smugglers to save more lives;
Amendment 108 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 18
18. Considers that the absence of an EU-level search and rescue mission has led other civil society and non- governmental organisations to fill the gap in providing search and rescue capacity; is concerned about the increasing number of attempts to criminalise such actions, further limiting the possibilities for those in distress at sea to be rescuedPoints to national sovereignty in the management of the Member States territorial waters and defends a code of conduct for civil society and non- governmental organisations carrying search and rescue operations to compel ships to disembark as soon as the first rescue operation is completed and to sail straight to the designated port of safety;
Amendment 114 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 19
Amendment 119 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 20
20. Urges the Commission to conduct fundamental rights impact assessments prior to concluding negotiations for a status agreement with a third country in order to be able to fully consider the fundamental rights impact of coopnderlines that the cooperation of Frontex with non-EU countries is key for the comprehensive implementation of the European integrated border management and that by leveratging with that country; calls on the Agency to share periodical evaluations of jos expertise and resources, Frontex has become an essential partner in the fight against operations in third countries and constantly assess the impact and scope of active operations, including in respect of fundamental rights;transnational crime and border protection also for non-EU countries thanks to the status agreements currently in force
Amendment 37 #
2023/0371(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 a (new)
Recital 9 a (new)
(9 a) The Commission’s systematic monitoring of the specific requirements, which are based on Article 1 and were used to assess the appropriateness of granting visa liberalisation, should pay particular attention to the security dimension to ensure that countries in Annex II are upholding the initial requirements for law and immigration enforcement, passport security, counterterrorism and border control capabilities.
Amendment 54 #
2023/0371(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) 2018/1806
Article 8a – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 8a – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(b a) a substantial increase in the number of asylum applications from the nationals of a third country listed in Annex II;
Amendment 76 #
2023/0371(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) 2018/1806
Article 8a – paragraph 2
Article 8a – paragraph 2
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, points (a), (b) and (d)(i), of this Article a substantial increase shall mean an increase exceeding a threshold of 150%, unless the Commission in accordance with Article 8b(4) or Article 8c(2) concludes that a lower or higher increase is applicable in the particular case.
Amendment 84 #
2023/0371(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) 2018/1806
Article 8a – paragraph 3
Article 8a – paragraph 3
3. For the purposes of paragraph 1, point (b), of this Article a low recognition rate shall mean a recognition rate of asylum applications of less than 435%, unless the Commission in accordance with Article 8b(4) or Article 8c(2) concludes that a higher recognition rate is applicable in the particular case.
Amendment 89 #
2023/0371(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) 2018/1806
Article 8a – paragraph 5 – point a
Article 8a – paragraph 5 – point a
(a) refusing or failing to process readmission applications in due timewithin four weeks of the return decision;
Amendment 25 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Recital A
A. whereas the Union is founded on the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities – values that are common to the EU Member States and to which candidate countries must adhere in order to join the Union as part of the Copenhagen criteria, which cannot be disregarded or reinterpreted after accession, especially by the Commission and the Court of Justice; whereas democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are mutually reinforcing values which, when undermined, may pose a systemic threat to the Union and the rights and freedoms of its citizens; whereas respect for the rule of law is binding on the Union as a whole, including its institutions and its Member States at all levels of governance, including subnational entities;
Amendment 26 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas there is not yet an agreed definition of the rule of law and a single system to assess the compliance with the rule of law at the level at the Union, equally applied to all Member States;
Amendment 29 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Recital B
B. whereas the Conference on the Future of Europe clearly expressed a desire for the EU to systematically uphold the rule of law across all Member States, to protect citizens’ fundamental rights and to retain the EU’s credibility when promoting its values abroad; whereas the European Parliament Delegation did not give its consent to the draft proposals of the Conference on the Future of Europe unanimously; whereas the Council reserved its position on each individual proposal; whereas there was no consensus among the national parliaments;
Amendment 34 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Recital D
Amendment 38 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Recital E
Amendment 43 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Recital F
F. whereas it is necessary to strengthen and streamline existing mechanisms and to develop a single comprehensivethere exist already various EU mechanisms to protect democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights effectively and to ensure that Article 2 TEU values are upheld throughout the Union as well as by candidate countries, albeit with different monitoring regimes, so that Member States are prevented from developing domestic law that runs counter to the protection of Article 2 TEU; whereas the Commission and the Council have continued to dismiss the need for an interinstitutional agreement on an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rightsArticle 2 TEU so it is not necessary to create any new one;
Amendment 47 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the Commission’s third annual rule of law report as part of the Commission’s rule of law toolbox; considers that while the; considers that the Commission has no competence to prepare such a report; represents a step towards a coherent mechanism to preserve Union values, the toolbox remainsminds that Article 2 TEU, which defines the core values of the Union, applies not only and not even primarily too flexible and too broad an approach to the rule of lawthe Member States, but to the European Union as such, so it is the Union institutions that should be covered by the report in the first instance;
Amendment 53 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 54 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 2
2. Notes someno improvements compared to previous annual reports, such as the addition of country-specific recommendations; notes also the special attention paid to the public service media and to measures to ensure the transparency of media ownership, including the Media Pluralism Monitor rank; notes that the Commission is still struggling, the assessment of the implementation of the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights by the Member States, the attention paid to political party financing, the focus on equality bodies, national human rights institutions and ombudspersons, the monitoring of high-level appointments in the justice system and the increased attention paid to the legal professiono define what the rule of law is, as its report on the rule of law describes many different values listed in Article 2 of the TEU;
Amendment 59 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Condemns the Commission for its unequal treatment of the Member States described in the reports; condemns especially the Commission's different treatment of the same or similar legal solutions in different Member States; condemns the Commission for trying to impose ideological and religious solutions on Member States, in particular on LGBT and abortion;
Amendment 67 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 3
Amendment 69 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 4
Amendment 71 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 5
5. Highlights that the intentional targeting of minority groups’ rights in someo date, no Member States has created and established momentum elsewhere, as can be evidenced by backtracking on the rights of women, including a deterioration in the situation in relation tobeen found to have breached the Article 2 TEU values, nor even been found to be at serious risk of violating them; underlines that the rights of women, including sexual and reproductive health and rights, and of LGBTIQ+ persons, migrants and other minority groups; calls for a summary of the implementation of the EU anti-racism action plan in the report’s country chapters and an analysis of how the backlash in the rule of law affects different minority groupsgroups must not be part of the Commission's report;
Amendment 77 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the addition of country- specific recommendations, as a follow up to the reiterated calls from Parliament to this endStresses that the Commission has no competence to make either binding or non-binding recommendations on the Union's values contained in Article 2 TEU; recalls that the annual reports serve as a basis for informed discussions on the rule of law situation in Member States; acknowledges that these country- specific recommendations help to target specific issues with a view to achieving real improvements in Member States; deplores, however,deplores the fact that the recommendations are not bindingwere prepared; calls on the Commission to developstop immediately the annual rule of law cycle further by assessing the implementand especially preparation of the country- specific recommendations in the next annual report, with specific benchmarks and a clear timeline for implementation;
Amendment 80 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 7
Amendment 82 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 8
Amendment 89 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 9
9. Commends the efforts by the Commission to engage better with national stakensiders that information from Member States' authorities shoulders; recognises civil society as an essential actor for the rule of law, with be the basis for information; points out that civil society organisations are often political and important role to play in the follow-up to the annual report and its implementation; calls on the Commission to pursue the consistent involvement of civil society in the follow-up to the report at national level, in cooperation with the FRAdeological movements and may also be susceptible to disinformation and propaganda, including from third countries interested in destabilising Member States;
Amendment 94 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses the need for country- specific recommendations on the national responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and their impact on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights within the Union; calls on the Commission to continue monitoring and reporting on these national processes, including best practicat the primary responsibility for health protection and, in particular, healthcare systems continues to lie with the Member States;
Amendment 96 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 11
11. RegretNotes the absence of country- specific recommendations related to Member States’ unlawful use of surveillance spyware technologies, such as Pegasus or Predator, in spite of the concrete revelations on, and increasing evidence of, their use against journalists, politicians, law enforcement officials, diplomats, lawyers, business people, civil society actors and other actors; is extremely concerned about the related risks to civil society, democracy, the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights posed by national governments’ uncontrolled use of spyware; regrets the lack of cooperation by some Member States’ authorities with Parliament’s Committee of Inquiry to investigate the use of Pegasus and equivalent surveillance spywar; underlines that national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State;
Amendment 105 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 12
12. Reiterates its call on the Commission to expand the scope of its reporting to cover all values enshrined in Article 2 TEU; reiterates the intrinsic link between the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights; urges the Commission and the Council to immediately enter into negotiations with Parliament on an intDeplores that the Commission is trying to make the impression that values enshrined in Article 2 TEU create obligations only for Member States and that it gives to the Commission an additional right to take stock of all aspects of the functioning of the Member States; underlinstitutionales that there are aglreement on an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, which should cover the full scope of Article 2 TEU valuesady different Treaty mechanisms and any duplication should be avoided;
Amendment 113 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 13
13. Strongly regrets the inability of the Council to make meaningful progress in the ongoat the Council is avoiding voting ing Article 7(1) TEU procedures; urges the Council to address all new developments affecting the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights; reiterates its call on the Council to address recommendations in the framework of this procedure, underlining that any further delaying of such action would amount to a breach of the rule of law principle by the Council itself; insists that Parliament’s role and competences be respectednderlines that this procedure should not be unnecessarily prolonged; urges the Council to schedule a vote and thus conclude the procedure;
Amendment 115 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 14
14. Strongly condemns Member States’ authorities that refuse to engage in the Commission’s annual Rule of Law Dialogueesses that the participation of Member States in the Commission's annual Rule of Law Dialogue is not mandatory; shows understanding for those Member States that had decided to suspend cooperation with the Commission, in particular due to its methodological errors in the preparation of the reports and due to unequal treatment of Member States;
Amendment 118 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 15
Amendment 122 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 16
Amendment 5 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. SupportNotes the proposals made by the plenary of the Conference on the Future of Europe (‘the Conference’) of 9 May 2022 in relation to the field of civil liberties, justice and home affairs1 ; calls upon the Union to more systematically uphold the rule of law principles and ensure fundamental rights protecwithin its institutions, and to scrutinize respect for these values and principles, both in the accession of new members anincluding in cases of abuses of competence, lobbying, favouritism towards selected countinually across all Union policies and across the Member Stateries or companies and unacceptable ideological bias; _________________ 1 In particular the following proposals: 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45.
Amendment 8 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Negatively assesses the outcome of the Conference on the Future of Europe as the citizens, Member States and national parliamentarians were effectively caught in a coordinated pincer movement organised by the federalist caucus in the European Parliament and its allies in the centralist panEuropean NGOs;
Amendment 11 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls for the abolishment ofStrongly opposes the proposal to abolish all unanimity requirements in the Treaties for adopting legislation in the area of freedom, security and justice, including for the use of passerelle clauses as the events of the last years show that the majority voting mechanism introduced by the Lisbon Treaty does not sufficiently guarantee the rights of the smaller states, and a further move away from unanimity will only exacerbate this problem, because imposition of qualified majority voting carries the risk of increasing disparities between Member States, as well as the domination of the largest states in Union policy-making;
Amendment 22 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that the Union’s mainonly Treaty-based political instrument to address and reverse systemic rule of law threats and violations inof the Member States, Article 7 TEU, has been wholly ineffective as the rule of law situation further deteriorated since the activation of the procedure in relation to both Poland and Hungary;2 therefore, considers it necessary to reform Article 7 TEU as follows: to change the Council voting thresholds of Article 7(1) TEU from four-fifths majority to qualified majority voting, and of Article 7(2) TEU from unanimity to a four-fifths majority; to involve the institution which triggersvalues listed in Article 2 TEU in the Member States is Article 7 TEU; stresses that due to the political nature of the Article 7(1) TEU throughout the procedure;3 to require the Council to periodically organize hearings, draft country-specific recommendations and evaluate their implementation under Article 7(1) TEU; to involve the Parliament and the Commission in drafting modalities for the 7(1) TEU hearings;4 to allow the Parliament to trigger Article 7(2) TEU; to invite the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (‘FRA’) to give its input during the Article 7(1) hearings; _________________ 2 European Parliament resolution of 16 January 2020 on ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) of the TEU regarding Poland and Hungary (2020/2513(RSP)); European Parliament resolution of 5 May 2022 on ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) TEU regarding Poland and Hungary (2022/2647(RSP)). 3 European Parliament resolution of 16 January 2020 on ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) of the TEU regarding Poland and Hungary (2020/2513(RSP)). 4 European Parliament resolution of 7 October 2020 on the establishment of an EU Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights (2020/2072(INI).procedure and the lack of clear definitions of the concepts contained in Article 2 TEU, including the rule of law, any decisions in this procedure should be taken by unanimity;
Amendment 32 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 44 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls for the inclusion of the Charter of fundamental rights as the second chapter of the EU Treaty in order for fundamental rights and freedoms to feature more prominently in the founding Treaties; calls for the inclusion in the Treaties of a fundamental rights mainstreaming provision similar to Articles 8, 9 and 10 TFEU, so as to make the Union’s horizontal obligation to incorporate a fundamental rights perspective in all policies at all levels and at all stages explicit, hence reminding the co-legislators just as all Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and the Member States when they are implementing Union law to respect EU fundamental rights and promote their application in all their activities; considers it necessary, in addition, to make it mandatory for Union institutions to include fundamental rights monitoring mechanisms and related evaluation clauses whenever legislating in fundamental rights-sensitive policy areas, including the area of freedom, security and justice (enhanced fundamental rights mainstreaming)Stresses that the nature of Member States' obligations under the Charter is limited, i.e. confined to their implementation of Union law; in view of the progressive extension of Union law to further areas, underlines the importance of the principles of subsidiarity, as expressed in Article 51 of the Charter, and respect for the limits of the powers of the Union as conferred on it in the Treaties;
Amendment 50 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 59 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Requests giving the FRA a foundation in the Treaties, including laying down, in accordance with the UN General Assembly’s Paris Principles of 1993, itStresses that the FRA's status as an authorit body independent ofrom both the EU institutions and the Member States, its powers and its new mandate, and introducing the ordinary legislative procedure for amending it should be considered fulfilled in the current state of law, and that there is no need to amend the Treaties in this respect; recalls that Regulation (EU) 2022/555 amending Regulation (EC) No 168/2007 establishing a European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights emphasises in several recitals mandate articles the independence of both the Agency and its members;
Amendment 61 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 64 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 68 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 71 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 76 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. CallsDoes not see the need for the introduction in the TFEU of a new shared Union competence for setting up an effective legal framework against disinformation and on holding media undertakings, social networks, and online platforms responsible to counter disinformation; since it is pointless, as such legal framework can be implemented without amending the Treaties;
Amendment 82 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that horizontal EU legislation on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation has still not been adopted since the 2008 Commission initiative due to the absence of unanimity in Council; recommends therefore that EU action to combat discriminations on the basis of Article 19 TFEU be taken in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure;
Amendment 92 #
Amendment 93 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 97 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 102 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 112 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls for the introduction of a Union competence in Article 82 TFEU to establishStresses that there is no need to introduce additional Union competence in Article 82 TFEU, as the current solutions regarding the minimum conditions forapplicable to detention and custody. are sufficient;
Amendment 94 #
2022/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Urges the Commission to improve its monitoring on the use of EU funds, including considering the suspension, withdrawal and recovery of payments if the obligation to respect fundamental rights is breached; stresses that segregational settings and small group homes should not be financed with EU fundsa deinstitutionalisation strategy is not in place or implemented;
Amendment 145 #
2022/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take urgent measures to eliminate the restrictions on legal capacity that hinder the rights of persons with disabilities enshrined in the Treaties, including takpromoting action to replace substituted decision-making with supported decision-making across the EU;
Amendment 151 #
2022/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take adequate measures to eliminate the barriers faced by persons with disabilities in accessing justice, by addressing the lack of awareness about disabilities among criminal justice services, including allocating adequate funding for training to justice personnel and providing specialist support to victims with disabilities;
Amendment 175 #
2022/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the participation of persons with disabilities and their representative organisations in the decision-making process for the design, management, resourcing and implementation of policies and programmes on disaster risk reduction;
Amendment 46 #
2022/0398(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The effective application of Union restrictive measures calls for common criminal definitions of conduct infringing Union restrictive measures. Member States should ensure that this conduct constitutes a criminal offence when committed with intent as well as with serious negligence, in case the natural or legal person knew or should have known, that their conduct would infringe Union restrictive measures.
Amendment 129 #
2022/0398(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point h – point i
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point h – point i
(i) concealtransferring funds or economic resources owned, held, or controlled by a designated person, entity or body, which should be frozen in accordance with a Union restrictive measure, by the transfer of to a third party to conceal those funds, or economic resources to a third party;
Amendment 135 #
2022/0398(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Amendment 143 #
2022/0398(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 6
Article 3 – paragraph 6
Amendment 162 #
2022/0398(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Article 5 – paragraph 3
(3) Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the criminal offences referred to in Article 3(2), points (h)(iii), (iv) and (v), are punishable by a maximum penalty of at least one year of imprisonment when they involve funds or economic resources of a value of at least EUR 1050 000. Member States shall ensure that the threshold of EUR 1050 000 or more may also be met through a series of linked offences referred to in Article 3(2), points (h)(iii), (iv) and (v), when committed by the same offender.
Amendment 166 #
2022/0398(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 4
Article 5 – paragraph 4
(4) Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the criminal offences referred to in Article 3(2), points (a) to (g), (h)(i) and (ii), and point (i), are punishable by a maximum penalty of at least five years of imprisonment when they involve funds or economic resources of a value of at least EUR 1050 000. Member States shall ensure that the threshold of EUR 1050 000 or more may also be met through a series of linked offences referred to in Article 3(2), points (a) to (g), (h)(i) and (ii), and point (i), by the same offender.
Amendment 222 #
2022/0398(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13
Article 13
Amendment 103 #
2022/0131(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) This Directive should cover employment relationships between third- country workers and employers. Where a Member State’s national law allows admission of third-country nationals through temporary work agencies established on its territory and which have an employment relationship with the worker, such agencies should not be excluded from the scope of this Directive. This Directive should not cover third- country workers who have been admitted to the territory of a Member State to work on a seasonal basis.
Amendment 126 #
2022/0131(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) The right to equal treatment in specified fields should be strictly linked to the third-country national’s legal residence and the access given to the labour market in a Member State, which are enshrined in the single permit encompassing the authorisation to reside and work and in residence permits issued for other purposes containing information on the permission to work. This Directive should not grant rights in relation to situations which lie outside the scope of Union law, such as in relation to family members residing in a third country. This Directive should grant rights only in relation to family members who join third-country workers to reside in a Member State on the basis of family reunification or family members who already reside legally in that Member State.
Amendment 132 #
2022/0131(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) To ensure the proper enforcement of this Directive, Member States should ensure that appropriate mechanisms are in place for the monitoring of employers and that, where appropriate, effective and adequate inspections are carried out on their respective territories. The selection of employers to be inspected should be based primarily on a risk assessment to be carried out by the competent authorities in the Member States taking into account factors such as the sector in which a company operates and any past record of infringement.
Amendment 136 #
2022/0131(COD)
(33) Member States should also put in place effective mechanisms through which third-country workers may seek legal redress and lodge complaints directly or through third parties having, in accordance with the criteria laid down by the national law, a legitimate interest in ensuring compliance with this Directive, such as trade unions or other associations, or competent authorities. That is considered necessary to address situations where third- country workers are unaware of the existence of enforcement mechanisms or hesitant to use them in their own name, for example out of fear of possible consequences. Such mechanisms should respect the principle of equality vis-à-vis the nationals of the respective Member State.
Amendment 152 #
2022/0131(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point g a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point g a (new)
(g a) who are beneficiaries of protection in accordance with national law, international obligations or the practice of a Member State or have applied for protection in accordance with national law, international obligations or the practice of a Member State and whose application has not been the subject of a final decision;
Amendment 163 #
2022/0131(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. An application to issue, amend or renew a single permit shall be submitted by way of a single application procedure. Member States shall determine whether applications for a single permit are to be submittedmade by the third-country national or by the third-country national’s employer. Member States may also decide to allow an application from either of the two. If the application is to be submitted by the third- country national, Member States shall allow the application to be introduced both from a third country andor, if provided for by national law, in the territory of the Member State in which the third- country national is legally present.
Amendment 170 #
2022/0131(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The competent authority shall adopt a decision on the complete application as soon as possible and in any event within foursix months of the date on which the application was lodged.
Amendment 237 #
2022/0131(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Amendment 15 #
2022/0085(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The cyber threat landscape faced by Union institutions, bodies and agencentities is in constant evolution. The tactics, techniques and procedures employed by threat actors are constantly evolving, while the prominent motives for such attacks change little, from stealing valuable undisclosed information to making money, manipulating public opinion or undermining digital infrastructure. The pace at which they conduct their cyberattacks keeps increasing, while their campaigns are increasingly sophisticated and automated, targeting exposed attack surfaces that keep expanding and quickly exploiting vulnerabilities.
Amendment 16 #
2022/0085(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) The Union institutions, bodies and agencentities’ IT environments have interdependencies, integrated data flows and their users collaborate closely. This interconnection means that any disruption, even when initially confined to one Union institution, body or agencyentities, can have cascading effects more broadly, potentially resulting in far-reaching and long-lasting negative impacts on the others. In addition, certain institutions, bodies and agencentities’ IT environments are connected with Member States’ IT environments, causing an incident in one Union entity to pose a risk to the cybersecurity of Member States’ IT environments and vice versa.
Amendment 17 #
2022/0085(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3 a) Union entities very often handle large amounts of often sensitive information from Member States, therefore incidents could negatively directly affect Member States. For this reason, the cybersecurity of the Union entities is of high importance for the Member States as well.
Amendment 18 #
2022/0085(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The Union institutions, bodies and agencies are attractive targets whoich have been the object of cyber attacks in the past and may, given the increasing number of cyber threats, be exposed to further attacks, and they face highly skilled and well-resourced threat actors as well as other threats. At the same time, the level and maturity of cyber resilience and the ability to detect and respond to malicious cyber activities varies significantly across those entities. It is thus necessary for the functioning of the European administration that the institutions, bodies and agencies of the Union achieve a high common level of cybersecurity through a cybersecurity baseline (a set of minimum cybersecurity rules with which network and information systems and their operators and users have to be compliant to minimise cybersecurity risks), information exchange and collaboration.
Amendment 19 #
2022/0085(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6 a (new)
Recital 6 a (new)
(6a) Institutions exposed to multiple cyber attacks must be provided with adequate means and tools to strengthen their cyber resilience. It is essential to ensure that appropriate coordination mechanisms are in place to ensure decision-making in an efficient and effective manner.
Amendment 26 #
2022/0085(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 15
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 15
Amendment 27 #
2021/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas Parliament fully respects the principle of national tax sovereignty;
Amendment 29 #
2021/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas although tax policy largely remains a Member State responsibility, in order to achieve a better functioning Single market while respecting the Council unanimous acting in respect to the Special legislation procedure, the single market requires a minimum degree of coordination in setting tax policy1 ; _________________ 1 As laid down in Articles 110-118 TFEU.
Amendment 38 #
2021/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas tax policy fragmentation creates various obstacles for companies and citizens in the single market, including legal uncertainty, red tape, the risk of double taxation and difficulties claiming tax refunds; whereas these obstacles discourage cross-border economic activity in the single market; whereas policy fragmentation also creates risks for digital administration in the field of taxation and tax authorities such as double non-taxation and arbitrage possibilities (such as tax planning);
Amendment 48 #
2021/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
D a. whereas tax competition particulary for Member States which have lower levels of accumulated wealth or quality of life is the main factor to contribute to strengthening their economic and social cohesion;
Amendment 64 #
2021/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
F a. whereas possible aggressive tax planning should be addressed in the countries’ Recovery and Resilience plans that have received country-specific recommendations on this issue;
Amendment 89 #
2021/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 106 #
2021/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Stresses that an effective tax system with low average tax rates is less vulnerable to tax evasion and tax optimisation;
Amendment 129 #
2021/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Highlights that in order to facilitate trade and increase legal certainty in the single market, the Commission, in close cooperation with Member States, should establish a Union VAT Web information portal for businesses;
Amendment 133 #
2021/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7 b. Welcomes that major progress has been achieved on cooperation between the tax authorities of the Member States over the last decade; Supports further discussions among Member States in order to strengthen the administrative cooperation as major progress has already been achieved;
Amendment 142 #
2021/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes that digitalisation and a heavy reliance on intangible assets that pose challenges to the current tax system warrant a high degree of policy coordination in establishing a level playing field and ensuring that digital companies are fairly contributing to the societies where they do business; deplores the fact that some Member States have pressed ahead with the introduction of national digital taxes despite ongoing negotiations at EU and OECD levels; stresses that these national measures should be phased out following the implementation of an effective international solution;
Amendment 172 #
2021/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Highlights that tax incentives applied in fiscally responsible manner for private research and development (e.g. via tax credits, enhanced allowances or adjusted depreciation schedules) can help to lift an economy’s overall spending towards research and development, which often comes with positive externalities; is concerned, however, that certain types of tax incentives such as patent box / intellectual property box regimes do little to increase research and development spending and may actually distort the single market and social cohesion particularly if incentives for research and development become more centralised which leads to even greater distortion amongst Member States;
Amendment 9 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. Whereas the operation of CBI schemes without common rules leads to the unilateral commodification of Union citizenship; whereas such commodification of rights is notaction may raise reasonable doubts regarding compatibleility with Union values, in particular equality;
Amendment 33 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that CBI schemes need to be distinguished from RBI schemes because of the severity of the difference in the risks they pose and henceare in principle similar to RBI schemes and hence both necessitate tailored Union legislative and policy approaches; acknowledges in that respectparticular the link between RBI schemes and citizenship because acquired residence may ease access to citizenship;
Amendment 44 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. WelcomNotes the infringement procedures launched in October 2020 by the Commission against Cyprus and Malta concerning their CBI schemes; calls on the Commission to advance those procedures and to initiate infringement procedures against Member States for RBI schemes, where justified;
Amendment 52 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 53 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 58 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 62 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 – introductory part
Paragraph 21 – introductory part
21. Requests that the Commission submit, in 2022, on the basis of Article 79(2) and Articles 80, 82, 87 and 114 TFEU a proposal for an act that would comprehensively regulate various aspects of CBI/RBI schemes with the aim of harmonising standards and procedures and strengthening the fight against organised crime, money laundering, corruption and tax evasion, covering, inter alia, the following elements:
Amendment 78 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Requests that the Commission include in its proposal targeted revisions of existing Union legal acts that could help to dissuade Member States from establishing harmful CBI/RBI schemes, such as further strengthening legal acts in the field of anti- money laundering, and targeted changes to the Long-Term Residence Directive;
Amendment 82 #
2021/2026(INL)
23. Requests that the Commission exert as much pressure as possible to ensure that third countries that have CBI/RBI schemes in place and that benefit from visa free travel under Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 abolish their CBI schemes and reform their CBI/RBI schemes to bring them in line with Union law and standards and that the Commission submit, in 2022, on the basis of Article 77(2), point (a), TFEU, a proposal for an act that would amend Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 in that regard; requests that specific attention in that regard be paid to candidate countries and proposes that it be included in the accession criteria;
Amendment 85 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – subheading 1
Annex I – subheading 1
Proposal 1: a Union-wide gradual phasing out ofaction on CBI schemes by 2025
Amendment 86 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – indent 1
Annex I – indent 1
— A Union-wide notification and quota system for the maximum number of citizenships to be acquired under CBI schemes across the Member States should be established with the number to be gradually lowered each year, reaching zero in 2025, thereby leading to the complete phasing out of CBI schemes. Such a gradual phasing out will allow those Member States maintaining CBI schemes to find alternative means to attract investment and sustain their public finances. Such a phasing out is in line with the previous position of Parliament expressed in several resolutions and is necessary in light of the profound challenge that CBI schemes pose to the principle of sincere cooperation under the Treaties (Article 4(3) TEU).
Amendment 90 #
2021/2026(INL)
Proposal 2: a comprehensive regulation covering all CBI/RBI schemes in the Union
Amendment 91 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – indent 3
Annex I – indent 3
— To address the specificities and widespread occurrence of CBI/RBI schemes across the Member States, a dedicated Union legal framework in the form of a regulation is necessary. Such a regulation will ensure Union harmonisation, limit the risks posed by CBI/RBI schemes and make CBI/RBI schemes subject to Union monitoring, thereby enhancing transparency and governance. The regulation is also meant to discourage Member States from establishing harmful CBI/RBI schemes.
Amendment 104 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – indent 6 – point c
Annex I – indent 6 – point c
(c) a Union-wide ban on marketing practices for RBI schemes. That should include prohibiting intermediaries processing applications under CBI/RBI schemes from using the Union flag on any materials, website or documents.
Amendment 106 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – indent 6 – point e
Annex I – indent 6 – point e
(e) anti-corruption measures to be adopted within the intermediary, including on appropriate staff remuneration, the two- person rule (that every step is checked by at least two persons) and provisions for a second opinion when preparing applications and carrying out checks on applications, and a rotation of staff members across the countries of origin of applicants under CBI/RBI schemes.
Amendment 108 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – indent 6 – point f
Annex I – indent 6 – point f
(f) a ban on combining the consultation of governments on the establishment and maintenance of CBI/RBI schemes with their involvement in the preparation of applications. Such a combination creates a conflict of interest and provides the wrong incentives. Consequently, a ban on public affairs lobbying or consulting is required for intermediaries and for affiliated industry representation organisations. Furthermore, intermediaries should not be allowed themselves to implement CBI/RBI schemes for Member State authorities. Intermediaries should only be allowed to act as intermediaries in individual applications and only when being approached by individual applicants.
Amendment 113 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – indent 7
Annex I – indent 7
— A duty for Member States to report to the Commission regarding their CBI/RBI schemes should be introduced. The Member States should submit a detailed annual report to the Commission on the overall institutional and governance elements of their schemes. They should also report on individual applications and on rejections and approvals of applications. The Commission should carry out, in cooperation with Europol (including through its liaison officers in third countries) and Frontex, Union-level final checks of applications against the relevant Union and international databases and should also carry out further security and background checks. On that basis, the Commission should issue an opinion to the Member State. The competence to grant residence or not under CBI/RBI schemes should remain with the Member States. The Union-level final check will also help to highlight several unsuccessful applications by the same individuals.
Amendment 115 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – indent 8
Annex I – indent 8
— A system for prior notification to and consultation with all other Member States prior to granting residence under an CBI/RBI scheme should be set up. If a Member State does not object within 14 days, that will mean they have no objection to the granting of residence1. That will allow Member States to detect double or subsequent applications and will allow Member States to conduct checks in national databases that might not be available at Union level. _________________ 1Similar to the system set out in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) (OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1).
Amendment 118 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – indent 10
Annex I – indent 10
— To combat tax avoidance, specific Union measures to prevent and tackle the circumvention of the Common Reporting Standard through CBI/RBI schemes, in particular the enhanced exchange of information between tax authorities, should be introduced2. _________________ 2 See: Preventing abuse of residence by investment schemes to circumvent the CRS, OECD, 19 February 2018; Council Directive 2014/107/EU of 9 December 2014 amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation (OJ L 359, 16.12.2014, p. 1).
Amendment 119 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – indent 11
Annex I – indent 11
Amendment 122 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – subheading 3
Annex I – subheading 3
Amendment 123 #
2021/2026(INL)
Amendment 126 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – indent 14
Annex I – indent 14
Amendment 130 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – indent 15 – point a
Annex I – indent 15 – point a
(a) public authorities engaged in processing applications under CBI/RBI schemes to be included on the list of obliged entities under legal acts in the area of anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism, specifically in Article 3, point (3), of the proposal for a regulation on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing (2021/0239(COD));
Amendment 131 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – indent 15 – point b
Annex I – indent 15 – point b
(b) greater exchange of information on applicants under CBI/RBI schemes between the Member State authorities under legal acts in the area of anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism, specifically between the Financial Intelligence Units.
Amendment 134 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – indent 16
Annex I – indent 16
— The Commission should, when it comes forward with its expected proposals for the revisions of the Long-Term Residence Directive, limit the possibility of third-country nationals who have obtained residence under an CBI/RBI scheme from benefitting from more favourable treatment under that Directive. That could be achieved by amending Article 13 of the current Long-Term Residence Directive to narrow its scope of application by expressly excluding beneficiaries of CBI/RBI schemes.
Amendment 136 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – indent 19
Annex I – indent 19
— A new article should be added to Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code)3 on cooperation with third countries on phasing out their CBI schemes and bringing their CBI/RBI schemes in line with the new Regulation proposed under proposal 2 above. Such a new article could follow the logic of Article 25a of the current Visa Code, providing for positive and negative incentives for third countries, aiming to limit the risks of third-country CBI and RBI schemes. _________________ 3 OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1.
Amendment 139 #
2021/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – indent 20
Annex I – indent 20
— For candidate countries, the complete phase-out of CBI schemes and the strict regulation of CBI/RBI schemes should be a prominent part of the accession criteria.
Amendment 2 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9
Citation 9
Amendment 6 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 21
Citation 21
Amendment 8 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 29
Citation 29
Amendment 9 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 32
Citation 32
Amendment 10 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 33
Citation 33
Amendment 13 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 34
Citation 34
Amendment 15 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 35
Citation 35
Amendment 16 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 37
Citation 37
Amendment 17 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 39
Citation 39
Amendment 18 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 40
Citation 40
Amendment 19 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 43
Citation 43
Amendment 20 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 44
Citation 44
Amendment 21 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 45
Citation 45
Amendment 23 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the Union is founded on the values set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU); whereas democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are mutually reinforcing values which, when undermined, may pose a systemic threat to the Union; whereas Article 2 TEU applies not only and not even primarily to the Member States, but to the European Union and the rule of law should cover the EU institutions, all the more so that they have long been accused of democratic deficit;
Amendment 27 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the annual rule of law review cycle is a welcomen addition to the tools available to preserve the Union’s values, by addressing the situation in all EU Member States based on four pillars, with a direct bearing on respect for the rule of lawthe Union; whereas it is intended as a yearly cycle to ensure the rule of law and to prevent problems from emerging or deepening;
Amendment 29 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the Commission’s first Rule of Law Report (2020 report) is limitextended in scope, as it does not covercovers more than just rule of law as one of all Union values as provided for in Article 2 of the TEU; whereas the notion of the rule of law has different and distinct manifestations in the Member States and there is no definition of it at the EU level;
Amendment 35 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas while the 2020 report raises concerns and awareness, it does not provide a sufficient assessment of the effectiveness of the reforms carried out by each country, nor any concrete country- specific recommendations, which could jeopardise its intended preventive effectsbecause the Commission has no competences in this regard and the only recommendations regarding the rule of law may be addressed in accordance with procedure set up Article 7(1) TEU;
Amendment 39 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
Amendment 44 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
Amendment 58 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the Commission’s first annual Rule of Law Report as part of the wider European rule of law monitoring and enforcement architecture, as it adds an important, potentially preventive tool to the Union’s rule of law toolbox;
Amendment 63 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. WelcomNotes the fact that justice systems, the anti-corruption framework, media pluralism and certain institutional issues related to checks and balances, including civic space, are all part of the Commission’s annual overview of the rule of law situation in the Member States; encouragesnotes that the Commission to also highlight positive trends in Member Statehas no competences to determine whether the situation in Member States constitutes positive or negative trends that could serve as good examples for others to follow;
Amendment 72 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the potential preventive benefits of the annual Rule of Law Report; considers that a more thorough evaluation is needed to assess whether the report has had a preventive effect; considers that in any event this is clearly not the case as regards the Member States under the Article 7(1) TEU procedure; believes that the 2020 report should have provided more in-depth assessments, stating whether there is a risk of or actual breach of the Union values; considers these assessments necessary to identify follow- up actions and remedial measures and tools;
Amendment 78 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 86 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that the annual reports shcould identify cross-cutting trends at Union level; believes that a Union-wide perspective is absent from the 2020 report; asks the Commission to identify instances where certain practices undermining the rule of law are becoming blueprints for others or when the gravity and scope of such practices have the potential to affect the Union as a whole;
Amendment 97 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. WelcomNotes the monitoring of the independence, quality and efficiency of the Member States’ justice systems; considers that the enabling environment to ensure access to justice for all should also be monitored, including access to justice at Union level; considers thatorganization and functioning of state bodies, in particular the judiciary is one of the areports should go beyond a static annual snapshot and include information on relevant antecedents in the country chaptersas in which the Member States have not transferred competences to the European Union and despite this, the Commission evaluates them;
Amendment 113 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Is alarmed by the stark deterioration of the independence of some Member States’ justice systems, as reflected in some country chapters; calls on the Commission to clearly assess and designate such shortcomings and findings identified as a clear risk of a serious breach of the rule of lawNotes with concern that, apart from the reporting (objective) elements, the report contains evaluative (subjective) elements, without clearly delineating them; rebukes that when assessing similar legal regulations in force in different Member States, the Commission often points to reforms planned in a given area in the Member States, differently assessing solutions designed in some and identical solutions already in use in other Member States;
Amendment 120 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Decries the fact that the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings before the Court of Justice of the EU has been declared unlawful in Member States subject to Article 7 of the TEU; is appalled byCourt of Justice of the EU more and more often goes beyond its Treaty competences and rules ultra vires; supports the growing resistance of some Member States to comply with CJEU rulings on the grounds of sovereignty or unconstitutionality; believes that these developments in the CJEU pose a systemic threat to the existence of the Union; considers, therefore, that forthcoming annual reports should consider challenges from the CJEU's side to the Union’s legal architecture and principles as serious violations in the assessment;
Amendment 136 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. WelcomNotes the dedication of a specific chapter to anti-corruption efforts in each country report; points out that while the existence of national anticorruption strategies can be considered progress, their effectiveness on the ground must also be assessed; notes that an assessment of the resilience of the anti-corruption framework to tackle corruption-related risks in the area of public procurement remains largely absent from the 2020 report; invites the Commission to place greater emphasis on the misuse of EU funds, particularly in view of the new conditionality mechanism;
Amendment 153 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. WelcomNotes the inclusion in the report of a specific chapter on monitoring media freedom and pluralism; urginvites the Commission to provide an assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of the national frameworks for the protection of media freedom and media pluralism;
Amendment 160 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. DeplorNotes the lack of assessment as regards the public media sector at national level and its degree of independence from government or any other interference and an assessment of transparency of media ownership; believes that proper implementation of Article 30 of the 2018 Audiovisual Media Services Directive19 should be closely monitored; _________________ 19 OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 69.
Amendment 179 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. WelcomNotes the report’s pillar on checks and balances and its examination of exceptional measures taken to fight the COVID-19 pandemic;
Amendment 184 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 196 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 204 #
2021/2025(INI)
16. RegretNotes the fact that the 2020 report fails todoes not encompass fully the Article 2 TEU values of democracy and fundamental rights, which are immediately affected when countries start backsliding onbecause they are not the rule of law;
Amendment 206 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Encourages the Commission to consider including within the scope of future reports the application of all rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights; sStresses that any action taken by a Member State when acting within the scope of EU law must respect the rights and principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
Amendment 214 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 228 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. WelcomNotes the Commission’s announcement of its strategy to strengthen the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; believes that such an annual review should provide input for a comprehensive monitoring mechanism and that its methodology, cycle and scope should therefore be aligned with the annual reports;
Amendment 234 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the regular, inclusive and structured dialogue with governments and national parliaments, NGOs, professional associations and other stakeholders; notes that three Member States refused to make public their submissions for the 2020 report; calls for transparency in the process and for all submissions to be made public;
Amendment 242 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Stresses that civil societythe Member States are key partners to identify rule of law violations and promote democracy and fundamental rights in countries where Union values have been eroded; considers that shadow reporting would bolster the efficiency and transparency of the processand therefore should hold a means of wielding influence on the reports’ final content; calls on the Commission to provide that each Member State, after the report has been prepared but before it has been published, have the opportunity to read it and raise objections or comments and the right of final acceptance of that part of the report that relates to themselves and any non- acceptance or dissent, as the case may be, should be indicated directly in the report;
Amendment 249 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Considers that cooperation in the annual monitoring cycle with the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly, includStresses that the annual monitoring cycle should be an EU-only exercise and all sources that are not EU sources should be rejected ing through a more structured partnership, is of particular relevance for advancing democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in the EUe selection of inputs to the report, which applies in particular to the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly, of which the EU is not a member so far;
Amendment 254 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 8
Subheading 8
Amendment 256 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 269 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Strongly regrets the inability of the Council to make mRecognises the leandingful progress in enforcing Union values in ongoing Article 7 TEU procedures; notes that the Council’s hesitance to apply Article 7 of the TEU effectively is enabling continued divergence from the values provided for in Article 2 of the TEU; calls for a reflection at the Conference on the Future of Europe on a revision of the Article 7 TEU procedure in order to realign the majority requirements of paragraphs 1 and 2 with a view to having super-majorities of four or five for both role of the Council in ongoing Article 7 TEU procedures;
Amendment 276 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. ReiteratStresses that the annual report should not serve as a basis for deciding whether to activate the procedure provided for in Article 7 of the TEU, whether to activate the Rule of Law Framework or whether to launch infringement procedures, including expedited procedures, applications for interim measures before the Court of Justice and actions regarding non-implementation of CJEU judgments concerning the protection of Union values;
Amendment 284 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Calls for the Commission to useStresses that the findings of the annual report in its assessment that forms the basis of the mechanism to protect the budget against breaches of the principle of the rule of law; reiterates its call on the Commission to dedicate a specific section of the annual report to an analysis of cases where breacheshould not constitute the basis for further assessments, findings or formulation of recommendations concerning individual Member States, made in areas of the principles ofr than the rule of law in a particular Member State could affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget in a sufficiently direct wa, e.g. in the field of economic and fiscal policy;
Amendment 299 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Calls on the Commission to assessinform in successive reports how the issues identified in the areas analysed in previous reports have evolved;
Amendment 304 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
Amendment 6 #
2021/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5
Citation 5
Amendment 8 #
2021/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 10
Citation 10
Amendment 28 #
2021/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the Commission put forward two proposals on the taxation of the digital economy in 2018, including a short-term solution introducing a digital services tax (DST), and a long-term solution defining a significant digital presence (SDP) as a nexus for corporate taxation which should replace the DST; whereas Parliament supported these proposals, but they were not adopted in the Council because Member States could not reach the unanimous agreement needed in the realm of taxation at EU level, which forced some Member States to introduce the DST unilaterally;
Amendment 53 #
2021/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the current rules date back to the early 20th century, and are mainly based on physical presence; points out that digitalised companies can engage in significant business activities in a jurisdiction without physical presence there, and therefore taxes paid in one jurisdiction no longer reflect the value and profits created there; regreasserts that the traditional concept of permanent establishment fails to cover the new aspects of digital businesses, and underlines the need to define virtual permanent establishment; stresses that on the basis of the value and profits generated by users of online platforms and consumers of digital services residing in a given jurisdiction; unlike capital and labour, they cannot be shifted outside a jurisdiction in the same way as capital and labour, and should therefore be the basis for the definition of a new tax nexus in order to provide, which would be, among other things, an effective remedy against aggressive planning;
Amendment 84 #
2021/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that on average digital business models face significantly lower effective tax rates than traditional business models which rely on physical presence; regrets that tax avoidance linked to aggressive tax planning is not only detrimental to the collection of public revenues but also puts businesses, especially SMEs, at a disadvantage, while creating barriers for new local entrants; recalls that the issue of under-taxation of the digital economy is particularly relevant today, in the light of the COVID- 19 crisis, which has put digital companies providing services remotely in a more favourable position than traditional businesses, especially SMEs;
Amendment 158 #
2021/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Insists therefore that, regardless of the progress of the negotiations at the G20/OECD IF, the EU should stand ready to roll out its own solutions for taxing the digital economy by the end of 2021, especially since the OECD proposals concern only a narrow group of companies and may prove to be insufficient; calls on the Commission to present proposals by June 2021, while anticipating their compatibilityat they will be in compliance with the reform by the G20/OECD IF to be agreed on; stresses the need to create a level playing field for providers of traditional services and digital services in the EU by ensuring that the latter are taxed at an adequate rate; invites the Commission to consider in particular introducing a European Digital Services Tax as a necessary first step;
Amendment 173 #
2021/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Understands that some Member States consider the taxation of digital economy an urgent issue and have therefore introduced digital services taxes at national level; recalls that these national measures shouldmay be phased out once a multilateral solution is found; recalls on Member States to refrain from introducing national solutions unilateralthat taxation is primarily, as they create a risk of fragmentation of the single market; recalls that although taxation is primarily a Member State competence, they must competence of the Member States, which should exercise it in coherence with the common principles of EU law in order to ensure coherence between national frameworks, thereby allowing for fair competition and avoiding a negative impact on the overall coherence of EU taxation principles;
Amendment 198 #
2021/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. RegretsPoints out that the Council did not agree on any of the Commission’s related proposals, i.e. the digital services tax, the significant digital presence or the CCTB and CCCTB; calls on the Member States to reconsider their position on these proposals, and to consider all options provided for by the Treatiefind a common position that takes into account the interests iof no unanimous agreement can be reachedthe EU as a whole;
Amendment 211 #
2021/2010(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 2 #
2021/0395(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2
Article 2
Framework Decision 2002/465/JHA
Article 1
Article 1
Amendment 105 #
2021/0394(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) For the purposes of ensuring the flexibility of judicial cooperation in certain cross-border judicial procedures, other means of communication could be more appropriate. In particular, this may be appropriate for direct communication between courts under Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 and Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and the Council38 , as well as direct communication between competent authorities under the Union legal acts in criminal matters. In such cases, less formal communication means, such as e-mail, could be used. Such a situation may arise in particular when there is a need to communicate informally. The decision as to whether to use a particular means of communication should be left to the discretion of the competent authority in each individual case. _________________ 38 Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 19).
Amendment 147 #
2021/0394(COD)
Amendment 148 #
2021/0394(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Amendment 151 #
2021/0394(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) electronic communication between natural or legal persons and competent authorities, and electronic payment of fees in cross-border civil and commercial matters, in the context of the legal act in the context of the legal acts listed in Annex I, insofar as this listed in Annex I provided for in national proceedings for specific procedures; and
Amendment 152 #
2021/0394(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1
(1) “competent authorities” means courts, public prosecutors, Union agencies and bodies and other authorit and other national or Union bodies taking part in judicial cooperation procedures in accordance with the provisions of the legal acts listed in Annex I and Annex II;
Amendment 153 #
2021/0394(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2
(2) “electronic communication” means digital exchange of informationdata over the internet or another electronic communication network;
Amendment 154 #
2021/0394(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3
(3) “electronic document” means a document transmitted as part of electronic communication, including scanned paper documentsn information storage medium which allows its contents to be consulted;
Amendment 155 #
2021/0394(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
(4) “decentralised IT system” means a network of IT systems and interoperable access points, operating under the individual responsibility and mthe e-CODEX system within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2022/850 of 30 May 2022 on a computerised system for the cross-border electronic exchanagement of each Member State, Union agency or body that enables the secure and reliable cross-border exchange of information of data in the area of judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters (e-CODEX system), and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1726;
Amendment 160 #
2021/0394(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Written cCommunication between competent authorities of different Member States in cases falling under the scope of the legal acts listed in Annex I and Annex II, including the exchange of forms established by these acts, shall be carried out through a secure and reliable, as a rule, through a decentralised IT system.
Amendment 166 #
2021/0394(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. Where electronic communication in accordance with paragraph 1 is not possible due to the disruption of the decentralised IT system, the nature of the transmitted material or exceptional circumstances, the transmission shall be carried out by the swiftest, most appropriate alternative means, taking into account the need to ensure a secure and reliable exchange of information. Where the criminal proceedings concerned are of a sensitive nature, the competent authority may decide that direct physical exchange of data is necessary.
Amendment 172 #
2021/0394(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Where the competent authorities consider, in the context of specific proceedings, that the use of the decentralised IT system is not appropriate, in view of thparticular where there are specific circumstances ofassociated with the communication in question, any other means of communication may be used.
Amendment 178 #
2021/0394(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Paragraph 3 of this Article shall not apply to the exchange of forms provided by the instruments listed in Annex I and Annex II., except as regards the possible use of the forms by parties to proceedings
Amendment 180 #
2021/0394(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. The communication requirements set out in this Article do not affect the admissibility of evidence in individual cases.
Amendment 190 #
2021/0394(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. The provision of paragraph 1 is of a subordinate nature to the national court portals (national access points).
Amendment 207 #
2021/0394(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the European electronic access pointnational IT portals, where available; or
Amendment 208 #
2021/0394(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) national IT portals, where availablethe European electronic access point.
Amendment 209 #
2021/0394(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. Competent authorities shall communicate with natural and legal persons in the first instance through the national IT portal, or through the European electronic access point, where that natural or legal person gave prior express consent to the use of this means of communication when required.
Amendment 215 #
2021/0394(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Competent authorities shall accept electronic communication under Article 5(1), transmitted through national IT portals or the European electronic access point or national IT portals, where available, where available. Electronic means of communication with the court in proceedings with a cross-border component may only be used where national legislation provides an analogous route for participants in proceedings without such a component.
Amendment 340 #
2021/0394(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – point 1
Annex II – point 1
Amendment 138 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b
Regulation (EU) 2018/1727
Article 27 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Article 27 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Eurojust may continue to process the operational personal data referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph also after the proceedings have been concluded under the national law of the Member State concerned, even in case of an acquittal, unless the competent national authority decides otherwise on a case-by-case basis. Where the proceedings did not result in a conviction, processing of personal data may only take place in order to identify links with other ongoing or concluded investigations and prosecutions as referred to in Article 23(2), point (c).;
Amendment 226 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council22 constitutes the main legal instrument for the prevention of the use of the Union financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing. That Directive sets out a comprehensive legal framework, which Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and the Council23 further strengthened by addressing emerging risks and increasing transparency of beneficial ownership. Notwithstanding its achievements, experience has shown that Directive (EU) 2015/849 should be further improved to adequately mitigate risks and to effectively detect criminal attempts to misuse the Union financial system for criminal purposes and to further integrity of the internal market. _________________ 22 Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 73). 23 Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, and amending Directives 2009/138/EC and 2013/36/EU (OJ L 156, 19.6.2018, p. 43).
Amendment 241 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) The results of risk assessments should, where appropriate, be made available to obliged entities and publicly in a timely manner to enable them to identify, understand, manage and mitigate their own risks.
Amendment 243 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) To be able to review the effectiveness of their systems for combating money laundering and terrorist financing, Member States should maintain, and improve the quality of, relevant statistics. With a view to enhancing the quality and consistency of the statistical data collected at Union level, the Commission for the purpose of streamlining the methodology may adopt implementing acts and the AMLA should keep track of the Union-wide situation with respect to the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing and should publish regular overviews.
Amendment 249 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) Central registers of beneficial ownership information are crucial in combating the misuse of legal entities. To ensure that in light of comprehensive framework the registers of beneficial ownership information are easily accessible and contain high-quality data, consistent rules on the collection and storing of this information should be introduced.
Amendment 250 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18 a (new)
Recital 18 a (new)
(18a) The rules governing the operation of beneficial ownership registers must be consistent with the requirements of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR), in particular Article 5(1) thereof on information and the purposes for which information may be collected in the register;
Amendment 253 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) With a view to enhancing transparency in order to combat the misuse of legal entities, Member States should ensure that beneficial ownership information is stored in a central register located outside the company, in full compliance with Union law. Member States canshould, for that purpose, use a central database, which collects beneficial ownership information, or the business register, or another central register. Member States may decide that obliged entities are responsible for filling in the register. Member States should make sure that in all cases that information is made available to competent authorities and FIUs and is provided to obliged entities when they take customer due diligence measures.
Amendment 254 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19 a (new)
Recital 19 a (new)
(19a) The Commission shall conduct a feasibility assessment engaging all relevant authorities and stakeholders on the development and further streamlining of a European Customer due diligence register.
Amendment 262 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) The accuracy of data included in the beneficial ownership registers is fundamental for all of the relevant authorities and other persons allowed access to that data, and to make valid, lawful decisions based on that data. Therefore, where sufficient reasons arise, after careful analysis by the registrars, to doubt the accuracy of the beneficial ownership information held by the registers, legal entities and legal arrangements should be required to provide additional information on a risk-sensitive basis in accordance with national law. In addition, it is important that Member States entrust the entity in charge of managing the registers with sufficient powers to verify beneficial ownership and the veracity of information provided to it, and to report any suspicion to their FIU. Such powers should extend to the conduct of inspections at the premises of the legal entities.
Amendment 266 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) Moreover, the reporting of discrepancies between beneficial ownership information held in the central registers and beneficial ownership information available to obliged entities and, where applicable, competent authorities, is an effective mechanism to verify the accuracy of the information. AWith an oversight of competent authorities any such discrepancy should be swiftly identified, reported and corrected.
Amendment 267 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) In view of ensuring that the mechanism of discrepancy reporting is proportionate and focused on the detection of instances of inaccurate beneficial ownership information, Member States may allow obliged entities to request the customer to rectify discrepancies of a technical nature directly with the entity in charge of the central registers. Such request to the customer shall be implemented in a clear and reliable form. Such option only applies to low-risk customers and to those errors of a technical nature, such as minor cases of misspelt information, where it is evident that that those do not hinder the identification of the beneficial owner(s) and the accuracy of the information.
Amendment 304 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 46
Recital 46
(46) FIUs play an important role in identifying the financial operations of terrorist networks, especially cross-border, and in detecting their financial backers. Financial intelligence might be of fundamental importance in uncovering the facilitation of terrorist offences and the networks and schemes of terrorist organisations. FIUs maintain significant differences as regards their functions, competences and powers. The current differences should however not affect an FIU’s activity, particularly its capacity to develop preventive analyses in support of all the authorities in charge of intelligence, investigative and judicial activities, and international cooperation. In the exercise of their tasks, it has become essential to identify the minimum set of data FIUs should have swift access to and be able to exchange without impediments with their counterparts from other Member States. In all cases of suspected money laundering, its predicate offences and in cases involving the financing of terrorism, information should flow directly and quickly without undue delays. It is therefore essential to further enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of FIUs, by clarifying their powers of and cooperation between FIUs, tasks, rules on the exchange of information and the cooperation between FIUs, as well as by harmonising the rules on the protection of personal data and the rules on the processing of different categories of data, so as to ensure full consistency with the EU legal framework in this regard.
Amendment 319 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 56
Recital 56
(56) Member States should ensure effective, impartial and risk-based supervision of all obliged entities, preferably by public authorities via a separate and independent national supervisor. National supervisors should be able to perform a comprehensive range of tasks in order to exercise effective supervision of all obliged entities and be accordingly granted with such legal powers.
Amendment 333 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 79
Recital 79
(79) The cooperation between financial supervisors and the authorities responsible for crisis management of credit institutions and investment firms, such as in particular Deposit Guarantee Scheme designated authorities and resolution authorities, is necessary to reconcile the objectives to prevent money laundering under this Directive and to protect financial stability and depositors under the Directives 2014/49/EU and 2014/59/EU. Financial supervisors should oversee the performance and quality of customer due diligence process where the credit institution has been determined failing or likely to fail or when the deposits are defined as unavailable, and the reporting of any suspicious transactions to the FIU. Financial supervisors should inform the authorities responsible for crisis management of credit institutions and investment firms of any relevant outcome from the customer due diligence performed and of any account that has been suspended by the FIU.
Amendment 354 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. Before the end of the period referred to in paragraph 3, the Commission, having consulted the Authority for anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism established by Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for establishment of an Anti-Money Laundering Authority - COM/2021/421 final] (AMLA), shall issue and make publicly available a detailed opinion regarding whether the measure envisaged:
Amendment 375 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. With respect to the obliged entities referred to in Article 3, points (3)(a), (b), (d), (e) and (h) to (l), of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation - COM/2021/420 final], Member States shall ensure that supervisors take the necessary measures to prevent persons convicted of money laundering, any of its predicate offences or terrorist financing or their associates from being professionally accredited, holding a management function in or being the beneficial owners of those obliged entities. Member States must ensure that supervisory decisions made under this Article can be subject to administrative appeal.
Amendment 406 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 6
Article 7 – paragraph 6
6. Within 2 years of the adoption of the report referred to in paragraph 1, and every fourthree years thereafter, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the actions taken based on the findings of that report.
Amendment 411 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Each Member State shall carry out a national risk assessment to identify, assess, understand and mitigate the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing affecting it. It shall keep that risk assessment up to date and review it at least every fourthree years.
Amendment 512 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 6
Article 10 – paragraph 6
6. Member States shall require that the reporting of discrepancies referred to in paragraph 5 takes place within 214 calendar days after detecting the discrepancy. In cases of lower risk to which measures under Section 3 of Chapter III of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation] apply, Member States may allow obliged entities to request the customer to rectify discrepancies of a technical nature that do not hinder the identification of the beneficial owner(s) directly with the entity in charge of the central registers.
Amendment 584 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13a The Commission in cooperation with AMLA shall conduct a feasibility assessment engaging all relevant authorities and stakeholders on the development of a European customer due diligence register in order to facilitate its quality and limit shortcomings. The Commission shall report on the study referred to in this Article to the European Parliament and the Council, and, if necessary, submit a legislative proposal to the European Parliament and the Council for the establishment of a European customer due diligence register.
Amendment 704 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point c – point i
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point c – point i
(i) any type of information or data which is already held by competent authorities in the context of preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting criminal offences, except information about persons, if obtained as a result of operational surveillance activities, about the specific ways of carrying out operational surveillance activities, the rules governing them and the resources and methods used in connection with them, and about persons assisting the law enforcement authorities;
Amendment 734 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall ensure that FIUs are empowered to take urgent action, directly or indirectly, where there is a suspicion that a transaction is related to money laundering or terrorist financing, to suspend or withhold consent to a transaction that is proceeding. Such suspension shall be imposed on the obliged entity, if technically feasible, within 48 hours of receiving the suspicious transaction report in order to analyse the transaction, confirm the suspicion and disseminate the results of the analysis to the competent authorities. Member States shall ensure that subject to national procedural safeguards, the transaction is suspended for a period of a maximum of 15 calendar days from the day of the imposition of such suspension to the obliged entity.
Amendment 744 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Such suspension shall be imposed on the obliged entity, if technically feasible, within 48 hours of receiving the suspicious transaction report and immediately notified to the competent judicial authority. Member States shall ensure that the use of that bank or payment account is suspended for a period of a maximum of 5 days from the day of the imposition of the suspension. Member States shall ensure that any extension of such suspension shall be authorizsed by the competent judicial authority.
Amendment 795 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 7 – introductory part
Article 24 – paragraph 7 – introductory part
7. Member States shall ensure that in exceptional, justified and urgent cases and, by way of derogation from paragraph 6, where pursuant to paragraph 1 an FIU is requested to provide information which is either held in a database or registry directly accessible by the requested FIU or which is already in its possession, the requested FIU shall provide that information, if technically feasible, no later than 24 hours after the receipt of the request.
Amendment 907 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 40 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
Article 40 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
(ba) where an obliged entity is subject to an authorisation, withdraw or suspend the authorisation;
Amendment 914 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – point e
Amendment 973 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 48 – paragraph 3
Article 48 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that, where financial supervisors find that a credit institution has refused to enter intoor continue a business relationship but the documented customer due diligence pursuant to Article 17(2) does not justify such refusal, they shall inform the authority responsible for ensuring compliance by that institution with Directive (EU) 2014/92 or Directive (EU) 2015/2366.
Amendment 123 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council23 constitutes the main legal instrument for the prevention of the use of the Union financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing. That Directive sets out a comprehensive legal framework, which Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and the Council24 further strengthened by addressing emerging risks and increasing transparency of beneficial ownership. Notwithstanding its achievements, experience of inaccurate implementation of minimum standards that have led to a fragmented, inefficient environment in the Union, thereby also affecting competition of the financial system in the single market has shown that further improvements should be introduced to adequately mitigate risks and to effectively detect criminal attempts to misuse the Union financial system for criminal purposes. _________________ 23 Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 73). 24 Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, and amending Directives 2009/138/EC and 2013/36/EU (OJ L 156, 19.6.2018, p. 43).
Amendment 127 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The main challenge identified in respect to the application of the provisions of Directive (EU) 2015/849 laying down obligations for private sector actors, the so- called obliged entities, is the lack of direct applicability of those rules and a fragmentation of the approach along national lines. Whereas those rules have existed and evolved over three decades, as a rule they are still implemented in a manner not fully consistent with the requirements of an integrated internal market. Therefore, it is necessary that rules on matters currently covered in Directive (EU) 2015/849 which may be directly applicable by the obliged entities concerned, as well as other positive examples that Member States have already implemented are addressed in a new Regulation in order to achieve the desired uniformity of application.
Amendment 212 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 62
Recital 62
(62) Obliged entities may outsource tasks relating to the performance of customer due diligence to an agent or external service provider, unless they are established in third countries that are designated as high-risk, as having compliance weaknesses or as posing a threat to the Union’s financial system. In the case of agency or outsourcing relationships on a contractual basis between obliged entities and external service providers not covered by AML/CFT requirements, any AML/CFT obligations upon those agents or outsourcing service providers could arise only from the contract between the parties and not from this Regulation. Therefore, the responsibility for complying with AML/CFT requirements should remain entirely with the obliged entity itself. The obliged entity should in particular ensure that, where an outsourced service provider is involved for the purposes of remote customer identification, the risk-based approach is respected, as well as the utmost care in ensuring the customer's confidence in the obliged entity’s identity.
Amendment 215 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 63
Recital 63
(63) In order for third party reliance and outsourcing relationships to function efficiently, including the performance of customer due diligence, further clarity is needed around the conditions according to which reliance takes place. AMLA should have the task of developing guidelines on the conditions under which third-party reliance and outsourcing can take place, as well as the roles and responsibilities of the respective parties. To ensure that consistent oversight of reliance and outsourcing practices is ensured throughout the Union, the guidelines should also provide clarity on how supervisors should take into account such practices and verify compliance with AML/CFT requirements when obliged entities resort to those practices.
Amendment 255 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) measures to limitstop the misuse of bearer instruments.
Amendment 277 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 17 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 17 a (new)
(17a) 'high-level professional sports club' means a legal entity established in a Member State which owns or manages a professional sports club of which at least one team plays in at least one championship of the highest level of the competition in that Member State;
Amendment 306 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 26 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 26 a (new)
(26a) the siblings
Amendment 309 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 27 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 27 a (new)
(27a) 'high-net-worth individual' means a natural person who owns at least EUR 500 000 or the equivalent in national currency in liquid financial assets;
Amendment 329 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a
(a) auditors, certified debt collectors, external accountants and tax advisors, and any other natural or legal person that undertakes to provide, directly or by means of other persons to which that other person is related, material aid, assistance or advice on tax matters as principal business or professional activity;
Amendment 336 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point d
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point d
(d) estate agents, including when acting as intermediaries in the letting of immovable property for transactions for which the monthly rent amounts to EUR 10 000 or more, or five times exceeds the average monthly rent in a Member State, or the equivalent in national currency;
Amendment 349 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point i
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point i
(i) persons trading or acting as intermediaries in the trade of works of art, and other similar goods, including when this is carried out by art galleries and auction houses, where the value of the transaction or linked transactions amounts to at least EUR 108 000 or the equivalent in national currency;
Amendment 354 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point j
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point j
(j) persons storing, trading or acting as intermediaries in the trade of works of art when this is carried out within free zones and customs warehouses, where the value of the transaction or linked transactions amounts to at least EUR 108 000 or the equivalent in national currency;
Amendment 362 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point l
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point l
(l) investment migration operators permitted to represent or offer intermediation services including but not limited to third country nationals seeking to obtain residence rights or a citizenship in a Member State in exchange of any kind of investment, including but not limited to capital transfers, purchase or renting of property, investment in government bonds, investment in corporate entities, donation or endowment of an activity to the public good and contributions to the state budget.
Amendment 367 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point l a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point l a (new)
(la) high level professional sports clubs
Amendment 375 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. With the exception of casinos and online gambling platforms, Member States may decide to exempt, in full or in part, providers of gambling services from the requirements set out in this Regulation on the basis of the proven low risk posed by the nature and, where appropriate, the scale of operations of such services.
Amendment 381 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall notify the Commission of any exemption that they intend to grant in accordance with Articles 4 and 5 without delay. The notification shall include a justification based on the relevant risk assessment under a direct supervision of the Member State for the exemption.
Amendment 383 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) confirm that the exemption may be granted by reasoned decision on the basis of the justification given by the Member State;
Amendment 385 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. Upon reception of a decision by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 2(a), Member States may adopt the decision granting the exemption. Such decision shall state the reasons on which it is based. Member States shall review such decisions regularly, but no later than one year after the exemption has been granted for the first time, and in any case when they update their national risk assessment pursuant to Article 8 of Directive [please insert reference – proposal for 6th Anti- Money Laundering Directive - COM/2021/423 final].
Amendment 387 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 5
Article 6 – paragraph 5
5. The Commission shall publish every year in the Official Journal of the European Union the list of exemptions granted and an analytical and factual overview of the exemptions granted pursuant to this Article.
Amendment 422 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. OWithout prejudice to national provisions obliged entities shall appoint one executive member of their board of directors or, if there is no board, of its equivalent governing body who shall be responsible for the implementation of measures to ensure compliance with this Regulation (‘compliance manager’). Where the entity has no governing body, the function should be performed by a member of its senior management.
Amendment 480 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) identify the customer and verify the customer’s identity, ensuring that the methods taken are fully in line with the [GDPR] Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council and ensuring that the identification of the obliged entity is provided to the customer in a reliable and trustworthy form via secure authentification process where appropriate;
Amendment 487 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. financial institutions for the purposes of identifying the customer and verify the customer's identity shall ensure that the methods taken are fully in line with the [GDPR] Regulation 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council and ensure that the identification of the obliged entity is provided to the customer in a reliable and trustworthy form via secure authentification process where technically possible;
Amendment 675 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) In addition to the countermeasures selected under this Article the Member States shall not grant citizenship or residence status to nationals of countries designated under Articles 23, 24, or 25 on the basis of national schemes that grant citizenship or residence rights in exchange for any type of investment.
Amendment 716 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 40 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The obliged entity shall ensure that the customer is fully and reliably informed about the obliged entity’s identity.
Amendment 873 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 2
Article 51 – paragraph 2
2. Notaries, lawyers and other independent legal professionals, auditors, external accountants and tax advisors shall be exempted from the requirements laid down in Article 50(1) to the extent that such exemption relates to information that they receive from, or obtain on, one of their clients, in the course of ascertaining the legal position of their client, or performing their task of defending or representing that client in, or concerning, judicial proceedings, that is related to suspicious transactions or activities of similar nature, including providing advice on instituting or avoiding such proceedings, whether such information is received or obtained before, during or after such proceedings.
Amendment 925 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 1
Article 59 – paragraph 1
1. Persons trading in goods or providing services may accept or make a payment in cash only up to an amount of EUR 107 000 or equivalent amount in national or foreign currency, whether the transaction is carried out in a single operation or in several operations which appear to be linked and whether the transaction has been done by resident or non-resident.
Amendment 100 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 3
Article 1 – paragraph 3
3. Evaluations mayshall cover all aspects ofonly those aspects that are strictly related to the Schengen acquis and may take into account the functioning of the authorities that apply the Schengen acquis.
Amendment 117 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall be responsible for the establishment of thehave an overall coordination role in relation to establishing annual and multiannual evaluation programmes, the drafting of questionnaires, the and setting of schedules of visits, the conducting of visits and the drafting of evaluation reports and recommendations. It shall also ensure the follow-up and monitoring activities.
Amendment 129 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The Commission may organise unannounced evaluations, in particular:
Amendment 133 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
Amendment 135 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c
Amendment 161 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shallmay use the results of relevant mechanisms and instruments, including evaluation and monitoring activities of Union bodies, offices and agencies which are involved in the implementation of the Schengen acquis and of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights as well as of independent national monitoring mechanisms and bodies and other national quality control mechanisms in preparing the evaluation and monitoring activities, to improve awareness on the functioning of the Schengen area and to avoid the duplication of efforts and conflicting measures.
Amendment 169 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
In the programming and implementation of the evaluations and monitoring activities, the Commission shallmay take into account information provided by third parties, including independent authorities, non- governmental organisations and international organisations.
Amendment 175 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
In each multiannual evaluation cycle, each Member State shall undergo one periodic evaluation and at least one unannounced evaluation or thematic evaluation.
Amendment 181 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point c
Amendment 190 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Amendment 194 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall define the number of Member State experts and Commission representatives participating in a team based on the particularities and needs of the evaluation or monitoring activity. The Commission shall select experts from the pool of experts to become members of a team. The total number of the team members shall be no more than 12 and the number of the experts from the Commission together with the observers from Union bodies and agencies shall not exceed the number of the experts from the Member States
Amendment 201 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 6
Article 18 – paragraph 6
Amendment 205 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 9 a (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. The Commission after receiving feedback from lead experts shall transmit an opinion on their performance to the concerned Member State, especially when it concerns a new expert in the pool.
Amendment 216 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
Article 19 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. Unannounced visits shall take place without prior notification to the Member State concerned. By way of exception, tThe Commission mayshall notify the Member State concerned at least 24 hours before such visit is to take place when the main purpose of the unannounced visit is a random verification of the implementation of the Schengen acquis.
Amendment 226 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 4 – point b
Article 21 – paragraph 4 – point b
(b) compliant but improvement necessary;
Amendment 231 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 6
Article 21 – paragraph 6
6. The Commission shall transmit the draft evaluation report to the evaluated Member State within four weeks of the end of the evaluation activity. The evaluated Member State shall provide its comments on the draft evaluation report within two weeks of its receipt. A drafting meeting shall be held at the request of the evaluated Member State, no later than fiveten working days from the receipt of the comments from the evaluated Member State. The comments of the evaluated Member State mayshall be reflected in the draft evaluation report.
Amendment 241 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 22 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
The Commission shall inform the European Parliament and the Council at least twice a yearon an ongoing basis about the state of implementation of the action plans. The Commission shall in particular provide information about its observations on the adequacy of the action plans referred to in paragraph 2, the outcome of revisits and verification visits and whether it observes considerable lack of progress in the implementation of an action plan.
Amendment 245 #
2021/0140(CNS)
3. The evaluation report drafted in accordance with Article 21(2), (3) and (4) shall focus oninclude the findings that lead to the determination of a serious deficiency. It shall not contain recommendations. The Commission shall transmit the draft evaluation report to the evaluated Member State within two weeks of the end of the evaluation activity.
Amendment 270 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 24 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 377 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) The notion of remote biometric identification system as used in this Regulation should be defined functionally, as an AI system intended for the identification of natural persons at a distance through the comparison of a person’s biometric data with the biometric data contained in a reference databasedatabase data repository, excluding verification/authentication systems whose sole purpose is to confirm that a specific natural person is the person he or she claims to be, and systems that are used to confirm the identity of a natural person for the sole purpose of having access to a service, a device or premises, and without prior knowledge whether the targeted person will be present and can be identified, irrespectively of the particular technology, processes or types of biometric data used. Considering their different characteristics and manners in which they are used, as well as the different risks involved, a distinction should be made between ‘real-time’ and ‘post’ remote biometric identification systems. In the case of ‘real-time’ systems, the capturing of the biometric data, the comparison and the identification occur all instantaneously, near-instantaneously or in any event without a significant delay. In this regard, there should be no scope for circumventing the rules of this Regulation on the ‘real- time’ use of the AI systems in question by providing for minor delays. ‘Real-time’ systems involve the use of ‘live’ or ‘near- ‘live’ material, such as video footage, generated by a camera or other device with similar functionality. In the case of ‘post’ systems, in contrast, the biometric data have already been captured and the comparison and identification occur only after a significant delay. This involves material, such as pictures or video footage generated by closed circuit television cameras or private devices, which has been generated before the use of the system in respect of the natural persons concerned.
Amendment 400 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12 a (new)
Recital 12 a (new)
(12 a) This Regulation should also ensure harmonisation and consistency in definitions and terminology as biometric techniques can, in the light of their primary function, be divided into techniques of biometric identification, authentication and verification. Biometric authentication means the process of matching an identifier to a specific stored identifier in order to grant access to a device or service, whilst biometric verification refers to the process of confirming that an individual is who they claim to be. As they do not involve any “one-to-many” comparison of biometric data that is the distinctive trait of identification, both biometric verification and authentication should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation.
Amendment 541 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) As regards stand-alone AI systems, meaning high-risk AI systems other than those that are safety components of products, or which are themselves products, it is appropriate to classify them as high-risk if, in the light of their intended purpose, they pose a high risk of harm to the health, natural environment, and safety or the fundamental rights of persons, taking into account both the severity of the possible harm and its probability of occurrence and they are used in a number of specifically pre-defined areas specified in the Regulation. The identification of those systems is based on the same methodology and criteria envisaged also for any future amendments of the list of high-risk AI systems.
Amendment 548 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) Technical inaccuracies of AI systems intended for the remote biometric identification of natural persons can lead to biased results and entail discriminatory effects. This is particularly relevant when it comes to age, ethnicity, sex or disabilities. Therefore, ‘real-time’ and ‘post’ remote biometric identification systems should be classified as high-risk. In view of the risks that they may pose, both types of remote biometric identification systems should be subject to specific requirements on logging capabilities and, when appropriate and justified by a proven added value to the protection of health, safety and fundamental rights, human oversight.
Amendment 574 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) Another area in which the use of AI systems deserves special consideration is the access to and enjoyment of certain essential private and public services and benefits necessary for people to fully participate in society or to improve one’s standard of living. In particular, AI systems used to evaluate the credit score or creditworthiness of natural persons should be classified as high-risk AI systems, since they determine those persons’ access to financial resources or essential services such as housing, electricity, and telecommunication services. AI systems used for this purpose may lead to discrimination of persons or groups and perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination, for example based on racial or ethnic origins, disabilities, age, sexual orientation, or create new forms of discriminatory impacts. Considering the very limited scale of the impact and the available alternatives on the market, it is appropriate to exempt AI systems for the purpose of creditworthiness assessment and credit scoring when put into service by small-scale providers for their own use. Due to the fact that AI systems related to low-value credits for the purchase of moveables does not cause high risk, it is proposed to exclude this category from the scope of high-risk AI category as well. Natural persons applying for or receiving public assistance benefits and services from public authorities are typically dependent on those benefits and services and in a vulnerable position in relation to the responsible authorities. If AI systems are used for determining whether such benefits and services should be denied, reduced, revoked or reclaimed by authorities, they may have a significant impact on persons’ livelihood and may infringe their fundamental rights, such as the right to social protection, non- discrimination, human dignity or an effective remedy. Those systems should therefore be classified as high-risk. Nonetheless, this Regulation should not hamper the development and use of innovative approaches in the public administration, which would stand to benefit from a wider use of compliant and safe AI systems, provided that those systems do not entail a high risk to legal and natural persons. Finally, AI systems used to dispatch or establish priority in the dispatching of emergency first response services should also be classified as high- risk since they make decisions in very critical situations for the life and health of persons and their property.
Amendment 641 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48
Recital 48
(48) High-risk AI systems should be designed and developed in such a way that natural persons canmay, when appropriate, oversee their functioning. For this purpose, when it brings a proven added value to the protection of health, safety and fundamental rights, appropriate human oversight measures should be identified by the provider of the system before its placing on the market or putting into service. In particular, where appropriate, such measures should guarantee that the system is subject to in- built operational constraints that cannot be overridden by the system itself and is responsive to the human operator, and that the natural persons to whom human oversight has been assigned have the necessary competence, training and authority to carry out that role.
Amendment 650 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 51
Recital 51
(51) Cybersecurity plays a crucial role in ensuring that AI systems are resilient against attempts to alter their use, behaviour, performance or compromise their security properties by malicious third parties exploiting the system’s vulnerabilities. Cyberattacks against AI systems can leverage AI specific assets, such as training data sets (e.g. data poisoning) or trained models (e.g. adversarial attacks), or exploit vulnerabilities in the AI system’s digital assets or the underlying ICT infrastructure. To ensure a level of cybersecurity appropriate to the risks, suitable measures should therefore be taken by the providers of high-risk AI systems, as well as the notified bodies, competent national authorities and market surveillance authorities accessing the data of providers of high-risk AI systems, also taking into account as appropriate the underlying ICT infrastructure.
Amendment 658 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 54
Recital 54
(54) The provider should establish a sound quality management system, ensure the accomplishment of the required conformity assessment procedure, draw up the relevant documentation in the language of the Member State concerned and establish a robust post-market monitoring system. All elements, from design to future development, must be transparent for the user. Public authorities which put into service high-risk AI systems for their own use may adopt and implement the rules for the quality management system as part of the quality management system adopted at a national or regional level, as appropriate, taking into account the specificities of the sector and the competences and organisation of the public authority in question.
Amendment 717 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 70 a (new)
Recital 70 a (new)
(70 a) Suppliers of general purpose AI systems and, as relevant, other third parties that may supply other software tools and components, including pre- trained models and data, should cooperate, as appropriate, with providers that use such systems or components for an intended purpose under this Regulation in order to enable their compliance with applicable obligations under this Regulation and their cooperation, as appropriate, with the competent authorities established under this Regulation. In such cases, the provider may, by written agreement, specify the information or other assistance that such supplier will furnish in order to enable the provider to comply with its obligations herein.
Amendment 734 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 73 a (new)
Recital 73 a (new)
(73 a) AI solutions and services designed to combat fraud and protect consumers against fraudulent activities should not be considered high risk, nor prohibited. As a matter of substantial public interest, it is vital that this Regulation does not undermine the incentive of the industry to create and roll out solutions designed to combat fraud across the European Union.
Amendment 870 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 3
Article 2 – paragraph 3
3. This Regulation shall not apply to AI systems designed, modified, developed or used exclusively for military purposes.
Amendment 884 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Article 2 – paragraph 4
4. This Regulation shall not apply to public authorities in a third country nor to international organisations falling within the scope of this Regulation pursuant to paragraph 1, where those authorities or organisations use AI systems in the framework of international cooperation or agreements for law enforcement and judicial cooperation or in the context of border checks, asylum and immigration related activities with the Union or with one or more Member States.
Amendment 887 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. This Regulation shall not apply to AI systems, including their output, specifically developed or used exclusively for scientific research and development purposes.
Amendment 895 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 5 b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. This Regulation shall not affect any research and development activity regarding AI systems in so far as such activity does not lead to placing an AI system on the market or putting it into service.
Amendment 905 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1
(1) ‘artificial intelligence system’ (AI system) means software that dis developed with one or more of the techniques and approaches listed in Annex I and can, for a given set of human-defined objectives,play intelligent behaviour by analysing their environment and taking actions – with some degree of autonomy – to achieve specific goals, which: (a) receives machine and/or human-based data and inputs; (b) infers how to achieve a given set of human-defined objectives using data- driven models created through learning or reasoning implemented with the techniques and approaches listed in Annex I, and (c) generates outputs such as content, in the form of content (generative AI systems), predictions, recommendations, or decisions, which influencinge the environments ithey interacts with;
Amendment 932 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2
(2) ‘provider’ means a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body that develops an AI system or that has an AI system developed with a view to placing itand places that system on the market or puttings it into service under its own name or trademark, whether for payment or free of charge;
Amendment 944 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 4
(4) ‘usdeployer’ means any natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body using an AI system under its authority, except where the AI system is used in the course of a personal non- professional activity;
Amendment 950 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 4 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 4 a (new)
(4 a) 'End-user' means any natural person who, in the framework of employment, contract or agreement with the deployer, uses the AI system under the authority of the deployer;
Amendment 966 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 12
(12) ‘intended purpose’ means the specific use for which an AI system is intended by the provider, including the specific context and conditions of use, as specified in the information supplied by the provider in the instructions for use, promotional or sales materials and statements, as well as in the technical documentation; general purpose AI systems shall not be considered as having an intended purpose within the meaning of this Regulation;
Amendment 975 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 13
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 13
(13) ‘reasonably foreseeable misuse’ means the use of an AI system in a way that is not in accordance with its intended purposepurpose as indicated in instruction for use or technical specification, but which may result from reasonably foreseeable human behaviour or interaction with other systems;
Amendment 1050 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 36
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 36
(36) ‘remote biometric identification system’ means an AI system for the purpose of identifying natural persons, at a physical distance through the comparison of a person’s biometric data with the biometric data contained in a reference database, repository, excluding verification/authentication systems whose sole purpose is to confirm that a specific natural person is the person he or she claims to be, and systems that are used to confirm the identity of a natural person for the sole purpose of having access to a service, a device or premises; and without prior knowledge of the user of the AI system whether the person will be present and can be identified ; ;
Amendment 1101 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 a (new)
(44 a) 'critical infrastructure' means an asset, system or part thereof which is necessary for the delivery of a service that is essential for the maintenance of vital societal functions or economic activities within the meaning of Article 2(4) and (5) of Directive (…) on the resilience of critical entities;
Amendment 1147 #
2021/0106(COD)
Article 4 a Notification about the use of an AI system 1. Users of AI systems which affect natural persons, in particular, by evaluating or assessing them, making predictions about them, recommending information, goods or services to them or determining or influencing their access to goods and services, shall inform the natural persons that they are subject to the use of such an AI system. 2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall include a clear and concise indication of the user and the purpose of the AI system, information about the rights of the natural person conferred under this Regulation, and a reference to publicly available resource where more information about the AI system can be found, in particular the relevant entry in the EU database referred to in Article 60, if applicable. 3. This information shall be presented in a concise, intelligible and easily accessible form, including for persons with disabilities. 4. This obligation shall be without prejudice to other Union or Member State laws, in particular Regulation 2016/679, Directive 2016/680, Regulation 2022/XXX.
Amendment 1149 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 b (new)
Article 4 b (new)
Article 4 b Explanation of individual decision- making 1. A decision made by or with the assistance of a high risk AI system which produces legal effects concerning a person, or which similarly significantly affects that person, shall be accompanied by a meaningful, relevant explanation of at least: (a) the role of the AI system in the decision-making process; (b) the input data relating to the affected person, including the indication of his or her personal data on the basis of which the decision was made; (c) for high-risk AI systems, the link to the entry in the EU database referred to in Article 60; (d) the information about the person’s rights under this Regulation, including the right to lodge a complaint with the national supervisory authority. For information on input data under point b) to be meaningful it must include an easily understandable description of inferences drawn from other data. 2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to the use of AI systems: (a) that are authorised by law to detect, prevent, investigate and prosecute criminal offences or other unlawful behaviour under the conditions laid down in Article 3(41) and Article 52 of this Regulation, if not explaining the decision is necessary and proportionate for detection, prevention, investigation and prosecution of a specific of-fence; (b) for which exceptions from, or restrictions to, the obligation under paragraph 1 follow from Union or Member State law, which lays down appropriate other safeguards for the affected person’s rights and freedoms and legitimate interests. 3. The explanation within the meaning of paragraph 1 shall be provided at the time when the decision is communicated to the affected person and shall be provided in a clear, easily understandable, and intelligible way, accessible for persons with disabilities. 4. If the affected person believes that the decision produced legal effects or similarly significantly affects him or her, but the deployer has not provided the explanation, he or she may request it. The deployer shall inform the affected person within 7 days about how he assessed the request and if it is accepted, the explanation shall be provided without undue delay. If the request is refused, the deployer shall in-form the affected person of the right to complain to the national supervisory authority.
Amendment 1168 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system that deploys subliminal techniques beyond a person’s consciousness in order to materially distort a person’s behaviour in a manner intended that causes or is likely to cause that person or another person physical or psychological harm;
Amendment 1207 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – point i
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – point i
(i) preferential, detrimental or unfavourable treatment of certain natural persons or whole groups thereof in social contexts which are unrelated to the contexts in which the data was originally generated or collected;
Amendment 1218 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – point ii
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – point ii
(ii) preferential, detrimental or unfavourable treatment of certain natural persons or whole groups thereof that is unjustified or disproportionate to their social behaviour or its gravity;
Amendment 1255 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d – point i
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d – point i
(i) the targeted search for specific potential victims of crime, including missing children;
Amendment 1271 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d – point iii
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d – point iii
Amendment 1282 #
2021/0106(COD)
(iii a) searching for missing persons, especially those who are minors or have medical conditions that affect memory, communication, or independent decision- making skills;
Amendment 1431 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the product whose safety component is the AI system, or the AI system itself as a product, is required to undergo a third-party conformity assessment related to safety with a view to the placing on the market or putting into service of that product pursuant to the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex II.
Amendment 1441 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. In addition to the high-risk AI systems referred to in paragraph 1, AI systems referred to in Annex III shall also be considered high-risk, if they pose a risk of harm to either physical health and safety or human rights, or both.
Amendment 1444 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. The classification as high-risk as a consequence of Article 6(1) and 6(2) shall be disregarded for AI systems whose intended purpose demonstrates that the generated output is a recommendation requiring a human intervention to convert this recommendation into a decision and for AI systems which do not lead to autonomous decisions or actions of the overall system.
Amendment 1451 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 b (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. When assessing an AI system for the purposes of paragraph 1 of Article 6, a safety component shall be assessed against the essential health and safety requirements of the relevant EU harmonisation legislation listed in Annex II.
Amendment 1483 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the AI systems pose a risk of harm to the health, natural environment and safety, or a risk of adverse impact on fundamental rights, that is, in respect of its severity and probability of occurrence, equivalent to or greater than the risk of harm or of adverse impact posed by the high-risk AI systems already referred to in Annex III.
Amendment 1492 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. When assessing for the purposes of paragraph 1 whether an AI system poses a risk of harm to the health, natural environment and safety or a risk of adverse impact on fundamental rights that is equivalent to or greater than the risk of harm posed by the high-risk AI systems already referred to in Annex III, the Commission shall take into account the following criteria:
Amendment 1509 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) the extent to which the use of an AI system has already caused harm to the health, natural environment and safety or adverse impact on the fundamental rights or has given rise to significant concerns in relation to the materialisation of such harm or adverse impact, as demonstrated by reports or documented allegations submitted to national competent authorities;
Amendment 1607 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. The risk management measures referred to in paragraph 2, point (d) shall be such that anythe overall residual risk associated with each hazard as well as the overall residual risk ofof the high-risk AI systems is reasonably judged to be acceptable, having regard to the benefits that the high-risk AI systems is judged acceptablereasonably expected to deliver and, provided that the high- risk AI system is used in accordance with its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse, subject to terms, conditions as made available by the provider, and contractual and license restrictions. Those residual risks shall be communicated to the user.
Amendment 1617 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
In identifying the most appropriate risk management measures, the following outcomes shall be ensurpursued:
Amendment 1620 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) elimination or reduction of risks as far as possible through adequcommercially reasonable and technologically feasible in light of the generally acknowledged state of the art, through appropriate design and development measures;
Amendment 1635 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
In seeking to eliminatinge or reducinge risks related to the use of the high-risk AI system, due consideration shall be given to the technical knowledge, experience, education, training to be expected by the user and the environment in which the system is intended to be used.
Amendment 1640 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 5
Article 9 – paragraph 5
5. High-risk AI systems shall be tested for the purposes of identifying the most appropriate risk management measures for the specific scenario in which the system will be operating and to ensure that a system is performing appropriately for a given use case. Testing shall ensure that high-risk AI systems perform in a manner that is consistently for with their intended purpose and they are in compliance with the requirements set out in this Chapter.
Amendment 1658 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 7
Article 9 – paragraph 7
7. The testing of the high-risk AI systems shall be performed, as appropriate, at any point in time throughout the development process, and, in any event, prior to the placing on the market or the putting into service. Testing shall be made against preliminarily defined metrics and probabilistic thresholdrubrics that are appropriate to the intended purpose of the high-risk AI system.
Amendment 1668 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 9
Article 9 – paragraph 9
9. For credit institutions regulated by Directive 2013/36/EUAI systems already covered by Union law that requires a specific risk assessment, the aspects described in paragraphs 1 to 8 shall be part ofmay be incorporated into theat risk management procedures established by those institutions pursuant to Article 74 of that Directivassessment, without the need to conduct a separate, additional risk assessment in order to comply with this Article.
Amendment 1677 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. High-risk AI systems which make use of techniques involving the training of models with data shall be developed on the basis of training, validation and testing data sets that meet the quality and fairness criteria referred to in paragraphs 2 to 5.
Amendment 1682 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Training, validation and testing data sets shall be subject to appropriate data governance and management practices. T for the entire lifecycle of data processing. Where relevant to appropriate risk management measures, those practices shall concern in particular,
Amendment 1697 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point e
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point e
(e) a priorn assessment of the availability, quantity and suitability of the data sets that are needed;
Amendment 1700 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point f
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point f
(f) examination in view of possible biases, that are likely to affect health and safety of persons or lead to discrimination prohibited by Union law;
Amendment 1704 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point g
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point g
(g) the identification of any possibleother data gaps or shortcomings that materially increase the risks of harm to the health, natural environment and safety or the fundamental rights of persons, and how those gaps and shortcomings can be addressed.
Amendment 1720 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Article 10 – paragraph 3
3. Training, validation and testing data sets shall be relevant, sufficiently diverse to mitigate bias, and, to the best extent possible, representative, free of errors and complete. They shall have the appropriate statistical properties, including, where applicable, as regards the persons or groups of persons on which the high-risk AI system is intended to be used. These characteristics of the data sets may be met at the level of individual data sets or a combination thereof.
Amendment 1731 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4
Article 10 – paragraph 4
4. Training, validation and testing data sets shall take into accountbe sufficiently diverse to accurately capture, to the extent required by the intended purpose, the characteristics or elements that are particular to the specific geographical, behavioural or functional setting within which the high- risk AI system is intended to be used.
Amendment 1740 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. To the extent that it is strictly necessary for the purposes of ensuring bias monitoring, detection and correction in relation to the high-risk AI systems, the providers of such systems may process special categories of personal data referred to in Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680 and Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, subject to appropriate safeguards for the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, including technical limitations on the re-use and use of state-of-the-art security and privacy- preserving measures, such as pseudonymisation, or encryption or biometric template protection technologies where anonymisation may significantly affect the purpose pursued.
Amendment 1769 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. High-risk AI systems shall be designed and developed with capabilities enabling the automatic recording of events (‘logs’) while the high-risk AI systems ispropriate technical and organizational measures to enable effective monitoring and human opverating. Those logging capabilities shall conform to recognised standards or common specificationsight by those using the system as well as effective supervision by regulators.
Amendment 1775 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. The logging capabilities shall ensure a level of traceability of the AI system’s functioning throughoutwhile the AI system is used within its lifecycle that is appropriate to the intended purpose of the system.
Amendment 1777 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. For records constituting trade secrets as defined in Article 2 of Directive (EU) 2016/943, provider may elect to confidentially provide such trade secrets only to relevant public authorities to the extent necessary for such authorities to perform their obligations hereunder.
Amendment 1878 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) ensure that their high-risk AI systems are compliant with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title before placing them on the market or putting them into service, and shall be responsible for compliance of these systems after that point only to the extent that they exercise actual control over relevant aspects of the system;
Amendment 2026 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Any distributor, importer, user or other third-party shall be considered a provider of a high-risk AI system for the purposes of this Regulation and shall be subject to the obligations of the provider under Article 16, in any of the following circumstances:
Amendment 2031 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) they modify the intended purpose of an AI system which is not high-risk and is already placed on the market or put into service, in a way which makes the modified system a high-risk AI system.
Amendment 2041 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1
Article 29 – paragraph 1
1. Users of high-risk AI systems shall use such systemsshall bear sole responsibility in case of any use of the AI system that is not in accordance with the instructions of use accompanying the systems, pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 5.
Amendment 2070 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Article 29 – paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Users shall monitor the performance of high-risk AI systems deployed by end-users and shall ensure that all possible malfunctioning and performance issues are recorded, and when not able to justify or ensure proper performance, communicated to the AI provider. In such cases, the provider and the user shall coordinate to establish the cause of a possible malfunctioning or performance issue.
Amendment 2081 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 a (new)
Article 29 a (new)
Amendment 2101 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 2
Article 33 – paragraph 2
2. Notified bodies shall satisfy the organisational, quality management, resources and process requirememinimum cybersecurity requirements set out for public administration entities identified as operators of essential services pursuants that are necessary to fulfil their tasks.o Directive (…) on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity across the Union, repealing Directive (EU) 2016/1148;
Amendment 2105 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 6
Article 33 – paragraph 6
6. Notified bodies shall have documented procedures in place ensuring that their personnel, committees, subsidiaries, subcontractors and any associated body or personnel of external bodies respect the confidentiality of the information which comes into their possession during the performance of conformity assessment activities, except when disclosure is required by law. The staff of notified bodies shall be bound to observe professional secrecy with regard to all information obtained in carrying out their tasks under this Regulation, except in relation to the notifying authorities of the Member State in which their activities are carried out. Any information and documentation obtained by notified bodies pursuant to the provisions of this Article shall be treated in compliance with the confidentiality obligations set out in Article 70.
Amendment 2129 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41
Article 41
Amendment 2254 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 51 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Before using an AI system, public authorities shall register the uses of that system in the EU database referred to in Article 60. A new registration entry must be completed by the user for each use of an AI system.
Amendment 2284 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 a (new)
Article 52 a (new)
Article 52 a General purpose AI systems 1. The placing on the market, putting into service or use of general purpose AI systems shall not, by themselves only, make those systems subject to the provisions of this Regulation. 2. Any person who places on the market or puts into service under its own name or trademark or uses a general purpose AI system made available on the market or put into service for an intended purpose that makes it subject to the provisions of this Regulation shall be considered the provider of the AI system subject to the provisions of this Regulation. 3. Paragraph 2 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to any person who integrates a general purpose AI system made available on the market, with or without modifying it, into an AI system whose intended purpose makes it subject to the provisions of this Regulation. 4. The provisions of this Article shall apply irrespective of whether the general purpose AI system is open source software or not.
Amendment 2297 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 1
Article 53 – paragraph 1
1. AI regulatory sandboxes established by one or more Member States competent authorities or the European Data Protection Supervisor shall provide a controlled environment that facilitates the development, testing and validation of innovative AI systems for a limited time before their placement on the market or putting into service pursuant to a specific plan. This shall take place under the direct supervision and guidance by the competent authorities with a view to ensuring compliance with the requirements of this Regulation and, where relevant, other Union and Member States legislation supervised within the sandbox.
Amendment 2332 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 5
Article 53 – paragraph 5
5. Member States’ competent authorities that have established AI regulatory sandboxes shall coordinate their activities and cooperate within the framework of the European Artificial Intelligence Board. They shall submit annual reports to the Board and the Commission on the results from the implementation of those scheme, including good practices, lessons learnt and recommendations on their setup and, where relevant, on the application of this Regulation and other Union legislation supervised within the sandbox.
Amendment 2434 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 1
Article 57 – paragraph 1
1. The Board shall be composed of the national supervisory authorities, who shall be represented by the head or equivalent high-level official of that authority, and the European Data Protection Supervisor, AI ethics experts and industry representatives. Other national authorities may be invited to the meetings, where the issues discussed are of relevance for them.
Amendment 2453 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 3
Article 57 – paragraph 3
3. The Board shall be co-chaired by the Commission and a representative chosen from among the delegates of the Member States. The Commission shall convene the meetings and prepare the agenda in accordance with the tasks of the Board pursuant to this Regulation and with its rules of procedure. The Commission shall provide administrative and analytical support for the activities of the Board pursuant to this Regulation.
Amendment 2574 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 59 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. National competent authorities shall satisfy the minimum cybersecurity requirements set out for public administration entities identified as operators of essential services pursuant to Directive (…) on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity across the Union, repealing Directive (EU) 2016/1148.
Amendment 2575 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 4 b (new)
Article 59 – paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Any information and documentation obtained by the national competent authorities pursuant to the provisions of this Article shall be treated in compliance with the confidentiality obligations set out in Article 70.
Amendment 2587 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 7
Article 59 – paragraph 7
7. National competent authorities may provide guidance and advice on the implementation of this Regulation, including to small-scale providers. Whenever national competent authorities intend to provide guidance and advice with regard to an AI system in areas covered by other Union legislation, the competent national authorities under that Union legislation shall be consulted, as appropriate. Member States mayshall also establish one central contact point for communication with operators. In addition, the central contact point of each Member State should be contactable through electronic communications means.
Amendment 2630 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 60 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 60 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. The EU database shall not contain any confidential business information or trade secrets of a natural or legal person, including source code.
Amendment 2635 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 60 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 60 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Any information and documentation obtained by the Commission and Member States pursuant to the provisions of this Article shall be treated in compliance with the confidentiality obligations set out in Article 70.
Amendment 2646 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 2
Article 61 – paragraph 2
2. The post-market monitoring system shall actively and systematically collect, document and analyse relevant data provided by users and end-users or collected through other sources on the performance of high- risk AI systems throughout their lifetime, and allow the provider to evaluate the continuous compliance of AI systems with the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2.
Amendment 2681 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 64 – paragraph 1
Article 64 – paragraph 1
1. Access to data and documentation in the context of their activities, the market surveillance authorities shall be granted fullsufficient access to the training, validation and testing datasets used by the provider, including through application programming interfaces (‘API’) or other appropriate technical means and tools enabling remote access, taking into account the scope of access agreed with the relevant data subjects or data holders.
Amendment 2691 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 64 – paragraph 2
Article 64 – paragraph 2
2. Where necessary to assess the conformity of the high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2 and upon a reasoned request, the market surveillance authorities shall be granted access to the source code of the AI system. . AI providers or deployers shall support market surveillance authorities with the necessary facilities to carry out testing to confirm compliance.
Amendment 2805 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 70 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 70 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Where the activities of national competent authorities and bodies notified under the provisions of this Article infringe intellectual property rights, Member States shall provide for the measures, procedures and remedies necessary to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights in full application of Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
Amendment 2807 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 70 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 70 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Information and data collected by national competent authorities and notified bodies and referred to in Paragraph 1 shall be: a) collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a way incompatible with those purposes;further processing for archiving purposes in the public interest, for scientific or historical research purposes or for statistical purposes shall not be considered incompatible with the original purposes ("purpose limitation"); b) adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed (‘data minimisation’);
Amendment 2822 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 71 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. In cases where administrative fines have been imposed under Article 83 of Regulation 2016/679, no further penalties shall be imposed on operators under the AI Act.
Amendment 2887 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(a a) the intentional or negligent character of the infringement;
Amendment 2888 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point a b (new)
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point a b (new)
(a b) any relevant previous infringement;
Amendment 2890 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(b a) the degree of cooperation with the supervisory authority, in order to remedy the infringement and mitigate the possible adverse effects of the infringement;
Amendment 2891 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point b b (new)
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point b b (new)
(b b) any action taken by the provider to mitigate the damage suffered by subjects;
Amendment 2893 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) any other aggravating or mitigating factor applicable to the circumstances of the case, such as financial benefits gained, or losses avoided, directly or indirectly, from the infringement.
Amendment 2933 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 80 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 80 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
In Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2018/858 the following paragraph iss are added:
Amendment 2935 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 80 – paragraph 1
Article 80 – paragraph 1
Regulation (EU) 2018/858
Article 5
Article 5
4 a. The Commission shall, prior to fulfilling the obligation pursuant to paragraph 4, provide a reasonable explanation based on a gap analysis of existing sectoral legislation in the automotive sector to determine the existence of potential gaps relating to Artificial Intelligence therein, and consult relevant stakeholders, in order to avoid duplications and overregulation, in line with the Better Regulation principles.
Amendment 2939 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 82 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 82 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
In Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2019/2144, the following paragraph iss are added:
Amendment 2940 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 82 – paragraph 1
Article 82 – paragraph 1
Regulation (EU) 2019/2144
Article 11
Article 11
3 a. The Commission shall, prior to fulfilling the obligation pursuant to paragraph 3, provide a reasonable explanation based on a gap analysis of existing sectoral legislation in the automotive sector to determine the existence of potential gaps relating to Artificial Intelligence therein, and consult relevant stakeholders, in order to avoid duplications and overregulation, in line with the Better Regulation principles.
Amendment 2966 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 – paragraph 1
Article 84 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall assess the need for amendment of the list in Annex III once a yearevery 24 months following the entry into force of this Regulation and until the end of the period of the delegation of power. The findings of that assessment shall be presented to the European Parliament and the Council.
Amendment 2973 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 – paragraph 2
Article 84 – paragraph 2
2. By [threewo years after the date of application of this Regulation referred to in Article 85(2)] and every fourthree years thereafter, the Commission shall submit a report on the evaluation and review of this Regulation to the European Parliament and to the Council. The reports shall be made public.
Amendment 3018 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point b
Annex I – point b
(b) Logic- and knowledge-based approaches, including knowledge representation, inductive (logic) programming, knowledge bases, inference and deductive engines, (symbolic) reasoning and expert systems;Other data-driven approaches, including search and optimization methods.
Amendment 3025 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point c
Annex I – point c
(c) Statistical approaches, Bayesian estimation, search and optimization methodsif they are used to extract decisions from data in an automated way and search.
Amendment 3051 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 1 – introductory part
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 1 – introductory part
1. Biometrics systems identification and categorisation of natural persons:
Amendment 3063 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a
(a) AI biometric identification systems intended to be used for the ‘real- time’ and ‘post’ remote biometric identification of natural persons without their agreement;
Amendment 3090 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
(a) AI systems intended to be used as safety components in the management and operation of road traffic and the supply of water, gas, heating and electricity, whose failure or malfunctioning would directly cause significant harm to the health, natural environment or safety of natural persons.
Amendment 3113 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b
(b) AI systems intended to be used forto makinge decisions on promotion and termination of work-related contractual relationships, for task allocationbased on individual behaviour or personal traits or characteristics, and for monitoring and evaluating performance and behaviour of persons in such relationships that have a likelihood of causing harm to the physical health and safety or adversely impact on the fundamental rights or have given rise to significant concerns in relation to the materialisation of such harm or adverse impact.
Amendment 3130 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b
(b) AI systems intended to be used to evaluate the creditworthiness of natural persons or establish their credit scoreassessment of insurance risk, with the exception of AI systems put into service by small scale providers for their own use or AI systems related to low-value credits for the purchase of moveables;
Amendment 3144 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point c a (new)
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point c a (new)
(c a) AI systems intended to be used for insurance premium setting, underwritings and claims assessments, with the exception of AI systems related to low- value property insurance.
Amendment 3260 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
(a) provided that no confidential information or trade secrets are disclosed, the methods and steps performed for the development of the AI system, including, where relevant, recourse to pre- trained systems or tools provided by third parties and how these have been used, integrated or modified by the provider;
Amendment 3262 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
(b) provided that no confidential information or trade secrets are disclosed, the design specifications of the system, namely the general logic of the AI system and of the algorithms; the key design choices including the rationale and assumptions made, also with regard to persons or groups of persons on which the system is intended to be used; the main classification choices; what the system is designed to optimise for and the relevance of the different parameters; the decisions about any possible trade-off made regarding the technical solutions adopted to comply with the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2;
Amendment 26 #
2020/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 34 #
2020/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Acknowledges the current role and future potential of using artificial intelligence and big data in fighting corruption and the misuse of public funds; points out that all information and data must be processed in a proper way to ensure data protection and the privacy of citizens; stresses that enforcement authorities have to be ahead of criminal who increasingly use new technologies and seize any opportunity to expand their illegal activities, online or offline;
Amendment 6 #
2020/2167(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes with concern the findings of the Court of Auditors’ (the Court) in its special report1 ; takes the view that any future special report by the Cunderlines that Frontex communicates extensively abourt on the Agency's activities should include analysis regarding respect for and the protection of fundamental rightits activities, which was not taken duly into account by the auditors; _________________ 1 https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocu ments/SR21_08/SR_Frontex_EN.pdf
Amendment 14 #
2020/2167(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes with regret the weaknesses detected with respect to the Agency’s primary activities in support of the fight against irregular immigration and the fight against cross-border crime; which are caused by an incomplete implementation of the 2016 mandate and the failure of the Agency to take the measures necessary to adapt its organisation to fully implement that mandate; notes with concern that the Court identifies a significant risk that the Agency will struggle to carry out the mandate given to it by Regulation (EU) 2019/18962 ; acknowledges the gaps and inconsistencies of the information exchange network and further acknowledges the weaknesses in Member States’ implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1052/2013 establishing the European border surveillance system (EUROSUR); _________________ 2Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624 (OJ L 295, 14.11.2019, p. 1).elcomes however the fact that the Agency has undergone numerous structural changes since the introduction of the 2019/1896 Regulation with the establishment of the standing corps, the establishment of two additional Deputy Executive Directors (three in total) and the enhancement and regrouping of the Divisions to cope with the new mandate;
Amendment 29 #
2020/2167(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. UrgWelcomes the Agency’s madoption of the Frontex Fundamental Rights Strategy by the Management bBoard to swiftly adopt the action plan to implement the updated fin February 2021 following extensive rounds of consultations and in close cooperation with the Fundamental rRights strategy and improve the mechanisms for monitoring and reporting fundamental rights violations and complaints in the AgencyOfficer, as well as the Consultative Forum and other stakeholders, with a view to have the Action Plan ready for adoption by the Management Board in September 2021;
Amendment 48 #
2020/2167(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Declares that, as all of the above issues have not been adequately clarified and presented by the Agency to Parliament, including the issues set out in the recent special report of the Court, and until the OLAF investigation is completed, the Parliament is not in a position to grant discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2019.
Amendment 26 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 23
Citation 23
Amendment 33 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 25
Citation 25
Amendment 68 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the preceding decade has seen brazen attacks against Union values in several Member States; whereas international comparisons and Parliament resolutions have evidenced considerable democratic backsliding in Hungary and Poland in particularinternational comparisons and Parliament resolutions regularly monitor democratic standards in the Member States; whereas Parliament has been calling since 2016 for a comprehensive, preventive and evidence- based monitoring in this field via an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights;
Amendment 78 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas breaches of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU weaken the cohesion of the European project, the rights of all Union citizens and mutual trust among the Member Statestrengthen the rights of all Union citizens;
Amendment 84 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the Commission is preparing to publish an annual rule of law report, to be followed by a Strategy for the Implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and a European Democracy Action Plan;
Amendment 89 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas athe European Court of Auditors has issued an opinion regarding the regulation on the protection of the Union’s budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States, conce adopted, would become an indispensable tool in safeguardluding that the regulation lacks clear and detailed criteria and definitions of deficiencies ing the rule of law within the Union;
Amendment 92 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. Emphasises that the opinion of the Council Legal Service of 25 October 2018 concluded that secondary legislation cannot circumvent the procedure laid down in Article 7 TEU and that the rule of law cannot be used as a criterion triggering the mechanism referred to in the Commission’s proposal for a regulation on the protection of the Union’s budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States, since this would lead to the circumvention of Article 7 TEU and would be equivalent to it, and would subsequently be easy to challenge before the Court of Justice of the European Union;
Amendment 101 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas any monitoring mechanism must closely involve stakeholders active in the protection and promotion of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, including civil society, Council of Europe and United Nations bodies, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, national human rights institutions, national parliaments and national and local authorities;
Amendment 111 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. emphasises the urgent need for the Union to develop a robust and positive agenda for protecting and reinforcing democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights for all its citizens; Insists that the Union must remain a champion of freedom and justice in Europe and the world;
Amendment 121 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Warns that the Union is facing an unprecedented and escalating crisis of its founding values, which threatens its long- term survival as a democratic peace project; is gravely concerned by the rise and entrenchment of autocratic and illiberal tendencies, further compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic andis gravely concerned by the economic recession, as well as corruption, and state capture, in several Member States; underlines the dangers of this trendthey present for the cohesion of the Union’s legal order, the functioning of itsthe single market, and the effectiveness of its common policies and its international credibility;
Amendment 132 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recognises that the Union remainsis already structurally ill-equipped to tackle democratic and rule of law backsliding in the Member States; regrets the inability of the Council to make meaningful progress in enforcing Union values in ongoing Article 7 TEU procedures; notes with concern the disjointed nature of the Union’s toolkit in that fieldconsiders that the Council effectively enforces Union values;
Amendment 147 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. WelcomNotes the Commission’s work on the Annual Rule of Law Report; notes, however, that it fails to encompass the areas of democracy and fundamental rights; reiterates the need for a comprehensive monitoring mechanism enshrined in a legal act binding Parliament, the Council and the Commission to a transparent and regularised process, with clearly defined responsibilities, so that the protection and promotion of Union values becomes a permanent and visible part of the Union agenda;
Amendment 155 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 170 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that the Annual Monitoring Cycle must contain country- specific recommendations, with timelines and targets for implementation, to be followed up in subsequent annual or urgent reports; stresses that failures to implement the recommendations must be linked to concrete Union enforcement measures;
Amendment 174 #
2020/2072(INL)
Amendment 177 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Points out that the Mechanism should consolidate and supersede existing instruments, in particular the Annual Rule of Law Report, the Commission’s Rule of Law Framework, the Council’s Rule of Law Dialogue and the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), while increasing complementarity and coherence with other available tools, including infringement procedures under Article 7 TEU, budgetary conditionality once in force, and the European Semester; is of the opinion that the Annual Monitoring Cycle can fulfil the objectives of the CVM for Bulgaria and Romania, thus contributing to equal treatment of all Member States; considers that the three institutions should use the findings from the Annual Monitoring Cycle in their assessment for the purposes of triggering Article 7 TEU and Regulation (EU) 2020/xxxx of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the Union's budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States11; _________________ 11[instead of xxxx insert final number of 2018/136(COD) in the text and correct OJ reference in footnote] OJ C ..., …, p. …
Amendment 198 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Reaffirms the role of Parliament, in accordance with Article 7 TEU, in monitoring compliance with Union values; reiterates the call for Parliament to be present in Article 7 hearings when it is Parliament that initiated the procedure; believes that the Mechanism, underpinned by an interinstitutional agreement, will provide the necessary framework for better coordination;
Amendment 206 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Is of the view that, in the long- term, strengthening the Union’s ability to promote and defend its constitutional core will require Treaty change; looks forward to the reflection and conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe in that regard both the Member States and the Union will help to promote and defend fundamental values;
Amendment 210 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 218 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 33 #
2020/2022(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas a small number of mostly non-European service providers have significantmonopoly over the market power and exert influence on the rights and freedoms of individuals, our societies and democracies, thus also giving them enormous influence on the functioning of all Community countries and their citizens;
Amendment 43 #
2020/2022(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas some forms of harmful content may be legal, yet detrimental to society or democracy, with examples such as opaque political advertising and disinformation on COVID-19 causes and remedies;
Amendment 49 #
2020/2022(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
Amendment 53 #
2020/2022(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
Amendment 57 #
2020/2022(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas the lack of robust public data on the prevalence and removal of illegal and harmful content online, as well as the lack of proper transparency from internet platforms and services as to the algorithms they use, creates a deficit of accountability;
Amendment 69 #
2020/2022(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas according to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), jurisprudence host providers may have recourse to automated search tools and technologies to assess if content is equivalent to content previously declared unlawful, and should thus be removed following an order from a Member Stateutomated search tools and technologies to assess if content is equivalent to content previously declared unlawful are unreliable and do not provide adequate protection for freedom of expression and civil liberties online; whereas any attempt to proactively filter content should be limited, and any automatic deletion of content must always be carried out under human supervision and action;
Amendment 72 #
2020/2022(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)
Recital L a (new)
La. whereas the internet and internet platforms are still a key location for terrorist groups’ activities, and they are used as a tool for sowing propaganda, recruitment and promotion of their activities;
Amendment 106 #
2020/2022(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Deems it necessary that flagrantly illegal content is removed swiftly and consistently in order to address crimes and fundamental rights violationsterrorist propaganda; considers that voluntary codes of conduct only partially address the issuehave helped to reduce the appearance of illegal content on the internet and are a good mechanism that should be strengthened;
Amendment 115 #
2020/2022(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
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 improvedis 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, as well as between national competent authorities, should be improved, for instance by introducing tools based on cooperation and mutual trust between Member States, e.g. beyond the cross-border order to remove online content which is clearly and unquestionably illegal;
Amendment 124 #
2020/2022(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
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 and harmful restrictions being placed on the freedom of expression, political views and the right to receive a variety of often controversial information, leading to the filtering and censorship of the internet;
Amendment 146 #
2020/2022(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
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 valuesthe values that derive from the Roman civilisation and the Christian ethics that underpin the existence of the European Community; firmly believes that this should be harmonised within the digital single market;
Amendment 161 #
2020/2022(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
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 technical and operational capacities in order to address the appearance of illegal content on their services; 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 expressionthe freedom to controversial and polemical expression, as well as to restrict the promotion of various philosophical, social and political ideas;
Amendment 169 #
2020/2022(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses the need for appropriate safeguards and due process obligations, including human oversight and verification, in addition to counter notice procedures, to ensure that removal or blocking decisions are accurate, well- founded and respect fundamental rights; recalls that the possibility of judicial redress, following the final decision taken by the platforms in accordance with the internal complaints system, should be made available to satisfy the right to effective remedy;
Amendment 177 #
2020/2022(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
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 and civil rights and freedoms; stresses that proportionate sanctions should apply to those service providers that fail to comply with legitimate orders even though they possess the technical and operational capacities;
Amendment 194 #
2020/2022(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
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 contentany attempt to regulate or moderation ore political advertising policy to ensure that removals and the blocking of harmful content are limited to the absolute necessaryshould be prohibited;
Amendment 217 #
2020/2022(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls, in this regard, for a regular annual public reporting obligation for platforms, proportionate to their scale of reach and operational capacities; stresses that such reports, covering actions taken in the year preceding the year of submission, should be submitted by the end of the first quarter of that year;
Amendment 225 #
2020/2022(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls, moreover, for a regular annual public reporting obligation for national authorities;
Amendment 229 #
2020/2022(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 237 #
2020/2022(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Considers that the transparency reports drawn up by platforms and national competent authorities should be made available to thise EU bodyies, which should be tasked with drawing up yearly reports that provide a structured analysis of illegal content removal and blocking at EU level; stresses that these reports should be published annually on the public services of the EU institutions;
Amendment 246 #
2020/2022(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Stresses that thise EU bodyinstitutions should not take on the role of content moderator, but that ithey should analyse, upon complaint or on its own initiative, whether and how digital service providers amplify illegal content; calls for this regulatore EU institutions to have the power to impose proportionate fines or otherndicate corrective actions when platforms do not provide sufficient information on their procedures or algorithms in a timely manner;
Amendment 22 #
2020/2009(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 16
Citation 16
Amendment 25 #
2020/2009(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 17
Citation 17
Amendment 135 #
2020/2009(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
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; 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 opposisafeguarding independent authorities and ensuring strong independent oversight of audiovisual media against undue intervention by the state, business, international organisations and minority groups from society and even incites violence; stresses that safeguarding independent authorities and ensuring strong independent oversight of audiovisual media against undue state and commercial interventionthird countries, within and outside the EU, is crucial;
Amendment 224 #
2020/2009(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Points out that Member States must ensure, by all appropriate means, that the media, including online and social media, as well as advertising, are free from all incitement to violence or hatred directed against any person or group of persons; points out that xenophobia is the most commonly reported ground of hate speech; reiterates its call on the Commission, the Member States and social media companies to counteract the spread of racism, xenophobia and LGBTI-phobia on the internet, in cooperation with the relevant civil society organisations;
Amendment 245 #
2020/2009(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Recalls that political profiling, disinformation and manipulation of information may be used by political parties and private or public entities, and reiterates its concern about the fact that evidence of interference is continuously coming to light, often with indications of foreign influence, in the run-up to all major national and EU elections, with much of this interference benefiting anti-EU, extreme right-wing and populist candidates and targeting specific minorities and vulnerable groups;
Amendment 71 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. This Regulation complements and is without prejudice to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC.
Amendment 88 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 23 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 23 a (new)
(23 a) ‘Profiling’ means profiling as defined in Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679;
Amendment 91 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 23 b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 23 b (new)
(23 b) ‘Consent’ of the data subject means consent as defined in Article 4(11) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679;
Amendment 95 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. A provider of core platform servicesn undertaking shall be designated as gatekeeper if:
Amendment 97 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) it operatprovides a core platform service which serves as an important gateway for business users to reach end users; and
Amendment 99 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. A provider of core platform servicesn undertaking shall be presumed to satisfy:
Amendment 110 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The Commission shall regularly, and at least every 2 years, review whether the designated gatekeepers continue to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 3(1), or whether new providers of core platform services satisfy those requirements. The regular review shall also examine whether the list of affected core platform services of the gatekeeper which individually serve as an important gateway for business users to reach end users as referred to in Article 3(1)(b) needs to be adjusted.
Amendment 111 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Where the Commission, on the basis of thate review pursuant to the first subparagraph, finds that the facts on which the designation of the providers ofundertaking providing core platform services as gatekeepers was based, have changed, it shall adopt a corresponding decisiondecision in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 37a(2), confirming, amending or repealing its previous decision designating the undertaking providing core platforms services as a gatekeeper.
Amendment 114 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) refrain from combining personal data sourced from theseany of its core platform services with personal data from any other core platform service or other services offered by the gatekeeper or with personal data from third-party services, and from signing in end users to other services of the gatekeeper in order to combine personal data, unless the end user has been presented with the specific choice and provided consent in the sense of Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The gatekeeper may rely on the legal basis included under Article 6(1)(c), (d) and(e) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, where applicable;
Amendment 121 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) refrain from preventing or restricting business users from raising issues with any relevant public authority, including national courts relating to any practice of gatekeepers;
Amendment 123 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) refrain from requiring business users to use,or end users to use, and in the case of business users, also to offer or interoperate with, an identification service of the gatekeeper in the context of services offered by the business users using the core platform services of that gatekeeper;
Amendment 140 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) refrain from treating more favourably in ranking services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself or by any third party belonging to the same undertaking compared to similar services or products of third party and apply fair and non- discriminatory conditions to such ranking;
Amendment 145 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) allow business users and providers of ancillary services access to and interoperability with the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision by the gatekeeper of any ancillary services. The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking necessary and proportionate measures to ensure that third party ancillary services do not endanger the integrity of the operating system, hardware or software features provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such proportionate measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper;
Amendment 158 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point i
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point i
(i) provide business users, or third parties authorised by a business user, free of charge, with effective, high-quality, continuous and real-time access and use of aggregated or non-aggregated data, including personal data, that is provided for or generated in the context of the use of the relevant core platform services by those business users and the end users engaging with the products or services provided by those business users; for personal data, provide access and use only where the data are directly connected with the use effectuated by the end user in respect of the products or services offered by the relevant business user through the relevant core platform service, and when the end user opts in to such sharing with a consent in the sense of theArticle 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679; ;
Amendment 162 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point j
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point j
(j) provide to any third party providers of online search engines, upon their request, with access on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms to ranking, query, click and view data in relation to free and paid search generated by end users on online search engines of the gatekeeper, subject to anonymisation for the query, click and view data that constitutes personal data. The relevant data is anonymized if personal data is irreversibly altered in such a way that information does not relate to an identified or identifiable natural person or personal data rendered anonymous in such a manner that the data subject is not or no longer identifiable;
Amendment 169 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point k a (new)
(k a) refrain from making unsubscribing from a core platform service unnecessarily difficult or complicated for business users or end users
Amendment 174 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 7
Article 7 – paragraph 7
7. A gatekeeper may request the opening of proceedings pursuant to Article 18 for the Commission to determine whether the measures that the gatekeeper intends to implement or has implemented under Article 6 are effective in achieving the objective of the relevant obligation in the specific circumstances. A gatekeeper mayshall, with its request, provide a reasoned submission to explain in particular why the measures that it intends to implement or has implemented are effective in achieving the objective of the relevant obligation in the specific circumstances. . The Commission may open proceedings pursuant to Article 18 and by decision adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 37a(2) specify the measures that the gatekeeper concerned shall implement. The Commission shall adopt a decision pursuant to this provision within six months from the opening of proceedings pursuant to Article 18.
Amendment 186 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Within six months after its designation pursuant to Article 3, a gatekeeper shall submit to the Commission an independently audited description of any techniques for profiling of consumend users that the gatekeeper applies to or across its core platform services identified pursuant to Article 3. This descriptione gatekeeper makes publicly available an overview of the audited description taking into account the limitations imposed by the requirements of business secrecy. The description and its publicly available overview shall be updated at least annually.
Amendment 209 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1
Article 33 – paragraph 1
1. When threewo or more Member States request the Commission to open an investigation pursuant to Article 15 because they consider that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a provider of core platform services should be designated as a gatekeeper, the Commission shall within four months examine whether there are reasonable grounds to open such an investigation.
Amendment 210 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 33 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. When two or more Member States request the Commission to open an investigation pursuant to Article 16 because they consider that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a gatekeeper has systematically infringed the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 and has further strengthened or extended its gatekeeper position in relation to the characteristics under Article 3(1), the Commission shall within four months examine whether there are reasonable grounds to open such an investigation and the result of such examination shall be published.
Amendment 212 #
2020/0374(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 33 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. 1b. When two or more Member States request the Commission to open an investigation pursuant to Article 17 because they consider that one or more services within the digital sector should be added to the list of core platform services pursuant to Article 2(2) or that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that one or several types of practices are not effectively addressed by this Regulation and may limit the contestability of core platform services or may be unfair, the Commission shall within four months examine whether there are reasonable grounds to open such an investigation and the result of such examination should be published.
Amendment 50 #
2020/0365(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Despite existing measures at Union19 and national level aimed at supporting the protection of critical infrastructures in the Union, the entities operating those infrastructures are not always adequately equipped to address current and anticipated future risks to their operations that may result in disruptions of the provision of services that are essential for the performance of vital societal functions or economic activities. This is due to a dynamic threat landscape with an evolving terrorist threatmanmade threats, such as terrorism and cyber attacks, and growing interdependencies between infrastructures and sectors, as well as an increased physical risk due to natural disasters and climate change, which increases the frequency and scale of extreme weather events and brings long-term changes in average climate that can reduce the capacity and efficiency of certain infrastructure types if resilience or climate adaptation measures are not in place. Moreover, relevant sectors and types of entities are not recognised consistently as critical in all Member States. _________________ 19European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection (EPCIP).
Amendment 58 #
2020/0365(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The entities involved in the provision of essential services are increasingly subject to diverging requirements imposed under the laws of the Member States. The fact that some Member States have less stringent security requirements on these entities not only risks impacting negatively on the maintenance of vital societal functions or economic activities across the Union, it also leads to obstacles to the proper functioning of the internal market. Similar types of entities are considered as critical in some Member States but not in others, and those which are identified as critical are subject to divergent requirements in different Member States. This results in additional and unnecessary administrative burdens for companies operating across borders, notably for companies active in Member States with more stringent requirements.
Amendment 60 #
2020/0365(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4 a (new)
Recital 4 a (new)
(4a) At Union level there is no single recognised list of critical infrastructure sectors and different pieces of legislation cover different sets of sectors.
Amendment 62 #
2020/0365(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) It is therefore necessary to lay down harmonised minimum rules to ensure the provision of essential services in the internal market and enhance the resilience of critical entities. It is essential that those rules are future-proof.
Amendment 66 #
2020/0365(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) In order to achieve that objective, Member States should identify critical entities that should be subject to specific requirements and oversight, but also particular support and guidance aimed at achieving a high level of resilience in the face of all relevantcurrent and future risks.
Amendment 74 #
2020/0365(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) The actions of Member States to identify and help ensure the resilience of critical entities should follow a risk-based approach that targets efforts to the entities most relevant for the performance of vital societal functions or economic activities. In order to ensure such a targeted approach, each Member State should carry out, within a harmonised framework, an assessment of all relevant natural and man- made risks that may affect the provision of essential services, including accidents, natural disasters, public health emergencies such as pandemics, and antagonistic threats, including threats from or sabotage by insiders and terrorist offences. When carrying out those risk assessments, Member States should take into account other general or sector-specific risk assessment carried out pursuant to other acts of Union law and should consider the dependencies between sectors, including from other Member States and third countries. The outcomes of the risk assessment should be used in the process of identification of critical entities and to assist those entities in meeting the resilience requirements of this Directive.
Amendment 77 #
2020/0365(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) In order to ensure that all relevant entities are subject to those requirements and to reduce divergences in this respect, it is important to lay down harmonised minimum rules allowing for a consistent identification of critical entities across the Union, while also allowing Member States to reflect national specificities. Therefore, criteria to identify critical entities should be laid down. In the interest of effectiveness, efficiency, consistency and legal certainty, appropriate rules should also be set on notification and cooperation relating to, as well as the legal consequences of, such identification. In order to enable the Commission to assess the correct application of this Directive, Member States should submit to the Commission, in a manner that is as detailed and specific as possible and taking into account security requirements, relevant information and, in any event, the list of essential services, the number of critical entities identified for each sector and subsector referred to in the Annex and the essential service or services that each entity provides and any thresholds applied.
Amendment 81 #
2020/0365(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) Member States should designate authorities competent to supervise the application of and, where necessary, enforce the rules of this Directive and ensure that those authorities are adequately empowered and resourced. In view of the differences in national governance structures and in order to safeguard already existing sectoral arrangements or Union supervisory and regulatory bodies, and to avoid duplication, Member States should be able to designate more than one competent authority. In that case, they should however clearly delineate the respective tasks of the authorities concerned and ensure that they cooperate smoothly and effectively, including across borders. All competent authorities should also cooperate more generally with other relevant authorities, both at national and Union level.
Amendment 99 #
2020/0365(COD)
(25) Critical entities should notify, as soon as reasonably possible under the given circumstances but no later than 24 hours after the discovery, Member States’ competent authorities of incidents that significantly disrupt or have the potential to significantly disrupt their operations. The notification should allow the competent authorities to respond to the incidents rapidly and adequately and to have a comprehensive overview of the overall risks that critical entities face. For that purpose, a procedure should be established for the notification of certain incidents and parameters should be provided for to determine when the actual or potential disruption is significant and the incidents should thus be notified. Given the potential cross-border impacts of such disruptions, a procedure should be established for Member States to inform other affected Member States via single points of contacts.
Amendment 107 #
2020/0365(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) lays down obligations for Member States to take certainspecified measures aimed at ensuring the provision in the internal market of services essential for the maintenance of vital societal functions or economic activities, in particular to identify critical entities and entities to be treated as equivalent in certain respects, and to enable them to meet their obligations;
Amendment 116 #
2020/0365(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
(4) “infrastructure” means an asset, systems, including facilities, systems and equipment, or parts thereof, which isare necessary for the delivery of an essential service;
Amendment 120 #
2020/0365(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6
(6) “risk” means any circumstance or event having a potential adverse effect on the resilienceability of critical entities to perform their function;
Amendment 136 #
2020/0365(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
The strategy shall be updated where necessary and shall be completely reviewed at least every four years.
Amendment 141 #
2020/0365(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The risk assessment shall account for all relevant natural and man-made risks, including accidents, natural disasters, public health emergencies, antagonistic threats, including threats from and sabotage by insiders, as well as terrorist offences pursuant to Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council34 . _________________ 34Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending Council Decision 2005/671/JHA (OJ L 88, 31.3.2017, p. 6).
Amendment 146 #
2020/0365(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 5
Article 4 – paragraph 5
5. The Commission may, in cooperation with the Member States, shall develop a voluntary common reporting template for the purposes of complying with paragraph 4.
Amendment 169 #
2020/0365(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) the number of critical entities identified for each sector and subsector referred to in the Annex, and the service ora quantitative summary of the services referred to in Article 4(1) that each entity providare provided by these entities;
Amendment 172 #
2020/0365(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission mayshall, after consultation of the Critical Entities Resilience Group, adopt guidelines to facilitate the application of the criteria referred to in paragraph 1, taking into account the information referred to in paragraph 2.
Amendment 213 #
2020/0365(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Amendment 222 #
2020/0365(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that critical entities notify without undue delay and within 24 hours the competent authority of incidents that significantly disrupt or have the potential to significantly disrupt their operations. Notifications shall include any available information necessary to enable the competent authority to understand the nature, cause and possible consequences of the incident, including so as to determine any cross-border impact of the incident. Such notification shall not make the critical entities subject to increased liability.
Amendment 238 #
2020/0365(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. Upon request of one or more Member States or of the Commission, the Member State where the infrastructureEuropean headquarters or principal operation of the critical entity of particular European significance is located shall, together with that entity, inform the Commission and the Critical Entities Resilience Group of the outcome of the risk assessment carried out pursuant to Article 10 and the measures taken in accordance with Article 11.
Amendment 241 #
2020/0365(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. Upon request of one or more Member States, or at its own initiative, and in agreement with the Member State where the infrastructureEuropean headquarters or the principal operation of the critical entity of particular European significance is located, the Commission shall organise an advisory mission to assess the measures that that entity put in place to meet its obligations pursuant to Chapter III. Where needed, the advisory missions may request specific expertise in the area of disaster risk management through the Emergency Response Coordination Centre.
Amendment 130 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Responsible and diligent behaviour by providers of intermediary services is essential for a safe, predictable and trusted online environment and for allowing Union citizens and other persons to exercise their fundamental rights guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘Charter’), in particular the freedom of expression andincluding the freedom to receive and impart information and ideas in an open and democratic society, freedom of polemic or controversial views in the course of public debate, freedom of media and access to information and the freedom to conduct a business, and the right to non- discrimination. , and the right to protect personal data
Amendment 140 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) In order to achieve the objective of ensuring a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, for the purpose of this Regulation the concept of “illegal content” should be defined broadly and alsunderpin the general idea that what is illegal offline should also be illegal online. The concept should be defined broadly to covers information relating to illegal content, products, services and activities. In particular, that concept should be understood to refer to information, irrespective of its form, that under the applicable law is either itself illegal, such as illegal hate speech or terrorist content and unlawful discriminatory content, or that relates to activities that are illegal, such as the sharing of images depicting child sexual abuse, unlawful non- consensual sharing of private images, online stalking, the sale of non-compliant or counterfeit products, the non-authorised use of copyright protected material or activities involving infringements of consumer protection law. In this regard, it is immaterial whether the illegality of the information or activity results from Union law or from national law that is consistent with Union law and what the precise nature or subject matter is of the law in question.
Amendment 145 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) The concept of ‘dissemination to the public’, as used in this Regulation, should entail the making available of information to a potentially unlimited number of persons, that is, making the information easily accessible to users in general without further action by the recipient of the service providing the information being required, irrespective of whether those persons actually access the information in question. The mere possibility to create groups of users of a given service should not, in itself, be understood to mean that the information disseminated in that manner is not disseminated to the public. However, the concept should exclude dissemination of information within closed groups consisting of a finite number of pre- determined persons. Interpersonal communication services, as defined in Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council,39 such as emails or private messaging services, fall outside the scope of this Regulation. Information should be considered disseminated to the public within the meaning of this Regulation only where that occurs upon the direct request by the recipient of the service that provided the information. Concept of 'dissemination to the public' should not apply to cloud services, including business-to-business cloud services, with respect to which the service provider has no contractual rights concerning what content is stored or how it is processed or made publicly available by its customers or by the end-users of such customers, and where the service provider has no technical capability to remove specific content stored by their customers or the end-users of their services. Where a service provider offers several services, this Regulation should be applied only in respect of the services that fall within its scope. _________________ 39Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (Recast), OJ L 321, 17.12.2018, p. 36
Amendment 155 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) A provider of intermediary services that deliberately collaborates with a recipient of the services in order to undertake illegal activities does not provide its service neutrally andor the main purpose of which is to engage in or facilitate such activities should therefore not be able to benefit from the exemptions from liability provided for in this Regulation.
Amendment 156 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) In order to benefit from the exemption from liability for hosting services, the provider should, upon obtaining actual knowledge or awareness of illegal content, act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to that content. The removal or disabling of access should be undertaken in the observance of the principle of freedom of expression and the freedom to receive and impart information and ideas in an open and democratic society and the freedom and pluralism of the media. The provider can obtain such actual knowledge or awareness through, in particular, its own-initiative investigations or notices submitted to it by individuals or entities in accordance with this Regulation in so far as those notices are sufficiently precise and adequately substantiated to allow a diligent economic operator to reasonably identify, assess and where appropriate act against the allegedly illegal content.
Amendment 176 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) The orders to provide information regulated by this Regulation concern the production of specific information about individual recipients of the intermediary service concerned who are identified in those orders for the purposes of determining compliance by the recipients of the services with applicable Union or national rules. Therefore, orders about non personal information on a group of recipients of the service who are not specifically identified, including orders to provide aggregate information required for statistical purposes or evidence-based policy-making, should remain unaffected by the rules of this Regulation on the provision of information.
Amendment 189 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 42
Recital 42
(42) Where a hosting service provider decides to remove or disable information provided by a recipient of the service, for instance following receipt of a notice or acting on its own initiative, including through the use of automated means afer human verification of such notice, that provider should inform the recipient of its decision, the reasons for its decision and the available redress possibilities to contest the decision, in view of the negative consequences that such decisions may have for the recipient, including as regards the exercise of its fundamental right to freedom of expression. That obligation should apply irrespective of the reasons for the decision, in particular whether the action has been taken because the information notified is considered to be illegal content or incompatible with the applicable terms and conditions. Available recourses to challenge the decision of the hosting service provider should always include judicial redress.
Amendment 195 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46
Recital 46
(46) Action against illegal content can be taken more quickly and reliably where online platforms take the necessary measures to ensure that notices submitted by trusted flaggers through the notice and action mechanisms required by this Regulation are treated with priority, without prejudice to the requirement to process and decide upon all notices submitted under those mechanisms in a timely, diligent and objective manner. Such trusted flagger status should only be awarded to entities, and not individuals, that have demonstrated, among other things, that they have particular expertise and competence in tackling illegal content, that they represent collective interests and that they work in a diligent and objective manner. Such entities can be public in nature, such as, for terrorist content, internet referral units of national law enforcement authorities or of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (‘Europol’) or they can be non-governmental organisations and semi- public bodies, such as the organisations part of the INHOPE network of hotlines for reporting child sexual abuse material and organisations committed to notifying illegal racist and xenophobic expressions online. For intellectual property rights, organisations of industry and of right- holders could be awarded trusted flagger status, where they have demonstrated that they meet the applicable conditions. The rules of this Regulation on trusted flaggers should not be understood to prevent online platforms from giving similar treatment to notices submitted by entities or individuals that have not been awarded trusted flagger status under this Regulation, from otherwise cooperating with other entities, in accordance with the applicable law, including this Regulation and Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council.43 _________________ 43Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council Decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA, OJ L 135, 24.5.2016, p. 53
Amendment 205 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 49
Recital 49
(49) In order to contribute to a safe, trustworthy and transparent online environment for consumers, as well as for other interested parties such as competing traders and holders of intellectual property rights, and to deter traders from selling products or services in violation of the applicable rules, online platforms allowing consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders should ensure that such traders are traceable. The trader should therefore be required to provide certain essential information to the online platform, including for purposes of promoting messages on or offering products. That requirement should also be applicable to traders that promote messages on products or services on behalf of brands, based on underlying agreements. Those online platforms should store all information in a secure manner for a reasonable period of time that does not exceed what is necessarybut not less then 6 months, so that it can be accessed, in accordance with the applicable law, including on the protection of personal data, by public authorities and private parties with a legitimate interest, including through the orders to provide information referred to in this Regulation.
Amendment 207 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 52
Recital 52
(52) Online advertisement plays an important role in the online environment, including in relation to the provision of the services of online platforms. However, online advertisement can contribute to significant risks, ranging from advertisement that is itself illegal content, to contributing to financial incentives for the publication or amplification of illegal or otherwise harmful content and activities online, or the discriminatory display of advertising with an impact on the equal treatment and opportunities of citizens. In addition to the requirements resulting from Article 6 of Directive 2000/31/EC, online platforms should therefore be required to ensure that the recipients of the service have certain individualised information necessary for them to understand when and on whose behalf the advertisement is displayed. In addition, recipients of the service should have information on the main parameters used for determining that specific advertising is to be displayed to them, providing meaningful explanations of the logic used to that end, including when this is based on profiling. The parameters shall include, if applicable, the optimisation goal selected by the advertiser, information on the use of custom lists and in such case – the category and source of personal data uploaded to the online platform and the legal basis for uploading this personal data pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2016/679, information on the use of lookalike audiences and in such case – relevant information on the seed audience and an explanation why the recipient of the advertisement has been determined to be part of the lookalike audience, meaningful information about the online platform’s algorithms or other tools used to optimise the delivery of the advertisement, including a specification of the optimisation goal and a meaningful explanation of reasons why the online platform has decided that the optimisation goal can be achieved by displaying the advertisement to this recipient. The requirements of this Regulation on the provision of information relating to advertisement is without prejudice to the application of the relevant provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in particular those regarding the right to object, automated individual decision-making, including profiling and specifically the need to obtain consent of the data subject prior to the processing of personal data for targeted advertising. Similarly, it is without prejudice to the provisions laid down in Directive 2002/58/EC in particular those regarding the storage of information in terminal equipment and the access to information stored therein.
Amendment 215 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 57
Recital 57
(57) Three categories of systemic risks should be assessed in-depth. A first category concerns the risks associated with the misuse of their service through the dissemination of illegal content, such as the dissemination of child sexual abuse material or illegal hate speech, and the conduct of illegal activities, such as the sale of products or services prohibited by Union or national law, including counterfeit products. For example, and without prejudice to the personal responsibility of the recipient of the service of very large online platforms for possible illegality of his or her activity under the applicable law, such dissemination or activities may constitute a significant systematic risk where access to such content may be amplified through accounts with a particularly wide reach. A second category concerns the impact of the service on the exercise of fundamental rights, as protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, including the freedom of expression access to and information, the freedom and pluralism of the media, the right to private life, the right to non- discrimination and the rights of the child. Such risks may arise, for example, in relation to the design of the algorithmic systems used by the very large online platform, to restrictions on access to content under professional editorial responsibility, or the misuse of their service through the submission of abusive notices or other methods for silencing speech or hampering competition. A third category of risks concerns the intentional and, oftentimes, coordinated manipulation of the platform’s service, with a foreseeable impact on health, civic discourse, electoral processes, public security and protection of minors, having regard to the need to safeguard public order, protect privacy and fight fraudulent and deceptive commercial practices. Such risks may arise, for example, through the creation of fake accounts, the use of bots, and other automated or partially automated behaviours, which may lead to the rapid and widespread dissemination of information that is illegal content or incompatible with an online platform’s terms and conditions.
Amendment 224 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58
Recital 58
(58) Very large online platforms should deploy the necessary means to diligently mitigate the systemic risks identified in the risk assessment. Very large online platforms should under such mitigating measures consider, for example, enhancing or otherwise adapting the design and functioning of their content moderation, algorithmic recommender systems and online interfaces, so that they discourage and limit the dissemination of illegal content, adapting their decision-making processes, or adapting their terms and conditions. They may also include corrective measures, such as discontinuing advertising revenue for specific content, or other actions, such as improving the visibility of authoritative information sources. Very large online platforms mayshould reinforce their internal processes or supervision of any of their activities, in particular as regards the detection of systemic risks. They mayshould also initiate or increase cooperation with trusted flaggers, organise training sessions and exchanges with trusted flagger organisations, and cooperate with other service providers, including by initiating or joining existing codes of conduct or other self-regulatory measures. Any measures adopted should respect the due diligence requirements of this Regulation and be effective and appropriate for mitigating the specific risks identified, in the interest of safeguarding public order, protecting privacy and fighting fraudulent and deceptive commercial practices, and should be proportionate in light of the very large online platform’s economic capacity and the need to avoid unnecessary restrictions on the use of their service, taking due account of potential negative effects on the fundamental rights of the recipients of the service.
Amendment 235 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 62
Recital 62
(62) A core part of a very large online platform’s business is the manner in which information is prioritised and presented on its online interface to facilitate and optimise access to information for the recipients of the service. This is done, for example, by algorithmically suggesting, ranking and prioritising information, distinguishing through text or other visual representations, or otherwise curating information provided by recipients. Such recommender systems can have a significant impact on the ability of recipients to retrieve and interact with information online. They also play an important role in the amplification of certain messages, the viral dissemination of information and the stimulation of online behaviour. Consequently, very large online platforms should ensure that recipients are appropriately informed, and can influence the information presented to them. They should clearly present the main parameters for such recommender systems in an easily comprehensible manner to ensure that the recipients understand how information is prioritised for them. They should also ensure that the recipients enjoy alternative options for the main parameters, including options that are not based on profiling of the recipient. and that those options are used by default
Amendment 255 #
2020/0361(COD)
(76) In the absence of a general requirement for providers of intermediary services to ensure a physical presence within the territory of one of the Member States, there is a need to ensure clarity under which Member State's jurisdiction those providers fall for the purposes of enforcing the rules laid down in Chapters III and IV by the national competent authorities. A provider should be under the jurisdiction of the Member State where its main establishment is located, that is, where the provider has its head office or registered office within which the principal financial functions and operational control are exercised. In respect of providers that do not have an establishment in the Union but that offer services in the Union and therefore fall within the scope of this Regulation, the Member State where those providers appointed their legal representative should have jurisdiction, considering the function of legal representatives under this Regulation. In the interest of the effective application of this Regulation, all Member States should, however, have jurisdiction in respect of providers that failed to designate a legal representative, provided that the principle of ne bis in idem is respected. To that aim, each Member State that exercises jurisdiction in respect of such providers should, without undue delay, inform all other Member States of the measures they have taken in the exercise of that jurisdiction. In addition in order to ensure effective protection of fundamental rights of EU citizens that take into account diverse national law sand difference in socio-cultural context between countries, a Member State shall exercise jurisdiction where it concerns very large online platforms which offer services to a significant number of recipients in a given Member State. Member States jurisdiction is particularly important in case of very large online platforms which are social media because they play a central role in facilitating the public debate
Amendment 262 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 91
Recital 91
(91) The Board should bring together the representatives of the Digital Services Coordinators and possible other competent authorities under the chairmanship of the Commission, with a view to ensuring an assessment of matters submitted to it in a fully European dimension. In view of possible cross-cutting elements that may be of relevance for other regulatory frameworks at Union level, the Board should be allowed to cooperate with other Union bodies, offices, agencies and advisory groups with responsibilities in fields such as equality, including equality between women and men, and non- discrimination, data protection, competition, electronic communications, audiovisual services, detection and investigation of frauds against the EU budget as regards custom duties, or consumer protection, as necessary for the performance of its tasks.
Amendment 291 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point o
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point o
(o) ‘recommender system’ means a fully or partially automated system used by an online platform to suggest in its online interface specific information to recipients of the service which is working under strict human oversight, including as a result of a search initiated by the recipient or otherwise determining the relative order or prominence of information displayed;
Amendment 301 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. This Article shall not affect the possibility for a court or functionally independent administrative authority, in accordance with Member States' legal systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement.
Amendment 330 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. Providers of intermediary services shall, upon the receipt of an order to act against a specific item or multiple items of illegal content, issued by the relevant national judicial or administrative authorities, on the basis of the applicable Union or national law, in conformity with Union law, inform the authority issuing the order of the effect given to the orders, without undue delay, specifying the action taken and the moment when the action was taken.
Amendment 356 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. The Digital Services Coordinator of each Member State, on its own initiative, within 72 hours of receiving the copy of the order to act, has the right to scrutinise the order to determine whether it seriously or manifestly infringes the respective Member State’s law and revoke the order on its own territory.
Amendment 390 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
2. Providers of intermediary services shall make public the information necessary to easily identify and communicate with their single points of contact, including postal address, and ensure that that information is up to date. Providers of intermediary services shall notify that information, including the name, postal address, the electronic mail address and telephone number, of their single point of contact, to the Digital Service Coordinator in the Member State where they are established.
Amendment 392 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Article 11 – paragraph 4
4. Providers of intermediary services shall notify valid identification data, including the name, postal address, the electronic mail address and telephone number of their legal representative to the Digital Service Coordinator in the Member State where that legal representative resides or is established. They shall ensure that that information is up to date.
Amendment 394 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Very large online platform defined in art. 25, at the request of the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member States where this provider offers its services, shall designate a legal representative to be bound to obligations laid down in this article
Amendment 398 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. Providers of intermediary services shall include information on any restrictions that they impose in relation to the use of their service in respect of information provided by the recipients of the service, in their terms and conditions. That information shall include information on any policies, procedures, measures and tools used for the purpose of content moderation, including algorithmic decision-making and human review. It shall be set out in clear plain, intelligible and unambiguous language and shall be publicly available in an easily accessible format.
Amendment 407 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Very large online platforms as defined in article 25, should publish their terms and conditions in all official languages of the Union.
Amendment 408 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 b (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 2 b (new)
Amendment 410 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 c (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 2 c (new)
2 c. Notwithstanding the right in article 12(3), the Digital Services Coordinator of each Member State, by means of national legislation, may seek to request from a very large online platform to cooperate with the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State in question in handling specific legal content removal cases in which there is reason to believe that Member State’s socio-cultural context may have played a vital role.
Amendment 413 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 a (new)
Article 12 a (new)
Article 12 a Any restrictions referred to in paragraph 1 must respect fundamental rights enshrined imn the Charter
Amendment 415 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 b (new)
Article 12 b (new)
Article 12 b Providers of intermediary services shall notify at least 30 days in advance their users of any changes to terms and conditions or algorithmic changes
Amendment 420 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the number of notices submitted in accordance with Article 14, categorised by the type of alleged illegal content concerned, any action taken pursuant to the notices by differentiating whether the action was taken on the basis of the law or the terms and conditions of the provider, and the average and median time needed for taking the action;
Amendment 423 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) the number of complaints received through the internal complaint-handling system referred to in Article 17, the basis for those complaints, decisions taken in respect of those complaints, the average and median time needed for taking those decisions and the number of instances where those decisions were reversed.
Amendment 428 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 69, after consulting the Board, to lay down specific templates of reports specified in paragraph 1.
Amendment 440 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) a clear indication of the electronic location of that information, in particular the exact URL or URLs, and, where necessary, and applicable additional information enabling the identification of the illegal content which shall be appropriate to the type of content and to the specific type of intermediary;
Amendment 466 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
1. Where a provider of hosting services decides to remove or disable access to specific items of information provided by the recipients of the service,engages in any content moderation irrespective of the means used for detecting, identifying or removing or disabling access to that information and of the reason for its decision, it shall inform the recipient, at the latest at the time of the removal or disabling of access, of prior to enforcing the decision and provide a clear and specific statement of reasons for that decision. This obligation shall not apply to content incitement to violence and child sexual abuse.
Amendment 486 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1
This Section shall not apply to online platforms that qualify as micro or small enterprises within the meaning of the Annex to Recommendation 2003/361/EC and which do not engage in illegal activity.
Amendment 495 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) any other decisions that affect the availability, visibility or accessibility of that content and the recipient’s account or the recipient’s access to significant features of the platform’s regular services
Amendment 505 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 4
Article 17 – paragraph 4
4. Online platforms shall inform complainants without undue delay of the decision they have taken in respect of the information to which the complaint relates and shall inform complainants of the possibility of out-of-court dispute settlement provided for in Article 18 and other available redress possibilities. This feedback shall also include: - information on whether the decision referred to in paragraph 1 was taken as a result of human review or through automated means - in case the decision referred to in paragraph 1 is tobe sustained, detailed explanation on how the information to which the complaint relates is in breach of the platform’s terms and conditions or why the online platform finds the information unlawful.
Amendment 508 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 5
Article 17 – paragraph 5
5. Online platforms shall ensure that the decisions, referred to in paragraph 4, are not solely taken on the basis of automated means. Complainants shall have the right to request human review and consultation with relevant online platforms’ staff with respect to content to which the complaint relates to.
Amendment 511 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Recipients of the service negatively affected by the decision of an online platform shall have the possibility to seek swift judicial redress in accordance with the laws of the Member States concerned. The procedure shall ensure that an independent judicial body decides on the matter without undue delay, resolving the case no later than within 14 days while granting then negatively affected party the right to seek interim measures to be imposed within 48 hours since the recourse is brought before this body. The right to seek a judicial redress and interim measures will not be limited or conditioned on exhausting the internal complaint-handling system.
Amendment 528 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 6 – point 1 (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 6 – point 1 (new)
(1) Members State shall establishe a mechanism enabling the recipients of the service to content decision of out of court dispute settlement bodies before a national judicial authority relevant for resolving disputes related to freedom of expression
Amendment 530 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Member States shall establish a mechanism enabling the recipients of the service to contest decisions of out-of-court dispute settlement bodies before a national judicial authority or an administrative authority relevant for resolving disputes related to freedom of expression
Amendment 604 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) meaningful information about the mainall parameters used to determine the recipient to whom the advertisement is displayed.
Amendment 612 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 a (new)
Article 24 a (new)
Article 24 a 2. Online platforms shall present personalised advertising only on the basis of data explicitly provided to them or declared by recipients of services and provided that they have granted consent for the use of this data for the purposes of delivering personalised advertising
Amendment 613 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 b (new)
Article 24 b (new)
Article 24 b 3. Online platforms that use algorithms to deliver advertisements shall set out in their terms and conditions relevant information on the functioning of these algorithms including main criteria used by the algorithm, categories and sources of input data.
Amendment 710 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1
Article 29 – paragraph 1
1. Very large online platforms that use recommender systems shall set out in or any otheir systerms and conditions, in a clear, accessible and easily comprehensible manner, the main parameters used used to determine the order of presentation of content, including their recommender systems, as well as any options for the recipients of the service to modify or influence those main parameat which decrease the visibility of content, shall set out in their terms that they may have made available, including at least one option which is not based on profiling, within the meaning of Article 4 (4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.and conditions, in a clear, accessible and easily comprehensible manner, the main parameters used in these systems
Amendment 715 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 29 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. 2.The main parameters referred to in paragraph1 shall include, at minimum: (a) the main criteria used by the relevant recommender system, (b) how these criteria are weighted against each other, (c)the optimisation goal of the relevant recommender system, (d) explanation of the role that the behaviour of the recipients of the service plays in how the relevant recommender system functions.
Amendment 717 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 29 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. 3. Very large online platforms shall provide options for the recipients of the service to modify or influence parameters referred to in paragraph 2, including at least one option which is not based on profiling, within the meaning of Article 4 (4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Amendment 720 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 2
Article 29 – paragraph 2
2. Where several options are available pursuant to paragraph 1, vVery large online platforms shall provide an easily accessible functionality on their online interface allowing the recipient of the service: a) to select and to modify at any time their preferred option for each of the recommender systems that determines the relative order of information presented to them, b) to select third party recommender systems.
Amendment 775 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1
Article 35 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission and the Board shall encouragehave the right to request and facilitate the drawing up of codes of conduct at Union level to contribute to the proper application of this Regulation, taking into account in particular the specific challenges of tackling different types of illegal content and systemic risks, in accordance with Union law, in particular on competition and the protection of personal data.
Amendment 777 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 2
Article 35 – paragraph 2
2. Where significant systemic risk within the meaning of Article 26(1) emerge and concern several very large online platforms, the Commission may inviteshall request the very large online platforms concerned, other very large online platforms, other online platforms and other providers of intermediary services, as appropriate, as well as civil society organisations and other interested parties, to participate in the drawing up of codes of conduct, including by setting out commitments to take specific risk mitigation measures, as well as a regular reporting framework on any measures taken and their outcomes.
Amendment 796 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 40 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. 4: Member States shall exercise jurisdiction for the purposes of Chapters III and IV of this Regulation where it concerns very large online platforms, as defined in art. 25, which offer services to a significant number of active recipients of the service in a given Member State, which can be calculated on the basis of art. 23(2).
Amendment 805 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1
Article 43 – paragraph 1
Recipients of the service shall have the right to lodge a complaint against providers of intermediary services alleging an infringement of this Regulation with the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State where the recipient resides or is established. The Digital Services Coordinator shall assess the complaint and, where appropriate, transmit it to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment. Assessment of the complaint can be supplemented by the opinion of Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State, where the recipient resides or is established, on how the matter should be resolved taking into account national law and socio-cultural context of a given Member State. Where the complaint falls under the responsibility of another competent authority in its Member State, the Digital Service Coordinator receiving the complaint shall transmit it to that authority.
Amendment 809 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 43 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Pursuant to paragraph 1 the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment in cases concerning complaint transmitted by the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State where the recipient resides or is established, should assess the matter in a timely manner and should inform the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State where the recipient resides or is established, on how the complaint has been handled.
Amendment 813 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 45 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 814 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 45 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. A recommendation pursuant to paragraph 1 and 2 may additionally indicate: a) an opinion on matters that involve taking into account national law and socio-cultural context; b) a draft decision based on investigation pursuant to paragraph1a
Amendment 818 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 7
Article 45 – paragraph 7
7. Where, pursuant to paragraph 6, the Commission concludes that the assessment or the investigatory or enforcement measures taken or envisaged pursuant to paragraph 4 are incompatible with this Regulation, it shall request the Digital Service Coordinator of establishment to further assess the matter and take the necessary investigatory or enforcement measures to ensure compliance with this Regulation, and to inform it about those measures taken within two months from that request. This information should be also transmitted to the Digital Services Coordinator or the Board that initiated the proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1.
Amendment 834 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 6
Article 48 – paragraph 6
6. The Board shall adopt its rules of procedure, following the consent of and inform the Commission thereof.
Amendment 836 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 49 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) advise the Commission to take the measures referred to in Article 51 and, where requested by the Commission, adopt opinions on draft Commission measuradopt opinions on issues concerning very large online platforms in accordance with this Regulation;
Amendment 837 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
Article 49 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
(e a) (f) issue opinions, recommendations or advice on matters related to Article 34.
Amendment 856 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1
Article 52 – paragraph 1
1. In order to carry out the tasks assigned to it under this Section, the Commission may by simple request or by decision require the very large online platforms concerned, their legal representatives, as well as any other persons acting for purposes related to their trade, business, craft or profession that may be reasonably be aware of information relating to the suspected infringement or the infringement, as applicable, including organisations performing the audits referred to in Articles 28 and 50(3), to provide such information within a reasonable time period.
Amendment 908 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 73 – paragraph 1
Article 73 – paragraph 1
1. By fivthree years after the entry into force of this Regulation at the latest, and every fivthree years thereafter, the Commission shall evaluate this Regulation and report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. On the basis of the findings and taking into utmost account the opinion of the Board, that report shall, where appropriate, be accompanied by a proposal for amendment of this Regulation.
Amendment 909 #
2020/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 73 – paragraph 4
Article 73 – paragraph 4
Amendment 91 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) In accordance with Directive (EU) 2016/1148, Member States were responsible for determining which entities meet the criteria to qualify as operators of essential services (‘identification process’). In order to eliminate the wide divergences among Member States in that regard and ensure legal certainty for the risk management requirements and reporting obligations for all relevant entities, a uniform criterion should be established that determines the entities falling within the scope of application of this Directive. That criterion should consist of the application of the size-cap rule, whereby all medium and large enterprises, as defined by Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC15 , that operate within the sectors or provide the type of services covered by this Directive, fall within its scope. Member States should not be required to establish a list of the entities that meet this generally applicable size- related criterion. Nevertheless, taking into account the difference in composition of public administration in the Member States, the identification process provided in Directive (EU) 2016/1148 remains an appropriate mechanism to determine which public administration entities should fall under the scope of this Directive. _________________ 15 Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium- sized enterprises (OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36).
Amendment 92 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8 a (new)
Recital 8 a (new)
(8a) Taking into consideration the differences in the national public administration frameworks, Member States retain full decision-making autonomy regarding the question of whether to identify public administration entities and if Member States decided to do so which entities are to be identified. It would also be possible to foresee in the national legislation that particular categories of public administration entities are identified as falling under the scope of this Directive. Member States should also be able to structure the obligations for public administration entities regarding security requirements, incident notification, supervision and sanctions.
Amendment 93 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Depending on the sector in which they operate or the type of service they provide, the entities falling within the scope of this Directive should be classified into twohree categories: essential and, important, and public administration. That categorisation should take into account the level of criticality of the sector or of the type of service, as well as the level of dependency of other sectors or types of services. Both eEssential and important entities and public administration entities should be subject to the same risk management requirements and reporting obligations. Member States should have right to exclude obligations for public administration entities. The supervisory and penalty regimes between these two categories ofessential and important entities should be differentiated to ensure a fair balance between requirements and obligations on one hand, and the administrative burden stemming from the supervision of compliance on the other hand. The supervisory and penalty regimes for public administration entities should be foreseen in line with the national legislation and legal system.
Amendment 96 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20 a (new)
Recital 20 a (new)
(20a) It is crucial to raise the cyber awareness and resilience in public administration entities. At the same time it is also essential to take into account the specificities of the composition of national public administrations. Therefore Member States should be given a flexibility to decide if and which public administration entities should be covered by this Directive and should have right to exclude select obligations for these entities. Identification of public administration entities should be at the individual Member State’s sole discretion.
Amendment 98 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) In view of the differences in national governance structures and in order to safeguard already existing sectoral arrangements or Union supervisory and regulatory bodies, Member States should be able to designate more than one national competent authority responsible for fulfilling the tasks linked to the security of the network and information systems of essential and important entities and public administration entities under this Directive. Member States should be able to assign this role to an existing authority.
Amendment 106 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 42
Recital 42
(42) Essential and important entities and public administration entities should ensure the security of the network and information systems which they use in their activities. Those are primarily private network and information systems managed by their internal IT staff or the security of which has been outsourced. The cybersecurity risk management and reporting requirements pursuant to this Directive should apply to the relevant essential and important entities and public administration entities regardless of whether they perform the maintenance of their network and information systems internally or outsource it.
Amendment 109 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 46
Recital 46
(46) To further address key supply chain risks and assist entities operating in sectors covered by this Directive and public administration entities to appropriately manage supply chain and supplier related cybersecurity risks, the Cooperation Group involving relevant national authorities, in cooperation with the Commission and ENISA, should carry out coordinated sectoral supply chain risk assessments, as was already done for 5G networks following Recommendation (EU) 2019/534 on Cybersecurity of 5G networks21 , with the aim of identifying per sector which are the critical ICT services, systems or products, relevant threats and vulnerabilities. _________________ 21Commission Recommendation (EU) 2019/534 of 26 March 2019 Cybersecurity of 5G networks (OJ L 88, 29.3.2019, p. 42).
Amendment 111 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 47
Recital 47
(47) The supply chain risk assessments, in light of the features of the sector concerned, should take into account both technical and, where relevant, non- technical factors including those defined in Recommendation (EU) 2019/534, in the EU wide coordinated risk assessment of 5G networks security and in the EU Toolbox on 5G cybersecurity agreed by the Cooperation Group. To identify the supply chains that should be subject to a coordinated risk assessment, the following criteria should be taken into account: (i) the extent to which essential and important entities and public administration entities use and rely on specific critical ICT services, systems or products; (ii) the relevance of specific critical ICT services, systems or products for performing critical or sensitive functions, including the processing of personal data; (iii) the availability of alternative ICT services, systems or products; (iv) the resilience of the overall supply chain of ICT services, systems or products against disruptive events and (v) for emerging ICT services, systems or products, their potential future significance for the entities’ activities.
Amendment 112 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 48 a (new)
Recital 48 a (new)
(48a) Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) often lack the scale and resources to fulfil abroad and growing range of cybersecurity needs in an interconnected world with an increase of remote work. Member States should therefore address in their national cybersecurity strategies guidance and support for SMEs.
Amendment 113 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 51
Recital 51
(51) The internal market is more reliant on the functioning of the internet than ever before. The services of virtually all essential and important entities and public administration entities are dependent on services provided over the internet. In order to ensure the smooth provision of services provided by essential and important entities and public administration entities, it is important that public electronic communications networks, such as, for example, internet backbones or submarine communications cables, have appropriate cybersecurity measures in place and report incidents in relation thereto.
Amendment 122 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 56
Recital 56
(56) Essential and important entities and public administration entities are often in a situation where a particular incident, because of its features, needs to be reported to various authorities as a result of notification obligations included in various legal instruments. Such cases create additional burdens and may also lead to uncertainties with regard to the format and procedures of such notifications. In view of this and, for the purposes of simplifying the reporting of security incidents, Member States should establish a single entry point for all notifications required under this Directive and also under other Union law such as Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC. ENISA, in cooperation with the Cooperation Group should develop common notification templates by means of guidelines that would simplify and streamline the reporting information requested by Union law and decrease the burdens for companies.
Amendment 123 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 57
Recital 57
(57) Where it is suspected that an incident is related to serious criminal activities under Union or national law, Member States should encourage essential and important entities and public administration entities, on the basis of applicable criminal proceedings rules in compliance with Union law, to report incidents of a suspected serious criminal nature to the relevant law enforcement authorities. Where appropriate, and without prejudice to the personal data protection rules applying to Europol, it is desirable that coordination between competent authorities and law enforcement authorities of different Member States be facilitated by the EC3 and ENISA.
Amendment 129 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 63
Recital 63
(63) All essential and important entities under this Directive should fall under the jurisdiction of the Member State where they provide their services. If the entity provides services in more than one Member State, it should fall under the separate and concurrent jurisdiction of each of these Member States. The competent authorities of these Member States should cooperate, provide mutual assistance to each other and where appropriate, carry out joint supervisory actions. Public administration entities shall fall under the jurisdiction of the Member State in which they were identified pursuant to Article 2a.
Amendment 133 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 70
Recital 70
(70) In order to strengthen the supervisory powers and actions that help ensure effective compliance, this Directive should provide for a minimum list of supervisory actions and means through which competent authorities may supervise essential and important entities. In addition, this Directive should establish a differentiation of supervisory regime between essential and important entities with a view to ensuring a fair balance of obligations for both entities and competent authorities. Thus, essential entities should be subject to a fully-fledged supervisory regime (ex-ante and ex-post), while important entities should be subject to a light supervisory regime, ex-post only. For the latter, this means that important entities should not document systematically compliance with cybersecurity risk management requirements, while competent authorities should implement a reactive ex -post approach to supervision and, hence, not have a general obligation to supervise those entities. When it comes to public administration entities the supervisory powers should be executed in line with the national frameworks and it should be up to Member States discretion to impose suitable measures of supervision and enforcement.
Amendment 137 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) lays down cybersecurity risk management and reporting obligations for entities of a type referred to as essential entities in Annex I and, important entities in Annex II and public administration entities;
Amendment 141 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. This Directive also applies to public administration entities identified by the Member States in accordance with art. 2a, notwithstanding para 1b.
Amendment 142 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. This directive does not apply to public administration entities that carry out activities in the areas of public security, defence or national security.
Amendment 144 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point b
Amendment 148 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall establish a list of entities identified pursuant to points (b) to (fe) and submit it to the Commission by [6 months after the transposition deadline]. Member States shall review the list, on a regular basis, and at least every two years thereafter and, where appropriate, update it.
Amendment 151 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 5
Article 2 – paragraph 5
5. Without prejudice to Article 346 TFEU, information that is confidential pursuant to Union and national rules, such as rules on business confidentiality, shall be exchanged with the Commission and other relevant authorities only where that exchange is necessary for the application of this Directive. The information exchanged shall be limited to that which is relevant and proportionate to the purpose of that exchange. The exchange of information shall preserve the confidentiality of that information and protect the security and commercial interests of essential or important entities or public administration entities.
Amendment 157 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 a (new)
Article 2 a (new)
Article 2 a Identification of Public Administration Entities 1. By [date] Member States may identify public administration entities established on their territory. 2. The criteria for the progressive identification of public administration entities shall be as follows: (a) it is established for the purpose of meeting needs in the general interest and does not have an industrial or commercial character; (b) it is financed, for the most part, by the State, regional authority, or by other bodies governed by public law; or it is subject to management supervision by those authorities or bodies; or it has an administrative, managerial or supervisory board, more than half of whose members are appointed by the State, regional authorities, or by other bodies governed by public law; (c) it has the power to address to natural or legal persons administrative or regulatory decisions affecting their rights in the cross-border movement of persons, goods, services or capital. 3. The public administration entities identified in line with this Article shall be reviewed and where appropriate updated by Member States when necessary. 4. Member States shall inform the Commission about the result of the process of identification of public administration entities in accordance with this Article.
Amendment 163 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 23 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 23 – introductory part
(23) ‘public administration entity’ means an entity in a Member State that complies with the following criteria:was identified by the Member State in accordance with Article 2a.
Amendment 164 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 23 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 23 – point a
Amendment 165 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 23 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 23 – point b
Amendment 166 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 23 – point c
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 23 – point c
Amendment 167 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 23 – point d
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 23 – point d
Amendment 168 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 23 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 23 – paragraph 1
Amendment 170 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) a policy addressing cybersecurity in the supply chain for ICT products and services used by essential and important entities and public administration entities for the provision of their services;
Amendment 173 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
(da) a policy promoting the privacy and security of personal data of users of online services;
Amendment 180 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. ENISA shall develop and maintain a European vulnerability registry. To that end, ENISA shall establish and maintain the appropriate information systems, policies and procedures with a view in particular to enabling important and essential entities and public administration entities and their suppliers of network and information systems to disclose and register vulnerabilities present in ICT products or ICT services, as well as to provide access to the information on vulnerabilities contained in the registry to all interested parties. The registry shall, in particular, include information describing the vulnerability, the affected ICT product or ICT services and the severity of the vulnerability in terms of the circumstances under which it may be exploited, the availability of related patches and, in the absence of available patches, guidance addressed to users of vulnerable products and services as to how the risks resulting from disclosed vulnerabilities may be mitigated.
Amendment 183 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that each CSIRT has at its disposal an appropriate, secure, and resilient communication and information infrastructure to exchange information with essential and important entities and public administration entities and other relevant interested parties. To this end, Member States shall ensure that the CSIRTs contribute to the deployment of secure information sharing tools.
Amendment 184 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4
Article 9 – paragraph 4
4. CSIRTs shall cooperate and, where appropriate, exchange relevant information in accordance with Article 26 with trusted sectorial or cross-sectorial communities of essential and important entities and public administration entities.
Amendment 185 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) providing early warning, alerts, announcements and dissemination of information to essential and important entities and public administration entities as well as to other relevant interested parties on cyber threats, vulnerabilities and incidents;
Amendment 188 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 2
Article 11 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that either their competent authorities or their CSIRTs receive notifications on incidents, and significant cyber threats and near misses submitted pursuant to this Directive. Where a Member State decides that its CSIRTs shall not receive those notifications, the CSIRTs shall, to the extent necessary to carry out their tasks, be granted access to data on incidents notified by the essential or important entities, or public administration entities, pursuant to Article 20.
Amendment 196 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 5
Article 14 – paragraph 5
5. EU-CyCLONe shall regularly report to the Cooperation Group on cyber threats, incidents and trendlarge scale incidents, focusing in particular on their impact on essential and important entities and public administration entities.
Amendment 201 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that the management bodies of essential and important entities and public administration entities approve the cybersecurity risk management measures taken by those entities in order to comply with Article 18, supervise its implementation and be accountable for the non-compliance by the entities with the obligations under this Article.
Amendment 204 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that essential and important entities and public administration entities shall take appropriate and proportionate technical and organisational measures to manage the risks posed to the security of network and information systems which those entities use in the provision of their services. Having regard to the state of the art, those measures shall ensure a level of security of network and information systems appropriate to the risk presented.
Amendment 213 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1
Article 20 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that essential and important entities and public administration entities notify, without undue delay, but within 24 hours, the competent authorities or the CSIRT in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 4 of any incident having a significant impact on the provision of their services. Where appropriate, those entities shall notify, without undue delay, the recipients of their services of incidents that are likely to adversely affect the provision of that service. Member States shall ensure that those entities report, among others, any information enabling the competent authorities or the CSIRT to determine any cross-border impact of the incident.
Amendment 215 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Member States shall ensure that essential and important entities and public administration entities notify, without undue delay, but within 24 hours, the competent authorities or the CSIRT of any significant cyber threat that those entities identify that could have potentially resulted in a significant incident.
Amendment 219 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 a (new)
Article 20 a (new)
Article 20 a Divergence for Public Administration Entities Member States may lay down the rules on whether and to what extent public administration entities are excluded from the obligations provided in Article 17, Article 18 and Article 20.
Amendment 220 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 1
Article 21 – paragraph 1
1. In order to demonstrate compliance with certain requirements of Article 18, Member States may require essential and important entities and public administration entities to certify certain ICT products, ICT services and ICT processes under specific European cybersecurity certification schemes adopted pursuant to Article 49 of Regulation (EU) 2019/881. The products, services and processes subject to certification may be developed by an essential or important entity or public administration entities or procured from third parties.
Amendment 231 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Without prejudice to Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Member States shall ensure that essential and important entities and public administration entities may exchange relevant cybersecurity information among themselves including information relating to cyber threats, vulnerabilities, indicators of compromise, tactics, techniques and procedures, cybersecurity alerts and configuration tools, where such information sharing:
Amendment 232 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 2
Article 26 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that the exchange of information takes place within trusted communities of essential and important entities and public administration entities. Such exchange shall be implemented through information sharing arrangements in respect of the potentially sensitive nature of the information shared and in compliance with the rules of Union law referred to in paragraph 1.
Amendment 233 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 4
Article 26 – paragraph 4
4. Essential and important entities and public administration entities shall notify the competent authorities of their participation in the information- sharing arrangements referred to in paragraph 2, upon entering into such arrangements, or, as applicable, of their withdrawal from such arrangements, once the withdrawal takes effect.
Amendment 235 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 30 a (new)
Article 30 a (new)
Article 30 a Supervision and enforcement for public administration entities 1. Member States shall ensure that the measures of supervision or enforcement imposed on public administration entities in respect of the obligations set out in this Directive are effective, proportionate and dissuasive, taking into account the circumstances of each individual case. 2. Member States shall ensure that competent authorities, where exercising their supervisory tasks and enforcement powers in relation to public administration entities have the appropriate powers in accordance with national legislation.
Amendment 236 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – title
Article 31 – title
General conditions for imposing administrative fines on essential and important entities and public administration entities
Amendment 237 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 1
Article 31 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that the imposition of administrative fines on essential and important entities and public administration entities pursuant to this Article in respect of infringements of the obligations laid down in this Directive are, in each individual case, effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Amendment 238 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 6
Article 31 – paragraph 6
6. Without prejudice to the powers of competent authorities pursuant to Articles 29 and 30, each Member State may lay down the rules on whether and to what extent administrative fines may be imposed on public administration entities referred to inidentified in accordance with Article 4(23)2a subject to the obligations provided for by this Directive.
Amendment 239 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 32 – paragraph 1
Article 32 – paragraph 1
1. Where the competent authorities have indications that the infringement by an essential or important entity or public administration entity of the obligations laid down in Articles 18 and 20 entails a personal data breach, as defined by Article 4(12) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 which shall be notified pursuant to Article 33 of that Regulation, they shall inform the supervisory authorities competent pursuant to Articles 55 and 56 of that Regulation within a reasonable period of time.
Amendment 250 #
2020/0359(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex I – Point 9 (Public administration)
Annex I – Point 9 (Public administration)
Amendment 179 #
2020/0350(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 14
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 14
Regulation (EU) 2018/1862
Article 79 – paragraph 7
Article 79 – paragraph 7
7. The Commission shall adopt a decision setting the date onfrom which Europol shallmay start entering, updating and deleting dataalerts in SIS pursuant to this Regulation as amended by Regulation [XXX], after verification that the following conditions have been met:
Amendment 124 #
2020/0349(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
(1 a) Europol’s new legal framework fully respects the principles enshrined in the art. 4.2 of the Treaty on the European Union as well as recognizes that national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State. Since the objective of this Regulation is to strengthen action by the Member States’ law enforcement services and their mutual cooperation in preventing and combating serious crime and terrorism Europol’s institutional role has to be carefully balance in order to guarantee a necessary level of benefits for the Member States while maintaining and respecting the very essence of their exclusive competence in the area of national security.
Amendment 152 #
2020/0349(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
Amendment 157 #
2020/0349(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
Amendment 280 #
2020/0349(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point d
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point d
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 4 – paragraph 4a
Article 4 – paragraph 4a
4a. Europol shall assist the Commission in identifying key research themes, drawing up and implementing the Union framework programmes for research and innovation activities that are relevant to achieve the objectives set out in Article 3. that requires adequate human and financial support to Europol, given the significant expansion of its competences and tasks. When Europol assists the Commission in identifying key research themes, drawing up and implementing a Union framework programme, the Agency shall not receive funding from that programme.
Amendment 283 #
2020/0349(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point d
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point d
Amendment 417 #
2020/0349(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12 – point d
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12 – point d
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 26 – paragraph 6a – subparagraph 1
Article 26 – paragraph 6a – subparagraph 1
6a. Europol may request Member States, via their national units, to obtain personal data from private parties, which are established or have a legal representative in their territory, under their applicable laws, for the purpose of sharing it with Europol, on the condition that the requested personal data is strictly limited to what is necessary for Europol with a view to identifying the national units concerned. The request made by Europol does not pose any obligation to Member States. Obtaining any information from private parties is contucted on a voluntary basis.
Amendment 422 #
2020/0349(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12 – point d
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12 – point d
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 26 –paragraph 6a – subparagraph 2
Article 26 –paragraph 6a – subparagraph 2
Irrespective of their jurisdiction over the specific crime in relation to which Europol seeks to identify the national units concerned, Member States shall ensure that their competent national authorities can lawfully process such requests in accordance with their national laws for the purpose of supplying Europol with the information necessary for it to fulfil its objectives.
Amendment 804 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – point v
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – point v
Amendment 1546 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Article 19 – paragraph 1
1. Where the applicant is in possession of a valid residence document, the Member State which issued the document shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. That responsibility shall cease after the applicant leaves the Member State which issued the residence document.
Amendment 1573 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1
Article 21 – paragraph 1
1. Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists referred to in Article 30(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Eurodac Regulation], that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the first Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. That responsibility shall cease if the application is registered more than 3one years after the date on which that border crossing took place.
Amendment 1651 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 31 and 35 of this Regulation, a resettled or admitted person who has made an application for international protection or who is irregularly staying in a Member State other than the Member State which accepted to admit him or her in accordance with Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Union Resettlement Framework Regulation] or which granted international protection or humanitarian status under a national resettlement scheme.
Amendment 1712 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 29 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The request shall state the reasons warranting an urgent reply and the period within which a reply is requested. That period shall be at least onetwo weeks.
Amendment 1717 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1
Article 30 – paragraph 1
1. The requested Member State shall make the necessary checks, and shall give a decision on the request to take charge of an applicant within onetwo months of receipt of the request.
Amendment 1721 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 2
Article 30 – paragraph 2
2. Notwithstanding the first paragraph, in the case of a Eurodac hit with data recorded pursuant to Article 13 and 14a of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Eurodac Regulation] or of a VIS hit with data recorded pursuant to Article 21(2) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008, the requested Member State shall give a decision on the request within two weeksone month of receipt of the request.
Amendment 1729 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 7
Article 30 – paragraph 7
7. Where the requesting Member State has asked for an urgent reply pursuant to Article 29(2), the requested Member State shall reply within the period requested or, failing that, within at least two weeks of receipt of the request.
Amendment 1746 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1
Article 31 – paragraph 1
1. In a situation referred to in Article 26(1), point (b), (c) or (d) the Member State where the person is present shall make a take back notification without delay and in any event within two weeksone month after receiving the Eurodac hit.
Amendment 1779 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1
Article 32 – paragraph 1
1. The determining Member State whose take charge request as regards the applicant referred to in Article 26(1), point (a) was accepted or who made a take back notification as regards persons referred to in Article 26(1), point (b), (c) and (d) shall take a transfer decision at the latest within onetwo weeks of the acceptance or notification.
Amendment 2361 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 53 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 2362 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Article 53 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 2378 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 54 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
The share of solidarity contributions referred to in Article 45(1), points (a), (b) and (c) to be provided by each Member State in accordance with Articles 48 and 53 shall be calculated in accordance with the formula set out in Annex III and shall be based on the following criteria for each Member State, according to the latest available Eurostat data:ould take into account the actual efforts of the Member States in the field of asylum, migration and border management, their effectiveness in terms of returns, their external dimension actions, the overall capacity of their own systems and potential migratory pressure on their territory. The Member States whose burden of responsibility is greater should have the option of reducing their solidarity contribution.
Amendment 2382 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 54 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 2387 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 54 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 2476 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 4
Article 57 – paragraph 4
Amendment 2496 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1
Article 57 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1
Where the checks confirm that there are reasonable grounds to consider the person concerned a danger to its national security or public order, the Member State of relocation shall inform within one weekmonth the benefitting Member State of the nature of and underlying elements for an alert from any relevant database. In such cases, relocation of the person concerned shall not take place.
Amendment 2522 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 4
Article 58 – paragraph 4
Amendment 2525 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 5
Article 58 – paragraph 5
Amendment 175 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) The procedural rules set out in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management] for carrying out relocation and return sponsorship should be applied for the purpose of ensuring the proper implementation of the solidarity measures in a situation of crisis, although they should be adjusted in order to take into account the gravity and urgency of that situation. The concept of return sponsorship should include a precise definition of the roles of the country of entry, the sponsoring country and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency. If this instrument is chosen, Member States must be allowed to indicate the nationality of third-country nationals required to return, taking into account their bilateral cooperation with the countries of origin on returns and readmission.
Amendment 424 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b
Amendment 450 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 5
Article 2 – paragraph 5
Amendment 460 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 6
Article 2 – paragraph 6
Amendment 465 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 7
Article 2 – paragraph 7
Amendment 619 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. In a crisis situation as referred to in Article 1(2)(a), and on the basis of an implementing act adopted by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Article, Member States may suspend the examination of applications for international protection in accordance with Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedures Regulation] and Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Qualification Regulation] in respect of displaced persons from third countries who are facing a high degree of risk of being subject to indiscriminate violence, in exceptional situations of armed conflict, and who are unable to return to their country of origin. In such a case, Member States shall grant immediate protection status to the persons concerned, unless they represent a danger to the national security or public order of the Member State, which may also revoke immediate protection in other justified cases, where return is considered viable. Such status shall be without prejudice to their ongoing application for international protection in the relevant Member State.
Amendment 625 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Amendment 18 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
(1a) The Union is committed to setting an example of an assertive and positive attitude as a leader of regulatory progress in the crypto-assets field. Welcoming global players into a safe and intelligently regulated environment, with the simultaneous creation of the foundations for openness and flexibility to transformation and innovation, would enhance the Union’s role as a leader in this new technological era.
Amendment 21 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) In finance, crypto-assets are one of the major DLT applications. Crypto-assets are digital representations of value or rights that have the potential to bring significant benefits to both market participants and consumers. By streamlining capital-raising processes and enhancing competition, issuances of crypto-assets can allow for a cheaper, less burdensome and more inclusive way of financing small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). When used as a means of payment, payment tokens can present opportunities in terms of cheaper, faster and more efficient payments, in particular on a cross-border basis, by limiting the number of intermediaries. It is expected that numerous applications of blockchain technology that have not yet been fully studied will create new types of business activity and business models which, together with the crypto-asset sector itself, will lead to economic growth and new employment opportunities for EU citizens.
Amendment 29 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The lack of an overall Union framework for crypto-assets can lead to a lack of users’ confidence in those assets, which will hinder the development of a market in those assets and can lead to missed opportunities in terms of innovative digital services, alternative payment instruments or new funding sources for Union companies. In addition, companies using crypto-assets will have no legal certainty on how their crypto-assets will be treated in the different Member States, which will undermine their efforts to use crypto-assets for digital innovation. The lack of an overall Union framework on crypto-assets could also lead to regulatory fragmentation, which will distort competition in the Single Market, make it more difficult for crypto-asset service providers to scale up their activities on a cross-border basis and will give rise to regulatory arbitrage. The crypto-asset market is still modest in size and does not yet pose a threat to financial stability. It is, however, likely that a subset of crypto- assets which aim to stabilise their price by linking their value to a specific asset or a basket of assets could be widely adopted by consumers. Such a development could raise additional challenges to financial stability, monetary policy transmission or monetary sovereignty. Regulation should be seen as a way of protecting consumers but also as a way of facilitating, rather than hindering, innovation and economic initiative. Failure to provide appropriate Union regulation of crypto currencies would threaten the competitiveness of the Union and its Member States at a global level and would jeopardise the Union’s ambitions of becoming a leader in the field of sustainable development, technology and digitisation.
Amendment 30 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 a (new)
Recital 4 a (new)
(4a) The European Union seeks to fulfil a leading role on the world stage in the field of innovation and long-term economic growth. Cryptographic assets are rarely and inconsistently regulated in individual countries, which reduces the confidence of a number of companies and consumers in this area. Thanks to the creation of harmonised and predictable legal frameworks in all 27 Member States, the European Union will be able to attract a significant amount of investment and increase its competitiveness and leading position in the field of technology and innovation. By recognising and accepting the value of blockchain technology, the Union would set itself apart and put itself in a favourable position compared with world economies that are still reluctant or openly hostile towards crypto-assets.
Amendment 35 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) A dedicated and harmonised framework is therefore necessary at Union level to provide specific rules for crypto- assets and related activities and services and to clarify the applicable legal framework. Such harmonised framework should also cover services related to crypto-assets where these services are not yet covered by Union legislation on financial services. Such a framework should support innovation and fair competition, while ensuring a high level of consumer protection and market integrity in crypto-asset markets. A clear framework should enable crypto-asset service providers to scale up their business on a cross-border basis and should facilitate their access to banking services to run their activities smoothly. We should ensure the proportionate treatment of issuers of crypto-assets and service providers, guaranteeing an equal chance of market access and development in the Member States. It should also ensure financial stability and address monetary policy risks that could arise from crypto- assets that aim at stabilising their price by referencing a currency, an asset or a basket of such. While increasing consumer protection, market integrity and financial stability through the regulation of offers to the public of crypto-assets or services related to such crypto-assets, a Union framework on markets in crypto-assets should not regulate the underlying technology and should allow for the use of both permissionless and permission-based distributed ledgers. Union legislation does not impose unnecessary and disproportionate regulatory burdens in all cases of the use of technology since the Union and the Member States seek to maintain competitiveness on a global market. Correct regulation maintains the competitiveness of the Member States on international financial and technological markets and provides clients with significant benefits in terms of access to cheaper, faster and safer financial services and asset management.
Amendment 41 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Union legislation on financial services should not favour one particular technology. Crypto-assets that qualify as ‘financial instruments’ as defined in Article 4(1), point (15), of Directive 2014/65/EU should therefore remain regulated under the general existing Union legislation, including Directive 2014/65/EU, regardless of the technology used for their issuance or their transfer. EU consumers will certainly still use blockchain technology and services provided via crypto-assets. The use of DLT is not compulsory since the technology is still being developed but crypto-asset service providers should have the option to use off-chain business models when this is appropriate and safe.
Amendment 48 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) Any legislation adopted in the field of crypto-assets should be specific, future- proof an, should be able to keep pace with innovation and technological developments and should be based on incentives by providing adequate legal solutions for innovation within the sector. ‘Crypto- assets’ and ‘distributed ledger technology’ should therefore be defined as widely as possible to capture all types of crypto- assets which currently fall outside the scope of Union legislation on financial services. Such legislation should also contribute to the objective of combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Any definition of ‘crypto-assets’ should therefore correspond to the definition of ‘virtual assets’ set out in the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)34. For the same reason, any list of crypto-asset services should also encompass virtual asset services that are likely to raise money-laundering concerns and that are identified as such by the FATFdamage the monetary policy of the Member States. _________________ 34FATF (2012--2019), International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation, FATF, Paris, France (www.fatf- gafi.org/recommendations.html).
Amendment 57 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) Despite their similarities, electronic money and crypto-assets referencing a single fiat currency differ in some important aspects. Holders of electronic money as defined in Article 2, point 2, of Directive 2009/110/EC are always provided with a claim on the electronic money institution and have a contractual right to redeem their electronic money at any moment against fiat currency that is legal tender at par value with that currency. By contrast, some of the crypto-assets referencing one fiat currency which is legal tender do not provide their holders with such a claim on the issuers of such assets and could fall outside the scope of Directive 2009/110/EC. Other crypto-asset referencing one fiat currency do not provide a claim at par with the currency they are referencing or limit the redemption period. The fact that holders of such crypto-assets do not have a claim on the issuers of such assets, or that such claim is not at par with the currency those crypto-assets are referencing, could undermine the confidence of users of those crypto-assets. To avoid circumvention of the rules laid down in Directive 2009/110/EC, any definition of ‘e-money tokens’ should be as wide as possible to capture all the types of crypto-assets referencing one single fiat currency that is legal tender. To avoid regulatory arbitrage, strict conditions on the issuance of e-money tokens should be laid down, including the obligation for such e-money tokens to be issued either by a credit institution as defined in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council36 , or by an electronic money institution authorised under Directive 2009/110/EC. For the same reason, issuers of such e-money tokens should also grant the users of such tokens with a claim to redeem their tokens at any moment and at par value against the currency referencing those tokens. E- money tokens may be linked to any global fiduciary currency classed as legal tender. Because e-money tokens are also crypto- assets and can also raise new challenges in terms of consumer protection and market integrity specific to crypto-assets, they should also be subject to rules laid down in this Regulation to address these challenges to consumer protection and market integrity. However, since different crypto- assets are associated with different risks and challenges, the stabilisation of crypto- assets to a single fiduciary currency allows for its safe use for both consumers and investors. _________________ 36Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ L 176, 27.6.2013, p. 1).
Amendment 78 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) Small and medium-sized enterprises and start-ups should not be subject to excessive and disproportionate administrative burdens. Offers to the public of crypto- assets in the Union that do not exceed an adequate aggregate threshold over a period of 12 months should therefore be exempted from the obligation to draw up a crypto- asset white paper. However, EU horizontal legislation ensuring consumer protection, such as Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council38, Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council39 or the Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, including any information obligations contained therein40, remain applicable to these offers to the public of crypto-assets where involving business-to- consumer relations. _________________ 38Directive 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). 39Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to- consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22); 40Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ L 95, 21.4.1993, p. 29).
Amendment 103 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) Issuers of asset-referenced tokens should have robust governance arrangements, including a clear organisational structure with well-defined, transparent and consistent lines of responsibility and effective processes to identify, manage, monitor and report the risks to which they are or might be exposed. The management body of such issuers and their shareholders should have good repute and sufficient expertise and be fit and proper for the purpose of anti- money laundering and combatting the financing of terrorism. Issuers of asset- referenced tokens should also employ resources proportionate to the scale of their activities and should always ensure continuity and regularity in the performance of their activities. For that purpose, issuers of asset-referenced tokens should establish a business continuity policy aimed at ensuring, in the case of an interruption to their systems and procedures, the performance of their core payment activities. Issuers of asset- referenced tokens should also have a strong internal control and risk assessment mechanism, as well as a system that guarantees the integrity and confidentiality of information received. Fulfilment of this obligation aims to ensure the protection of basic rights and freedoms within the Union, not to create unnecessary barriers on the crypto-asset market.
Amendment 107 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) To address the risks to financial stability of the wider financial system, issuers of asset-referenced tokens should be subject to capital requirements. Those capital requirements should be proportionate to the issuance size of the asset-referenced tokens and therefore calculated as a percentage of the reserve of assets that back the value of the asset- referenced tokens. Competent authorities should however be able to increase or decrease the amount of own fund requirements required on the basis of, inter alia, the evaluation of the risk-assessment mechanism of the issuer, the quality and volatility of the assets in the reserve backing the asset-referenced tokens or the aggregate value and number of asset- referenced tokens. In any case, it is recognised that excessive and disproportionate capital requirements may make the Union crypto-asset environment less attractive compared with rival external markets. There should be a sensible central management mechanism at a Union level in terms of openness of the market to new players and the avoidance of non-competitive regulation imposed at a regional level.
Amendment 131 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 56
Recital 56
(56) To ensure consumer protection, crypto-asset service providers should comply with some prudential requirements. Those prudential requirements should be set as a fixed amount or in proportion to their fixed overheads of the preceding year, depending on the types of services they provide. Nevertheless, this requirement must be proportionate and must not deter potential investors from the Union market.
Amendment 134 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 64
Recital 64
(64) It is necessary to ensure users’ confidence in crypto-asset markets and market integrity. It is therefore necessary to lay down rules to deter market abuse for crypto-assets that are admitted to trading on a trading platform for crypto-assets. However, as issuers of crypto-assets and crypto-asset service providers are very often SMEs, it would be disproportionate to apply all the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council 44 to them. It is therefore necessary to lay down specific rules prohibiting certain behaviours that are likely to undermine users’ confidence in crypto-asset markets and the integrity of crypto-asset markets, including insider dealings, unlawful disclosure of inside information and market manipulation related to crypto-assets. These bespoke rules on market abuse committed in relation to crypto-assets should be applied, where crypto-assets are admitted to trading on a trading platform for crypto-assets. The principles should be proportionate and should not constitute an excessive burden, especially for SMEs, which could easily set up their headquarters in another jurisdiction whilst still providing Union consumers with access to crypto-assets. _________________ 44Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on market abuse (market abuse regulation) and repealing Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directives 2003/124/EC, 2003/125/EC and 2004/72/EC (OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 1).
Amendment 149 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point a
Article 1 – point a
(a) transparency and disclosure requirements for the issuance and offering and admission to trading of crypto-assets on a crypto-asset trading platform;
Amendment 160 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation applies to persons that are engaged in the issuance of crypto- assets, the offering of crypto-assets, or provide services related to crypto- assets in the Union.
Amendment 168 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point e a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point e a (new)
(ea) - tokens issued by public entities for the purpose of the settlement of public levies.
Amendment 206 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 4
4. ‘electronic money token’ or ‘e- money token’ means a type of crypto-asset the main purpose of which is to be used as a means of exchange and that purports to maintain a stable value by referring to the value of a fiat currency that is legal tender; electronic money tokens means electronic money as defined by Directive 2009/110/EC;
Amendment 213 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 6
6. ‘issuer of crypto-assets’ means a legal person who offers to the public any type of crypto-assets or seeks the admission of such crypto-assets to a trading platform forcontrols the creation of crypto-assets;
Amendment 218 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
(6a) ‘offeror of crypto-assets’ means a legal person who offers to the public any type of crypto-assets or seeks the admission of such crypto-assets to a trading platform for crypto-assets;
Amendment 227 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7
(7) ‘offer to the public’ means an offer message to third parties to acquire aproviding sufficient information about the conditions of the offer and the crypto- asset in exchange for fiat currency or others that may be offered via the trading platform, in order to enable the third party to make a decision regarding the purchase of such crypto-assets;
Amendment 248 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 18
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 18
(18) ‘management body’ means the body of an issuer of crypto-assets, offeror of crypto-assets or of a crypto-asset provider, as applicable, which is appointed in accordance with national law, and which is empowered to set the entity’s strategy, objectives, the overall direction and which oversees and monitors management decision-making and which includes persons who direct the business of the entity;
Amendment 254 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 24 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 24 – point a
(a) the authority, designated by each Member State in accordance with Article 81 for issuers and offerors of crypto- assets, issuers and offerors of asset- referenced tokens and crypto-asset service providers;
Amendment 255 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 24 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 24 – point b
(b) the authority, designated by each Member State, for the application of Directive 2009/110/EC for issuers and offerors of e- money tokens;
Amendment 256 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 26
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 26
(26) ‘qualifying holding’ means any direct or indirect holding in an issuer or offeror of asset-referenced tokens or in a crypto-asset service provider which represents at least 10 % of the capital or the voting rights, as set out in Articles 9 and 10 of Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council53, taking into account the conditions regarding aggregation thereof laid down in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 12 of that Directive, or which makes it possible to exercise a significant influence over the management of the investment firm in which that holding subsists. _________________ 53 Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2001/34/EC (OJ L 390, 31.12.2004, p. 38).
Amendment 267 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. No issuer of crypto-assets, other than asset-referenced tokens or e-money tokens, shall, in the Union, offer such crypto-assets to the public, or seek an admission of such crypto-assets to trading on a trading platform for crypto-assets, unless that issueofferor:
Amendment 293 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
For the purpose of point (a), crypto-assets shall not be considered to be offered for free where purchasers are required to provide or to undertake to provide personal data to the issuer or offeror in exchange for those crypto-assets, or where the issuer or offeror of those crypto-assets receives from the prospective holders of those crypto-assets any third party fees, commissions, monetary benefits or non- monetary benefits in exchange for those crypto-assets.
Amendment 300 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. If the offeror of crypto-assets or crypto-asset service provider publicly offers crypto-assets other than asset- referenced tokens or e-money tokens, or requests that such crypto-assets be authorised for trading on a trading platform for crypto-assets, this entity is obliged to observe the requirements of this regulation in relation to such crypto- assets, not the crypto-asset issuers.
Amendment 310 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) a detailed description of the issuer and offeror (if different entities) and a presentation of the main participants involved in the project's design and development;
Amendment 330 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. The crypto-asset white paper shall contain the following statement: “The issueofferor of the crypto-assets is solely responsible for the content of this crypto- asset white paper. This crypto-asset white paper has not been reviewed or approved by any competent authority in any Member State of the European Union”.
Amendment 332 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. The crypto-asset white paper shall not contain any assertions on the future value of the crypto-assets, other than the statement referred to in paragraph 5, unless the issueofferor of those crypto-assets can guarantee such future value.
Amendment 336 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 6
Article 5 – paragraph 6
6. Every crypto-asset white paper shall contain a statement from the management body of the issueofferor of the crypto-assets. That statement shall confirm that the crypto-asset white paper complies with the requirements of this Title and that, to the best knowledge of the management body, the information presented in the crypto-asset white paper is correct and that there is no significant omission.
Amendment 343 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 –point d
Article 6 –point d
(d) the marketing communications shall clearly state that a crypto-asset white paper has been published and indicate the address of the website of the issuer and offeror of the crypto-assets concerned.
Amendment 352 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. IssueOfferors of crypto-assets, other than asset-referenced tokens or e-money tokens, shall notify their crypto-asset white paper, and, in case of marketing communications as referred to in Article 6, such marketing communications, to the competent authority of their home Member State at least 20 working days before publication of the crypto-asset white paper. That competent authority may exercise the powers laid down in Article 82(1).
Amendment 357 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
4. IssueOfferors of crypto-assets, other than asset-referenced tokens or e-money tokens, shall, together with the notification referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, provide the competent authority of their home Member State with a list of host Member States, if any, where they intend to offer their crypto-assets to the public or intend to seek admission to trading on a trading platform for crypto-assets. They shall also inform their home Member State of the starting date of the intended offer to the public or intended admission to trading on such a trading platform for crypto-assets.
Amendment 362 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. IssueOfferors of crypto-assets, other than asset-referenced tokens or e-money tokens, shall publish their crypto-asset white paper, and, where applicable, their marketing communications, on their website, which shall be publicly accessible, by no later than the starting date of the offer to the public of those crypto-assets or the admission of those crypto-assets to trading on a trading platform for crypto- assets. The crypto-asset white paper, and, where applicable, the marketing communications, shall remain available on the issuer’s website for as long as the crypto-assets are held by the public.
Amendment 373 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – title
Article 13 – title
Obligations of issuers and offerors of crypto-assets, other than asset-referenced tokens or e- money tokens
Amendment 374 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Issuers and offerors of crypto- assets, other than asset-referenced tokens or e-money tokens, shall:
Amendment 376 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. IssueOfferors of crypto-assets, other than asset-referenced tokens or e-money tokens, shall act in the best interests of the holders of such crypto-assets and shall treat them equally, unless any preferential treatment is disclosed in the crypto-asset white paper, and, where applicable, the marketing communications.
Amendment 377 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. Where an offer to the public of crypto-assets, other than asset-referenced tokens or e-money tokens, is cancelled for any reason, issueofferors of such crypto-assets shall ensure that any funds collected from purchasers or potential purchasers are duly returned to them as soon as possible.
Amendment 380 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – title
Article 14 – title
Liability of issueofferors of crypto-assets, other than asset-referenced tokens or e-money tokens for the information given in a crypto-asset white paper
Amendment 381 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. Where an issueofferor of crypto-assets, other than asset-referenced tokens or e- money tokens, or its management body has infringed Article 5, by providing in its crypto-asset white paper or in a modified crypto-asset white paper information which is not complete, fair or clear or by providing information which is misleading, a holder of crypto-assets may claim damages from that issueofferor of crypto-assets, other than asset-referenced tokens or e- money tokens, or its management body for damage caused to her or him due to that infringement.
Amendment 384 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. It shall be the responsibility of the holders of crypto-assets to present evidence indicating that the issueofferor of crypto-assets, other than asset-referenced tokens or e- money tokens, has infringed Article 5 and that such an infringement had an impact on his or her decision to buy, sell or exchange the said crypto-assets.
Amendment 392 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 15 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 436 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 4
Article 18 – paragraph 4
4. The EBA, ESMA, the ECB and, where applicable, a central bank as referred to in paragraph 3 shall, within 2 months after having received the draft decision and the application file, issue a non-binding opinion on the application and transmit their non-binding opinions to the competent authority concerned. That competent authority shall duly consider those non-binding opinions and the observations and comments of the applicant issuer. If the ECB (or the central bank in the relevant cases) delivers a negative opinion because of monetary policy considerations, the competent authority should refuse the application for authorisation and inform the applicant issuer of the decision.
Amendment 443 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) tThe applicant issuer fails to meet or is likely toofferor fails to meet any of the requirements of this Title;
Amendment 465 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1
Article 26 – paragraph 1
1. IssueOfferors of asset-referenced tokens shall at least every month and in a clear, accurate and transparent manner disclose on their website the amount of asset- referenced tokens in circulation and the value and the composition of the reserve assets referred to in Article 32.
Amendment 667 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Title IV – Chapter 1 – title
Title IV – Chapter 1 – title
1 Requirements to be fulfilled by all issueofferors of electronic money tokens
Amendment 668 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
1. No electronic money tokens shall be offered to the public in the Union or shall be admitted to trading on a trading platform for crypto-assets unless the issuerofferors of such electronic money tokens:
Amendment 673 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 43 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The decision on whether to authorise e-money tokens linked to the euro should be made by the ECB, while the decision on whether to authorise e- money tokens linked to another EU currency should be made by the central bank of the currency in question. The ECB or the central bank of the currency in question should refuse such authorisation if it cannot exclude a threat to financial stability or monetary sovereignty in the euro area or in the area of the currency in question because of the business model, anticipated market volume or other detrimental circumstances of the proposed e-money token. The ECB or the central bank of the currency in question should adopt its decision within three months of receiving a complete application for authorisation and inform the applicant issuer of that decision within five working days of its adoption.
Amendment 681 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – title
Article 44 – title
Amendment 682 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 1
Article 44 – paragraph 1
1. By derogation of Article 11 of Directive 2009/110/EC, only the following requirements regarding the issuanceoffering and redeemability of e-money tokens shall apply to issuers of e-money tokens.
Amendment 684 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 2
Article 44 – paragraph 2
2. Holders of e-money tokens shall be provided with a claim on the issuer or offeror of such e-money tokens. Any e- money token that does not provide all holders with a claim shall be prohibited. The white paper clearly establishes the party against which the e-money token holders may file a claim.
Amendment 686 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 3
Article 44 – paragraph 3
3. IssueOfferors of such e-money tokens shall issueoffer e-money tokens at par value and on the receipt of funds within the meaning of Article 4(25) of Directive 2015/2366.
Amendment 688 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 4
Article 44 – paragraph 4
4. Upon request by the holder of e- money tokens, the respective issuerofferor or issuer, as applicable, must redeem, at any moment and at par value, the monetary value of the e-money tokens held to the holders of e-money tokens, either in cash or by credit transfer.
Amendment 692 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 5
Article 44 – paragraph 5
5. IssueOfferors of e-money tokens shall prominently state the conditions of redemption, including any fees relating thereto, in the crypto-asset white paper as referred to in Article 46.
Amendment 698 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 7 – introductory part
Article 44 – paragraph 7 – introductory part
7. Where issuers or offerors of e- money tokens does not fulfil legitimate redemption requests from holders of e- money tokens within the time period specified in the crypto-asset white paper and which shall not exceed 30 days, the obligation set out in paragraph 3 applies to any following third party entities that has been in contractual arrangements with issueofferors of e- money tokens:
Amendment 699 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 7 – point a
Article 44 – paragraph 7 – point a
(a) entities ensuring the safeguarding of funds received by issueofferors of e-money tokens in exchange for e-money tokens in accordance with Article 7 of Directive 2009/110/EC;
Amendment 700 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 7 – point b
Article 44 – paragraph 7 – point b
(b) any natural or legal persons in charge of distributing e-money tokens on behalf of issuers or offerors of e-money tokens.
Amendment 701 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 7 – point b a (new)
Article 44 – paragraph 7 – point b a (new)
(ba) issuers of e-money tokens, if different from the offeror;
Amendment 705 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 1
Article 46 – paragraph 1
1. Before the offeringor offers e-money tokens to the public in the EU or seekings an admission of such e-money tokens to trading on a trading platform, the issuer of e-money tokens shall publish a crypto-asset white paper on its website.
Amendment 707 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
Article 46 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
(aa) a description of the offeror of e- money tokens;
Amendment 713 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 2 – point f
Article 46 – paragraph 2 – point f
(f) the risks relating to the issuer of e- money issuer, offerors of e-money, the e- money tokens and the implementation of the project, including the technology;
Amendment 717 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 4
Article 46 – paragraph 4
4. Every crypto-asset white paper shall also include a statement from the management body of the issueofferor of e- money confirming that the crypto-asset white paper complies with the requirements of this Title and specifying that, to their best knowledge, the information presented in the crypto-asset white paper is correct and that there is no significant omission.
Amendment 718 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 5 – point b
Article 46 – paragraph 5 – point b
(b) the conditions of redemption, including any fees relating thereto and the parties against which redemption rights may be exercised. .
Amendment 722 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1
Article 46 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1
9. The issueofferor of e-money tokens shall notify its draft crypto-asset white paper, and where applicable their marketing communications, to the relevant competent authority as referred to in Article 3(1) point (24)(b) at least 20 working days before its date of its publication.
Amendment 724 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 47 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. Where an issueofferor of e-money tokens or its management body has infringed Article 46, by providing in its crypto-asset white paper or in a modified crypto-asset white paper information which is not complete, fair or clear or by providing information which is misleading, a holder of such e-money tokens may claim damages from that issueofferor of e-money tokens or its management body for damage caused to her or him due to that infringement.
Amendment 725 #
2020/0265(COD)
Any contractual exclusion of civil liability contrary to this paragraph shall be deprived of any legal effect.
Amendment 726 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 2
Article 47 – paragraph 2
2. It shall be the responsibility of the holders of e-money tokens to present evidence indicating that the issueofferor of e- money tokens has infringed Article 46 and that such an infringement had an impact on his or her decision to buy, sell or exchange the said e-money tokens.
Amendment 727 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 2
Article 48 – paragraph 2
2. The marketing communications shall contain a clear and unambiguous statement that all the holders of the e- money tokens have a redemption right at any time and at par value on the issueofferor.
Amendment 729 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49
Article 49
Funds received by issuers or offerors of e- money tokens in exchange of e-money tokens and that are invested in secure, low- risk assets in accordance with Article 7(2) of Directive 2009/110/EC shall be invested in assets denominated in the same currency as the one referenced by the e-money token.
Amendment 731 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 1
Article 50 – paragraph 1
1. The EBA shall classify e-money tokens as significant e-money tokens on the basis of the criteria referred to in Article 39(1), as specified in accordance with Article 39(6), and where at least three of those criteria are met, and where the cross-border criterion for a given e-money token has been met (it is used in more than one Member State).
Amendment 735 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 2
Article 50 – paragraph 2
2. Competent authorities of the issueofferor’s home Member State shall provide the EBA with information on the criteria referred to in Article 39(1) of this Article and specified in accordance with Article 39(6) on at least a yearly basis.
Amendment 738 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3
Article 50 – paragraph 3
3. Where the EBA is of the opinion that e-money tokens meet the criteria referred to in Article 39(1), as specified in accordance with Article 39(6), the EBA shall prepare a draft decision to that effect and notify that draft decision to the issueofferors of those e-money tokens and the competent authority of the issueofferor’s home Member State. The EBA shall give issueofferors of such e-money tokens and their competent authorities the opportunity to provide observations and comments in writing prior the adoption of its final decision. The EBA shall duly consider those observations and comments.
Amendment 742 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 4
Article 50 – paragraph 4
4. The EBA shall take its final decision on whether an e-money token is a significant e-money token within three months after the notification referred to in paragraph 3 and immediately notify the offerors of such e-money tokens and their competent authorities thereof.
Amendment 744 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. An issueofferor of e-money tokens, authorised as a credit institution or as an ‘electronic money institution’ as defined in Article 2(1) of Directive 2009/110/EC or applying for such authorisation, may indicate that they wish to classify their e- money tokens as significant e-money tokens. In that case, the competent authority shall immediately notify the request from the issueofferor or applicant issueofferor to EBA.
Amendment 746 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
For the e-money tokens to be classified as significant, the issueofferor or applicant issueofferor of e-money tokens shall demonstrate, through a detailed programme of operations, that it is likely to meet at least three criteria referred to in Article 39(1), as specified in accordance with Article 39(6) and that it will be of a cross-border nature.
Amendment 753 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
The EBA shall give the issueofferor or applicant issueofferor and the competent authority of its home Member State the opportunity to provide observations and comments in writing prior the adoption of its final decision. The EBA shall duly consider those observations and comments.
Amendment 754 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 4
Article 51 – paragraph 4
4. The EBA shall take its final decision on whether an e-money token is a significant e-money token within three months after the notification referred to in paragraph 1 and immediately notify the issuersofferor or applicant issueofferor of such e- money tokens and their competent authorities thereof. The decision shall be immediately notified to the issueofferor or applicant issueofferor of e-money tokens and to the competent authority of its home Member State.
Amendment 757 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – title
Article 52 – title
Specific additional obligations for issueofferors of significant e-money tokens
Amendment 758 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – introductory part
Article 52 – introductory part
Amendment 972 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 77 – paragraph 1
Article 77 – paragraph 1
1. Issuers and offerors of crypto- assets shall inform the public as soon as possible of inside information which concerns them, in a manner that enables the public to access that information in an easy manner and to assess that information in a complete, correct and timely manner.
Amendment 980 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 77 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 77 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Issuers and offerors of crypto- assets may, on their own responsibility, delay disclosure to the public of inside information provided that all of the following conditions are met:
Amendment 984 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 77 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 77 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) immediate disclosure is likely to prejudice the legitimate interests of the issuers or offerors;
Amendment 988 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 77 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 77 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) the issuers or offerors are able to ensure the confidentiality of that information.
Amendment 998 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 82 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point l
Article 82 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point l
(l) to require issueofferors of crypto-assets, including asset-referenced tokens and e- money tokens, or persons asking for admission to trading on a trading platform for crypto-assets, and the persons that control them or are controlled by them, to provide information and documents;
Amendment 999 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 82 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point n
Article 82 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point n
(n) to require issuers (or, where appropriate, offerors) of crypto-assets, including asset-referenced tokens and e- money tokens, to include additional information in their crypto-asset white papers, where necessary for consumer protection or financial stabilityto ensure compliance with existing legislation on consumer protection or financial stability requirements in accordance with the Union’s legislation;
Amendment 1000 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 82 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point s
Article 82 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point s
(s) to make public the fact that an issuer or offeror of crypto-assets, including an issuer or offeror of asset-referenced tokens or e-money tokens, or a person asking for admission to trading on a trading platform for crypto-assets is failing to comply with its obligations;
Amendment 1001 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 82 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point t
Article 82 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point t
(t) to disclose, or to require the issuer of crypto-assetsr offeror, where applicable, including an issuer or offeror of asset-referenced tokens or e-money tokens, to disclose, all material information which may have an effect on the assessment of the crypto-assets offered to the public or admitted to trading on a trading platform for crypto-assets in order to ensure consumer protection or the smooth operation of the market;
Amendment 1002 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 82 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 82 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Supervisory and investigative powers exercised in relation to e-money token issuers are without prejudice to powers granted to relevant competent authorities under national laws transposing Directive 2009/110/EC, with the exception of significant e-money tokens, where the powers are exercised only by the EBA in accordance with Article [98(3)(a)].
Amendment 1003 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 82 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 82 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. In the case of significant asset- referenced tokens or significant e-money tokens, the supervisory and investigative powers granted under this article are executed exclusively by the EBA.
Amendment 1004 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 82 – paragraph 6
Article 82 – paragraph 6
6. A person making information available to the competent authority in accordance with this Regulation shall not be considered to be infringing any restriction on disclosure of information imposed by contract or by any legislative, regulatory or administrative provision, and shall not be subject to liability of any kind related to such notification, unless it is established through the appropriate procedure that that person was acting in bad faith or with the intention of harming third parties.
Amendment 1021 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 98 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 98 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Where an e-money token is classified as significant under Article 50 or Article 51, issuers of such e-money tokens carry out their activity under the exclusive supervision of the EBA. The EBA executes the powers of competent authorities as granted to them in Articles 82, 92 and 93, with reference to issuers of significant e-money tokens.
Amendment 1039 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 100 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Article 100 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Where the ECB is a member of the college pursuant to Article 99(2), point (i), it shall have twoone votes.
Amendment 1053 #
2020/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 102 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Article 102 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Where the ECB is a member of the college pursuant to point (h) of Article 101(2), it shall have twoone votes.
Amendment 19 #
2020/0154(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Regulation (EU) 2016/1011
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
(1) Article 2 is amended as follows:(- a) the following paragraph is inserted: "1a. Chapter 4a applies to: (a) any contract or any financial instrument that is governed by the laws of one of the Member States and that references a benchmark; and (b) any contract that is subject to the law of a third country but the parties to which are all established in the Union and where the law of that third country does not provide for an orderly wind down of a benchmark."
Amendment 25 #
2020/0154(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Regulation (EU) 2016/1011
Article 23a
Article 23a
(2) the following Article 23a is inserted: The following chapter is added: “CHAPTER 4a Replacement of a benchmark by legislation” Article 23a Replacement of a benchmark by Union legislation (1) The Commission may designate one or more replacement benchmarks for a benchmark designated as critical by an implementing act adopted in accordance with Article 20, paragraph 1(a) or 1(c) or a third country benchmark where the winding down or cessation of that benchmark may result in significant disruption of the functioning of financial markets in the Union, provided that any of the following events has occurred: (a) the competent authority for the administrator of that benchmark has issued a public statement, or has published information, in which it is announced that the capability of that benchmark to measure the underlying market or economic reality cannot be restored. In the case of a critical benchmark under points (a) and (c) of Article 20 (1), the above determinations shall be made by the competent authority of that critical benchmark only after the remedial powers set out in Article 23 have been applied without leading to the restoration of the benchmark’s capability to measure the underlying market or economic reality; (b) the administrator of a benchmark has issued a public statement, or has published information, or such public statement has been made or such information has been published on behalf of that administrator, in which it is announced that that administrator will orderly wind down the benchmark or will cease to provide the benchmark or certain tenors or certain currencies in which the benchmark is calculated, permanently or indefinitely, provided that, at the time of the issuance of the statement or the publication of the information, there is no successor administrator that will continue to provide the benchmark; (c) the competent authority for the administrator of a benchmark or any entity with insolvency or resolution authority over the administrator of that benchmark has issued a public statement or has published information in which it is stated that the administrator of that benchmark will orderly wind down the benchmark or will cease to provide that benchmark or certain tenors or certain currencies in which the benchmark is calculated permanently or indefinitely, provided that, at the time of the issuance of the statement or the publication of the information, there is no successor administrator that will continue to provide that benchmark; (d) the competent authority withdraws or suspends the authorization in accordance with Article 35, withdraws the recognition in accordance with Article 32(8) or ceases the endorsement in accordance with Article 33(6), provided that, at the time of the withdrawal or suspension or cessation, there is no successor administrator that will continue to provide that benchmark. (2) The replacement benchmark shall, by law, replace all references to the benchmark in contracts and financial instruments that are subject to Article 2(1a), where all of the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) the contracts or financial instruments reference the benchmark that will cease or be wound down, on the date when the implementing act designating the replacement benchmark enters into force; and (b) those contracts or financial instruments contain (i) no fallback provision or a fallback provision that does not cover the permanent cessation of a reference benchmark; or (ii) a permanent fallback provision, provided that - the relevant authority has established that the application of the contractually agreed fallback provision does generally no longer, and with significant difference, reflect the underlying market or the economic reality that the ceasing benchmark is intended to measure, and could have an adverse impact on financial stability; - following the assessment by the relevant authority in accordance with first indent, one of the parties to the contract has objected to the contractually agreed fallback provision at the latest [three months] before the permanent cessation or winding down of the benchmark; - the contracting parties have not agreed on an alternative fallback provision following the objection pursuant to second indent at latest [one working day] before the permanent cessation or winding down of the benchmark. For the purposes of first indent of point (ii), the relevant authority shall inform the Commission and ESMA of its assessment without undue delay. Where entities in more than one Member State could be affected by the assessment, the relevant authorities of all those Member States shall conduct the assessment jointly. Member States shall designate one or more relevant authorities, which are in the position to conduct the assessment in accordance with first indent). Member States shall inform the Commission and ESMA of the designation of the competent authorities pursuant to this paragraph by … [6 months after entry into force of this Regulation]. (3) The Commission shall adopt an implementing act to designate one or more replacement benchmarks in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 50(2) where one of the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 of this Article fulfilled. The implementing act shall include the following elements: (i) the replacement benchmark (ii) the spread adjustment, including the method for determining such spread adjustment, that is to be applied to the benchmark in cessation on the date of the replacement for each particular term to account for the effects of the transition or change from the benchmark to be wound down to the replacement benchmark; (iii) the corresponding essential conforming changes that are associated with and reasonably necessary for the use or application of a replacement benchmark; (iv) the relevant date from which the replacement benchmark shall apply; When adopting the implementing act, the Commission shall take into account, where available, the recommendations on the replacement benchmark, the spread adjustment and the benchmark replacement conforming changes made by the central bank responsible for the currency area in which the relevant benchmark which is to be wound down, or by the alternative reference rate working group operating under the auspices of the central bank. Before adopting the implementing act the Commission shall conduct a public consultation and shall take into account the recommendations of other relevant stakeholders, including the competent authority of the benchmark administrator and ESMA. (4) Notwithstanding point (ii) of paragraph 2(b) of this Article, the replacement benchmark designated by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply where all parties or the required majority of a contract or financial instrument that is subject to Article 2(1a) have agreed to apply a different replacement benchmark before or after the entry into force of the implementing act.
Amendment 26 #
2020/0154(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Amendment 7 #
2020/0112R(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 17 #
2020/0112R(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas EU ambitions for developing a stronger external dimension should bthere is no basis in the Treflected in the further involvement of the FRA in the monitoring and scrutiny of the acts and activities of the Union and its Member States in the area of the common foreign and securityaties for an EU agency to scrutinise Member States in the implementation of domestic or foreign policyies;
Amendment 20 #
2020/0112R(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas in a globalised world, international cooperation with third countries is increasingly important in order to guarantee sufficient protection of fundamental rightsstrengthen the influence of the Member States making up the European Union;
Amendment 31 #
2020/0112R(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas building trust among EU citizens in the work of police and justice authorities can be achieved when the acts and activities of the Union and its Member States are sufficiently monitored and scrutinised to ensure that they are in line with fundamental values, and FRA activity in the area of freedom, security and justice is therefore of the utmost importance stemming from Roman law and European civilisation, which is based on universal Christian values;
Amendment 39 #
2020/0112R(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Acknowledges the objective of the FRA in providing information, assistance and expertise on fundamental rights and in defending and protecting fundamental rights in the EU; underlines its role as a facilitator in supporting the Union and its Member States when taking measures or formulating courses of action relating to fundamental rights;
Amendment 48 #
2020/0112R(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 57 #
2020/0112R(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point i – paragraph 1
Paragraph 4 – point i – paragraph 1
Amendment 65 #
2020/0112R(APP)
Amendment 73 #
2020/0112R(APP)
In addition to the fight against racism, xenophobia and related intolerance, the fight against antisemitism should be specifically mentioned in the areas of activities of the FRA, and not only in the recital; this would be very much in line with the activities carried out by the FRA in relation to antisemitic incidents since 2009, with yearly updates on the situation in each Member State; points out the need to include combating attacks on Christians and places of worship in the scope of the FRA’s activities;
Amendment 85 #
2020/0112R(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point iv – paragraph 1
Paragraph 4 – point iv – paragraph 1
The proposal by the Commission to discontinue the previous five-year Multiannual Framework should be taken on board; the FRA should prepare its programming in close consultation with the FRA national liaison officers, in order to coordinate the work in the best possible way with the respective national authorities; the draft programming document should be sent to the competent Council preparatory body and the European Parliament for discussion, and for approval; in the light of the outcome of these discussions, the Director of the FRA must submit the draft programming document to the FRA Management Board for adoption;
Amendment 95 #
2020/0112R(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point i – paragraph 1
Paragraph 5 – point i – paragraph 1
As is the case with many other EU agencies, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs should have the right to nominate one additional member of the FRA Management Board; members of the Management Board should have the right to be reappointed once, and the restriction on non-consecutive terms is unnecessary;
Amendment 97 #
2020/0112R(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point ii – paragraph 1
Paragraph 5 – point ii – paragraph 1
Every five years, the acts and activities of the FRA should be submitted by the European Parliament and the Council for an independent external evaluation not commissioned by the Commission. The objective of the independent external evaluation should be to assess in particular the impact, effectiveness, efficiency and working practices of the FRA’s activities and achievements; the Management Board must examine the conclusions of the evaluations referred to in Article 30(3) and issue to the Commission such recommendations as may be necessary regarding changes to the FRA, its working practices and the scope of its mission; the Commission must transmit the evaluation reports and recommendations to Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions and make them public; after having assessed the evaluation report and recommendations, the Commission may submit any proposals for amendments to the regulation which it considers necessary;
Amendment 104 #
2020/0112R(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point iii – paragraph 1
Paragraph 5 – point iii – paragraph 1
Amendment 17 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the effectiveness of return policy at EU level is not high, and a fall in the effectiveness of returns has even been noted;
Amendment 67 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Draws attention to the need to increase the transparency and speed of procedures for issuing return decisions, as this will make it more common for such decisions to be issued at the same time as or immediately after decisions to end legal residence, e.g. in the event of a negative asylum decision or the expiry of a visa or residence permit;
Amendment 74 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Recalls that return procedures are hampered by the failure of third-country nationals to cooperate, and that Member States themselves do not have sufficient tools to enable the competent authorities to swiftly exchange the necessary information in relation with return operations;
Amendment 117 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Stresses that the lack of consistent definitions and interpretations concerning the risk of absconding and the use of detention means, inter alia, that irregular migrants abscond or engage in secondary movements;
Amendment 182 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Stresses the importance of an accelerated border procedure that would apply to persons whose asylum applications have been rejected in the course of asylum procedures at the border and would help to speed up the adoption and enforcement of return decisions at external borders;
Amendment 21 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the increase in the number of Dublin procedures in 2016- 2017 compared to 2014 is clearly linked to migrants who arrived in Europe during the crisis moving to their destination countries, which places a significant administrative burden on some Member States; points out that this results not only from the architecture of the Dublin system, but above all from differences in integration and social policy between Member States;
Amendment 76 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1
Subheading 1
Amendment 77 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1
Subheading 1
Amendment 80 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 83 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the Dublin system places a significant burden on a minority of Member States, in particular when influxes of migrants occur; takes the view that the EU therefore needs a solidarity mechanism which makes for fair sharing of burdens and responsibility among Member States, including through relocation on the basis of objective criteria of asylum seekers who are manifestly eligible for asylum;Notes that in connection with the mass influx of migrants, some Member States are facing a major administrative burden; recognises the difficult, global migration situation and considers that measures to address it should immediately be taken together with the entire international community; recalls, at the same time, that EU agencies such as Frontex and the EASO were set up precisely to balance the excessive burden on some Member States and support them in the implementation of the asylum and border acquis.
Amendment 95 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new)
(1) Refugee relocation cannot be imposed on Member States as an obligation. There is no legal basis or unanimous consent among all Member States for this.
Amendment 96 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 100 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Stresses that taking responsibility for the EU's external borders is key to ensuring the safety of EU citizens;
Amendment 101 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Stresses that the principle of solidarity must be balanced with the principle of responsibility, and that reform of the Dublin system cannot be based on the automatic redistribution of applicants within the EU, as that would further increase pressure on national asylum systems and encourage illegal migration and human trafficking and smuggling; considers, too, that compulsory relocation is an ineffective instrument;
Amendment 102 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Considers a balanced and harmonised migration policy, including asylum, at European level to be necessary, but that it should be based on consensus and a balance of responsibility and solidarity, in line with the June 2018 European Council conclusions;
Amendment 105 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that ad hoc agreements are no substitute for a harmonised and sustainable policy at EU level; deplores the fact that efforts to overhaul the Dublin III Regulation have been blocked in the Councile importance of the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility, with the aim of establishing a framework for the external dimension of migration and asylum policy through enhanced cooperation between the EU and third countries on legal migration and mobility, combating trafficking in human beings, promoting international protection and extending the external dimension of EU asylum policy and the interaction between migration and development policies;
Amendment 111 #
2019/2206(INI)
2a. Stresses that solutions under the European Asylum System must guarantee an adequate level of security and should be based primarily on the principle of Member States' responsibility for national asylum systems; stresses, at the same time, the need for a comprehensive approach to migration, taking into account, among other things, the issue of returns;
Amendment 114 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 123 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Points out that according to a report by the European Court of Auditors, relocation in the period 2015-2017 was an expensive and ineffective solution; stresses that the compulsory distribution of migrants among Member States as part of the EU's migration policy is not a solution and that the relocation mechanism merely contributes to increasing migratory pressure and encourages migrants to try to reach the EU illegally with the help of human smugglers, and that they can often become victims of human trafficking, and in this context draws attention to the risk to human health and life;
Amendment 125 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. CRecalls onthat the Member States have the possibility to make use of the discretionary clause in Article 17 when exceptional circumstances so warrant, for example to relocate asylum seekers currently living in the Greek hotspots in an atmosphere of extreme tension and to provide decent reception conditions; stresses, however, that the discretionary clause should be treated as a clause enabling action to be taken in exceptional circumstances for people in genuine need of support, and not as a loophole in situations where there is no agreement in the EU on the relocation of migrants; recalls that, in accordance with the Dublin III Regulation, the reception of applicants under this clause remains voluntary;
Amendment 141 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 147 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Urges the introduction, in accordance with international law, of fast- track Dublinrapid asylum-related border procedures at the main points of irregular arrival in the EU, in European reception centres, in order to process asylum applications swiftly, assess their merits, determine the Member State responsible and, where appropriate, return asylum seekers without an unnecessarily prolonged detention period;
Amendment 156 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Highlights the significant operational backing for Dublinasylum procedures provided by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) in the hotspots; calls on the Commission and the Member States to facilitate the work of EASO staff by allowing interviews in a language other than that of the country in which they are conducted; calls for the establishment of a European Asylum Agency, with sufficient financial and human resources;
Amendment 185 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Stresses that the right to asylum should be about providing safe protection and basic services, not about independently choosing the best place to live; the external borders should therefore be protected even more effectively and procedures should be introduced to ensure that foreign nationals who require protection are differentiated as quickly as possible from those who only plan to use asylum procedures to enter the EU and move to other Member States and who should be returned immediately to their countries of origin or transit;
Amendment 216 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that in some cases the rules onRecalls that transfer ofring responsibility under Dublin III undermine the efficiency of asylum procedures and the carrying-out of transfers and contribute to the increase in the number of secondary movements by encouraging asylum-seekers to remain outside the system; calls on the Commission to revise the rules, in order to give Member States sufficient time to carry out transfers and do away with transfer of responsibility in cases where an asylum seeker abscondsin cases where the deadline for transfer is not met should encourage Member States to carry out transfers as quickly and efficiently as possible; considers that the time limits currently in force are sufficient;
Amendment 226 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that providing asylum seekers with legal assistance in connection with Dublin procedures, in particular in the hotspots, would simplify the process of obtaining asylum and improve decision- making; calls on the Member States to improve the information made available to asylum seekers on the complex Dublin procedures, to ensure that it is clear and accessible to everyone; stresses the importance of solutions to prevent the submission of multiple applications for international protection;
Amendment 238 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses that the principle of a single asylum application in the EU is consistently flouted, a state of affairs at odds with the very purpose of the Dublin III Regulation; considers that the competent national authorities should share their relevant information on a European database such as Eurodac, in order to speed up procedures and prevent multiple asylum applications, while protecting personal data; considers that registering in the Eurodac system all applicants and illegal migrants crossing the borders is a priority;
Amendment 242 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 257 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Takes the view that closer cooperation between national asylum authorities is needed,the coordination of cooperation within a strong Dublin network, the exchange of in forder to share informationmation at Dublin Committee meetings and streamline transfers; proposesaining organised regularly by thate EASO be given the task of drawing up enhanced governance arrangements for the application of the Dublin III Regulation, including a monthly operational dialogue between national authorities, and a platform for the exchange and sharingprovide effective support to experts in the proper implementation of the Regulation and foster the development of uninformation and best practices EU-wide;
Amendment 259 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 273 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 274 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. PropoStresses that EASO be given an expanded rolee need to develop cooperation between the EASO, Frontex, Europol, eu-LISA agencies in analysing the flows of and pathways taken by asylum seekers, in order to better anticipate and understand pressures on asylum systems;
Amendment 280 #
2019/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 71 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 31
Citation 31
Amendment 77 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 33
Citation 33
Amendment 79 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 34
Citation 34
Amendment 84 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 35
Citation 35
Amendment 326 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Reiterates that women and girls must have control over their bodies and sexualities; calls on all the Member States to guarantee comprehensive sexuality education, ready access for women to family planning, and the full range of reproductive and sexual health services, including modern contraceptive methods and safe and legal abortiothe same rights as men;
Amendment 335 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 488 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Is deeply concerned about the increasingly shrinking space for independent civil society in some Member States; recalls the importance of ensuring adequate funding to support civil society activities;
Amendment 527 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to protect the life, health and property of the citizens of European Union countries who are suffering from the uncontrolled influx of refugees, particularly those living on the Mediterranean islands;
Amendment 1 #
2019/2094(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Director of the Office of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications discharge in respect of the implementation of the Office’s budget for the financial year 2018 / Postpones its decision on granting the Director of the Office of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications discharge in respect of the implementation of the Office’s budget for the financial year 2018;
Amendment 1 #
2019/2093(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Director of the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2018 / Postpones its decision on granting the Director of the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2018;
Amendment 1 #
2019/2092(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Executive Director of the European Securities and Markets Authority discharge in respect of the implementation of the Authority’s budget for the financial year 2018 / Postpones its decision on granting the Executive Director of the European Securities and Markets Authority discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Authority for the financial year 2018;
Amendment 3 #
2019/2090(DEC)
1. Grants the Executive Director of the European Banking Authority discharge in respect of the implementation of the Authority’s budget for the financial year 2018 / Postpones its decision on granting the Executive Director of the European Banking Authority discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Authority for the financial year 2018;
Amendment 3 #
2019/2088(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Executive Director of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) discharge in respect of the implementation of Europol’s budget for the financial year 2018/ Postpones its decision on granting the Executive Director of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2018;
Amendment 1 #
2019/2087(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Director-General of the Euratom Supply Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2018 / Postpones its decision on granting the Director-General of the Euratom Supply Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2018;
Amendment 2 #
2019/2086(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Executive Director of the European Chemicals Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2018 / Postpones its decision on granting the Executive Director of the European Chemicals Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2018;
Amendment 2 #
2019/2084(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Executive Director of the European GNSS Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2018/ Postpones its decision on granting the Executive Director of the European GNSS Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2018;
Amendment 2 #
2019/2083(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Executive Director of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2018 / Postpones its decision on granting the Executive Director of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Agency for the financial year 2018;
Amendment 1 #
2019/2081(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Executive Director of the European Union Agency for Railways discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2018/ Postpones its decision on granting the Executive Director of the European Union Agency for Railways discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2018;
Amendment 1 #
2019/2080(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Executive Director of the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2018/ Postpones its decision on granting the Director of the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2018;
Amendment 2 #
2019/2079(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Director of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control discharge in respect of the implementation of the Centre’s budget for the financial year 2018 / Postpones its decision on granting the Director of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Centre for the financial year 2018;
Amendment 1 #
2019/2077(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Executive Director of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2018/ Postpones its decision on granting the Executive Director of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2018;
Amendment 2 #
2019/2076(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Executive Director of the European Maritime Safety Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2018/ Postpones its decision on granting the Executive Director of the European Maritime Safety Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2018;
Amendment 1 #
2019/2074(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Administrative Director of the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) discharge in respect of the implementation of Eurojust’s budget for the financial year 2018/ Postpones its decision on granting the Administrative Director of the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) discharge in respect of the implementation of the Eurojust’s budget for the financial year 2018;
Amendment 1 #
2019/2073(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2018/ Postpones its decision on granting the Director of the European Medicines Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2018;
Amendment 1 #
2019/2072(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Director of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union discharge in respect of the implementation of the Centre’s budget for the financial year 2018 / Postpones its decision on granting the Director of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union discharge in respect of the implementation of the Centre’s budget for the financial year 2018;
Amendment 3 #
2019/2071(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Executive Director of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2018 / Postpones its decision on granting the Executive Director of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2018;
Amendment 2 #
2019/2070(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Executive Director of the European Environment Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2018 / Postpones its decision on granting the Executive Director of the European Environment Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Agency for the financial year 2018;
Amendment 3 #
2019/2069(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Director of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction discharge in respect of the implementation of the Centre’s budget for the financial year 2018 / Postpones its decision on granting the Director of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Centre for the financial year 2018;
Amendment 2 #
2019/2067(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Executive Director of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) discharge in respect of the implementation of the Foundation’s budget for the financial year 2018 / Postpones its decision on granting the Executive Director of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) discharge in respect of the implementation of the Foundation’s budget for the financial year 2018;
Amendment 2 #
2019/2066(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Executive Director of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training discharge in respect of the implementation of the Centre’s budget for the financial year 2018 / Postpones its decision on granting the Executive Director of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training discharge in respect of the implementation of the Centre’s budget for the financial year 2018;
Amendment 411 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point g
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) being subject of a return decision issued by another Member State; , if consent for transit has not been given pursuant to Article 9(5)
Amendment 543 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. 5 If a return decision sets a deadline for voluntary departure and provided that the third-country national to whom that decision pertains does not constitute a threat to public order or public security or to the national security of the Member States, he or she may, within that deadline and for the sole purpose of enforcing that decision, transit through the territory of a Member State other than the one which issued the decision. Member States may require such transit to be subject to their prior consent. Member States shall inform the Commission and each other of the introduction or withdrawal of the obligation to obtain their prior consent for the transit of a third-country national through their territories.
Amendment 545 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4 b (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. 5. If a third-country national is found on the territory of a Member State: (a) in respect of whom a return decision has been issued by another Member State without a time limit for voluntary departure, (b) who, despite being covered by a return decision issued by another Member State which sets a deadline for voluntary departure, has not obtained consent to transit through the territory of that Member State, if such consent was required, (c) who is considered a threat to public order or public security or to the national security of that Member State then that Member State may either apply the procedure laid down in Council Directive 2001/40/EC or return the third- country national concerned to the Member State that issued the decision.
Amendment 561 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Member States may decide that any costs they incur in connection with an expulsion shall be reimbursed by the third-country national concerned by the return decision or by any other person or entity responsible for the third-country national’s stay or employment in their territory.
Amendment 597 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall consider withdrawing or suspending an entry ban where a third- country national who is the subject of an entry ban issued in accordance with paragraph 1, second subparagraph, can demonstrate that he or she has left the territory of a Member State in full compliance with a return decision. Member States shall make the withdrawal or suspension of an entry ban conditional upon the third-country national or other person or liable entity paying the charges arising from the decision, taken in accordance with Article 10(7), to establish the costs related to the expulsion of that third-country national. In such a case, the entry ban shall not be withdrawn or suspended until the third-country national or other person or liable entity has paid those charges. If the charges have not been paid by the end of the period of the entry ban, that period shall be extended until the date on which those charges become time-barred under national law.
Amendment 652 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall establish reasonablea time limit not exceeding five (5) days and other necessary rules to ensure the exercise of the right to an effective remedy pursuant to this Article.
Amendment 702 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. 7. Member States may detain a third-country national for a second time despite having made use of the period provided for in paragraph 6 if, after his or her release from detention, circumstances arise which make it possible to enforce a return decision previously issued in relation to that third-country national. The new period of detention shall not exceed 30 days.
Amendment 744 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 3
Article 22 – paragraph 3
3. Return decisions issued in return procedures carried out in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article shallmay be given by means of a standard form as set out under national legislation, in accordance with Article 15(3).
Amendment 430 #
2018/0108(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point a
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point a
(a) the identity of a subscriber or customer such as the provided name, date of birth, postal or geographic address, billing and payment data, telephone, or email or IP address;
Amendment 507 #
2018/0108(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4 – point b – indent 3 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 4 – point b – indent 3 a (new)
- the possibility to provide evidence in relation to each offence, as well as the need to examine double criminality beyond the list of 32 criminal offences set out in the EIO list;
Amendment 6 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 15
Citation 15
Amendment 8 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 16
Citation 16
Amendment 23 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the procedure under Article 7 TEU has its limits set by the reasoned proposal submitted by the Commission, and any matters not covered by it cannot be subject to the European Parliament’s consent procedure;
Amendment 26 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. Points out that the European Parliament’s role in the consent procedure is described in Article 7 and cannot be otherwise usurped; recalls that, according to Article 269 TFEU, only procedural matters can be challenged before the CJEU under Article 7 TEU;
Amendment 28 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 3
Paragraph 1 – indent 3
Amendment 32 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 37 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. ExpStresses its deep concern tthat the Polish Government hats, despite three hearings of Poland having been held in the Council, alarming reports by the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe,pursuant to Article 7, thoroughly and repeatedly explained the reasons behind the reform of the judiciary in Poland 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) TEUtlined its basic principles welcomes the fact that the presentations were comprehensive, addressing all concerns and questions raised by Member States and the European Commission;
Amendment 40 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 43 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Amendment 47 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Takes the view that the latest developments in the ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) TEU once again underline the imminent need for a complementary and preventive Union mecNotes that the Council has so far not identified a risk of serious breach by Poland of the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU; emphansism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights as put forward by Parliament in its resolutes that the Council is the only EU institution with such a competence under the provisions of 25 October 2016Article 7(1) TEU;
Amendment 52 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Reiterates its position on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the Union’s budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States, including the need to safeguard the rights of beneficiaries, and calls on the Council to start interinstitutional negotiations as soon as possible;Stresses that the conditionality of the disbursement of EU funds must be based on objective and measurable criteria; notes that any non-economic and political criteria create a flagrant risk of their instrumentalisation and introduce uncertainty for the beneficiaries of EU funds; recalls Opinion No 1/2018 of the European Court of Auditors, which expressly draws attention to the above- mentioned element and to the risk of loss of funding by the beneficiaries of funds.
Amendment 56 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2
Subheading 2
Amendment 67 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Denounces that, during the COVID-19 outbreak, but not linked with the COVID-19 outbreak, legislation is being debated or even rushed through in Parliament in very sensitive areas such as abortion, sexual education, the organisation of elections or the term of office of the President, the latter even requiring a change to the Constitution; underlines that this could amount to abuse of the fact that citizens cannot organise or protest publicly, which would seriously undermine the legitimacy of the legislation adoptedStresses that the proposal concerning abortion is a citizens’ initiative, and not a government one, and was submitted on 30 November 2017 by a group of at least 100 000 entitled persons and initiated by the ‘Stop Abortion’ Legislative Initiative Committee; recalls that, in accordance with the regulations in force, the project was submitted for parliamentary action and has been on the agenda for over two-and-a-half years;
Amendment 69 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Recalls that the Resolution of the European Parliament of 10 December 2013 on sexual and reproductive health and rights (2013/2040(INI)) ‘notes that the formulation and implementation of policies on SRHR and on sexual education in schools is a competence of the Member States’;
Amendment 165 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Reiterates its call on the Polish government to respect the right of freedom of assembly by removing from the current act of 24 July 2015 on public assemblies, as amended on 13 December 2016, the provisions prioritising government-approved ‘cyclical’ assemblies48; urges the authorities to refrain from applying criminal sanctions to people whocalls that on 2 April 2017, an amendment to the act on public assemblies came into force, with Article 12(1) of the act being amended through the introduction of a rule stipulating that different assemblies may not be held within 100 metres of each other, thus the amendment reduces the likelihood of threat to the safety of participatents in peacefulconcurrent assemblies or counter-demonstrations and to drop criminal charges against peaceful protesters; _________________ 48 See as weby increasing the distance between them, while their participants are able to express their opinions; recalls the Commuat persons or organicsation of 23 April 2018 by UN Expertss have the right to uorge Poland to ensure free and full participation at climate talksanise assemblies once the formal requirements set out in the act of 24 July 2015 have been met.
Amendment 166 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Reiterates its call on the Polish government to respect the right of freedom of assembly by removing from the current act of 24 July 2015 on public assemblies, as amended on 13 December 2016, the provisions prioritising government-approved ‘cyclical’ assemblies48; urges the authorities to refrain from applying criminal sanctions to people whocalls that persons or organisations shall have the right to organise assemblies after meeting the formal requirements set out in the act of 24 July 2015, and that police officers shall take action only against persons who violate the prevailing legal order, first of all by trying to separate them from participatents in peaceful assemblies or counter-demonstrations and to drop crimithe assembly who are peacefully demonstrating their views; recalls, furthermore, that the Constitutional Tribunal charges against peaceful protesters; _________________ 48 See as well the Communication of 23 April 2018 by UN Experts to urge Poland to ensure free and full participation at climate talks.s pointed out that the introduction of the institution of cyclical assemblies is an additional and new way of defining the legal framework for the exercise of freedom of assembly;
Amendment 170 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
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, and a fair, impartial and transparent distribution of public funds to civil society, ensuring pluralStresses that, within the framework of existing legislation, the fair, impartial and transparent distribution of public funds is fully ensured, and that the procedure for allocating funds is also regulated by the act on the National Freedom Institute; notes that, in accordance with the procedure, each application for funding is assessed by two external experts, and that all conditions of each open competition are the subject of public consultations with non- governmental organisatic representation; _________________ 49OSCE/ODIHR, Opinion on the Draft Act of Poland on the National Freedom Institute - Centre for thons and are also approved by the Council of the National Freedom Institute before each open competition is announced; stresses that all NGOs and NGO coalitions have the right to submit their comments and amendments to the chart; points out that the eligibility criteria are pluralistic and include Development of Civil Society, Warsaw, 22 August 2017.ryone, and that all civil society groups and NGOs that meet the definition set out in Article 3 of the act on public benefit and volunteerism can apply for grants;
Amendment 174 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Reiterates its conclusion set out in its resolution of 14 September 2016 that the procedural safeguards and material conditions laid downStresses that the act of 10 June 2016 on counter-terrorist activities provides a legal basis for systemic solutions adopted in Poland in the field of counter-terrorist activities, and the provisions contained therein are aimed, inter alia, at enabling the authorities and other entities to take effective and proportionate action against terrorist threats; points out, therefore, that the provisions adopted in theis act of 10 June 2016 on anti-terrorist actions and the act of 6 April 1990 on the police for the implementatconcerning the possibilities of carrying out operational monitoring refer only to a person who is suspected of being likely to engage in terrorist activity and who is not a Polish citizen; stresses, moreover, that in Poland the processing of information by the authorities, including personal data, is carried out in accordance with the principles set out in the provisions of secret surveillance are not sufficient to prevent its excessive use or unjustified interference with the privacy and data protection of individuals, including of opposition and civil society leaders50; repeats its call on the Commission to carry out an assessmethe act of 14 December 2018 on the protection of personal data processed in connection with preventing and combating crime and the act of 5 August 2010 on the protection of classified information, as well as in the rules governing the individual authorities; points out that the rules laid down in the aforementioned acts are in line with the standards of EU law established in this matter, including Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the competent authorities for the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, the free movement of such data and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA; states that, pursuant to Article 20 of the acts of 4 April 1990 on police, the police have the right to process information, including personal data, in accordance with their statutory tasks and subject to regulatory restrictions; points ofut that legislation as regards its compatibility with Union Law, and urges Polish authorities to fully respect the privacy of all citizens; _________________ 50UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), Concluding observationsoperational monitoring (covert surveillance) may take place only with the consent of the court, provided that it aims to detect and identify the perpetrators, as well as to obtain and consolidate evidence seized by public prosecution, of intentional crimes set out in Article 19(1), points 1-9 of this act, and provided that other measures have proved ineffective or will not be useful; points out that the act allows that in urgent cases, if this could result in the loss of information or the obliteration or destruction of evidence of a crime, the police, with the written consent onf the sevcompetenth periodic report of Poland, 23 November 2016, paras 39-40. See as well Communication by UN Experts to urge Poland to ensure free and full participation at climate talks, 23 April 2018.rosecutor, may exercise this right without the consent of the court; notes that they are nevertheless obliged to apply to the court at the same time for the issuance of an appropriate provision to that effect; points out that if the court does not give its consent within five days from the date of the operational control order, it shall be suspended and the materials collected during the control shall be recorded in the minutes, provided that their destruction is recorded; notes that the principle being applied is one of judicial and prosecutorial review;
Amendment 179 #
Amendment 184 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Reiterates its deep concern expressed in its resolution of 14 November 2019, also shared by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights51, overStresses that the draft law amending Article 200b of the Polish Penal Code, submitted to the Sejm by the ‘Stop Paedophilia’ initiative, for its extremely vague, broad and disproportionate provisions, which de facto seeks to criminalise the dissemination of sexual education to minors and whose scope potentially threatens all persons, in particular parents, teachers and sex educators, with up to three years in prison for teaching about human sexuality, health and intimate relations; stresses the importance of health and sexual education; _________________ 51Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Statement of 14 April 2020.ment to the Penal Code was drawn up by the citizens’ initiative ‘Stop Paedophilia’ and refers to the criminalisation of the promotion of paedophilic behaviour; emphasises that this does not constitute the criminalisation of education, but a ban on promoting paedophilia;
Amendment 188 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 a (new)
Paragraph 42 a (new)
42a. Recalls that, in accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Union must fully respect the ‘responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems’ and, at the same time, has the task of supporting, complementing and coordinating the development of education;
Amendment 192 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 22
Subheading 22
Amendment 201 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Recalls that Parliament has strongly criticised, already in its resoluStresses that the draft amendment to the act of 7 January 1993 on family planning, protections of 14 September 2016 and 15 November 2017, any legislative proposal that would prohibit abortion in cases of severe or fatal foetal impairment, emphasizing that universal access to healthcare, including sexual and reproductive healthcare and the associated rights, is a fundamental human right52; _________________ 52See as well Statement of 22 March 2018 by UN Experts advising the UN Working Group on discrimination against women, and Statement of 14 April 2020 by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.the human foetus and the conditions of admissibility for the termination of pregnancy, which is being negotiated in the Polish Parliament, is a citizens’ initiative that is being negotiated in accordance with the applicable legal provisions; notes, however, that the Government of the Republic of Poland is not working on an amendment to the act on access to abortion;
Amendment 208 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Recalls that previous attempts to further limit the right to abortion, which in Poland is already among the most restricted in the Union, were halted in 2016 and 2018 as a result of mass opposition from Polish citizens as expressed in the ‘Black Marches’; calls for the law limiting women’s and girls’ access to the emergency contraceptive pill to be repealedinternational law does not recognise the so-called right to abortion and no binding treaty recognises such a right, and that the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly stressed that the right to private life cannot be interpreted as consenting to the so-called right to abortion; recalls that such a right cannot, furthermore, be considered to emerge as an international custom, since in the vast majority of countries which allow access to abortion, such access constitutes immunity from criminal proceedings and is not defined as a right;
Amendment 215 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Reiterates its call onStresses that the Polish gGovernment to take appropriate action on and strongly condemn any xenophobic and fascist hate crime or hate speech53; _________________ 53EP Resolution of 15 November 2017, para. 18; PACE, Resolution 2316 (2020) of 28 January 2020 on the functioning of democratic institutions in Poland, para. 14; UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), Concludconducts monitoring of crimes motivated by prejudice, and the scope of this monitoring includes information about preparatory proceedings for hate crimes conducted (by the police) throughout the country; points out that hate crimes, due to their high social harmfulness, are included in the Priorities of the Police Commander in Chief; notes that educational activities are also conducted ing observations on the seventh periodic report of Poland, 23 November 2016, CCPR/C/POL/CO/7, paras 15-18.rder to provide police officers with the knowledge and skills necessary to prevent and combat hate crimes;
Amendment 218 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)
Paragraph 45 a (new)
45a. Welcomes the actions of Polish authorities condemning xenophobic and fascist hate crime or hate speech and calls on Polish authorities to further taking of appropriate actions in this regard;
Amendment 220 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 b (new)
Paragraph 45 b (new)
45b. Recalls that the Constitution of the Republic of Poland confirms the prohibition of discrimination against anyone on any grounds;
Amendment 226 #
2017/0360R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Recalls its stance expressed in its resolution of 18 December 2019, when it strongly denounced any discrimination against LGBTI people and the violation of their fundamental rights by public authorities, including hate speech by public authorities and elected officials, in the context of elections, as well as the declarations of zones in Poland free from so-called ‘LGBT ideology’iterates its call that discrimination against LGBTI people by persons performing public functions, including hate speech and violation of personal rights should be denounced, and calleds on the Commission to strongly condemn such public discrimination;
Amendment 75 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31a
Recital 31a
(31a) In order to increase the efficiency of procedures and to reduce the risk of absconding and the likelihood of unauthorised movements, there should be no procedural gaps between the issuance of a negative decision on an application for international protection and of a return decision. A return decision should simmediateultaneously be issued to applicants whose applications are rejected. Without prejudice to the right to an effective remedy, the return decision should either be part of the negative decision on an application for international protection or, if it is a separate act, be issued at the same time and together with the negative decision.’
Amendment 86 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39a
Recital 39a
(39a) In the interest of swift and fair procedures for all applicants, whilst also ensuring that the stay of applicants who do not qualify for international protection in the Union is not unduly prolonged, including those who are nationals of third countries exempt from the requirement to be in a possession of a visa pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 2018/1806, Member States should accelerate the examination of applications of applicants who are nationals or, in the case of stateless persons, formerly habitual residents of a third country for which the share of decisions granting international protection is lower than 240% of the total number of decisions for that third country. Where a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant Eurostat data and taking into account the guidance note pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation XX/XX on the European Asylum Agency, or where the applicant belongs to a specific category of persons for whom the low recognition rate cannot be considered as representative of their protection needs due to a specific persecution ground, examination of the application should not be accelerated. Cases where a third country may be considered as a safe country of origin or a safe third country for the applicant within the meaning of this Regulation should remain applicable as a separate ground for respectively the accelerated examination procedure or the inadmissible procedure.
Amendment 110 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40b
Recital 40b
(40b) Member State should assess applications in a border procedure where the applicant is a danger to national security or public order, where the applicant has misled the authorities by presenting false information or documents or by withholding relevant information or documents with respect to his or her identity or nationality that could have had a negative impact on the decision and where it is likely that the application is unfounded because the applicant is of a nationality for whom decisions granting international protection is lower than 240% of the total number of decisions for that third country. In other cases, such as when the applicant is from a safe country of origin or a safe third country, the use of the border procedure should be optional for the Member States.
Amendment 120 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40d
Recital 40d
Amendment 133 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40e
Recital 40e
(40e) The duration of the border procedure for examination of applications for international protection should be as short as possible while at the same time guaranteeing a complete and fair examination of the claims. It should in any event not exceed 12 weeks. This deadline should be understood as a stand-alone deadline for the asylum border procedure, encompassing both the decision on the examination of the application as well as the decision of the first level of appeal, if applicable. Within this period, Member States are entitled to set the deadline in national law both for the administrative and for the appeal stage, but should set them in a way so as to ensure that the examination procedure is concluded and that subsequently, if relevant, the decision on the first level of appeal is issued within this maximum 12 week. After that period, if the Member State nevertheless failed to take the relevant decisions, the applicant should in principle be authorised to enter the territory of the Member State. Entry into the territory should however not be authorised where the applicant has no right to remain, where he or she has not requested to be allowed to remain for the purpose of an appeal procedure, or where a court or tribunal has decided that he or she should not be allowed to remain pending the outcome of an appeal procedure. In such cases, to ensure continuity between the asylum procedure and the return procedure, the return procedure should also be carried out in the context of a border procedure for a period not exceeding 12 weeks. This period should be counted starting from the moment in which the applicant, third-country national or stateless person no longer has a right to remain or is no longer allowed to remain.
Amendment 211 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 a
Article 35 a
Where an application is rejected as inadmissible, unfounded or manifestly unfounded with regard to both refugee status and subsidiary protection status, or as implicitly or explicitly withdrawn, Member States shall issue a return decision that respects Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive]. The return decision shall be issued as part of the decision rejecting the application for international protection or, in a separate act. Where the return decision is issued as a separate act, it shall be issued at the same time and together with the decision rejecting the application for international protection.’
Amendment 219 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – point a – paragraph 1 – point i
Article 40 – point a – paragraph 1 – point i
(i) ‘the applicant is of a nationality or, in the case of stateless persons, a former habitual resident of a third country for which the proportion of decisions by the determining authority granting international protection is, according to the latest available yeaquarterly Union-wide average Eurostat data, 20% or lower, unless a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant Eurostat data or the applicant belongs to a category of persons for whom the proportion of 20% or lower cannot be considered as representative for their protection needs;’
Amendment 227 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – point b – paragraph 5 – point c
Article 40 – point b – paragraph 5 – point c
(c) ‘the applicant is of a nationality or, in the case of stateless persons, a former habitual residence of a third country for which the proportion of decisions granting international protection by the determining authority is, according to the latest available yeaquarterly Union-wide average Eurostat data, 20% or lower, unless a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant Eurostat data or the applicant belongs to a category of persons for whom the proportion of 20% or lower cannot be considered as representative for their protection needs;’
Amendment 269 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 4
Article 41 – paragraph 4
Amendment 283 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 5
Article 41 – paragraph 5
Amendment 321 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 9 – point b
Article 41 – paragraph 9 – point b
Amendment 326 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 9 – point c
Article 41 – paragraph 9 – point c
Amendment 340 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 11 – subparagraph 1
Article 41 – paragraph 11 – subparagraph 1
11. The border procedure shall be as short as possible while at the same time enabling a complete and fair examination of the claims. It shall encompass the decision referred to in paragraph 2 and 3 and any decision on an appeal if applicable and shall be completed within 12 weeks from when the application is registered. Following that period, the applicant shall be authorised to enter the Member State’s territory except when Article 41a(1) is applicable.
Amendment 349 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 11 – subparagraph 2
Article 41 – paragraph 11 – subparagraph 2