1272 Amendments of Jean-Paul GARRAUD
Amendment 26 #
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 managing the common external borders of the European Union and in ensuring integrated border management in full compliance with fundamental rights;
Amendment 30 #
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 suchthese increases in responsibility and budget for the Agency need to bare accompanied by a corresponding increase ind accountability and transparency and increased scrutiny of the Agency’s respect for Union lawtowards the Council and Parliament;
Amendment 34 #
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 to transparency and efficiency in internal procedures and to increased 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 runcalls on the new leadership to undertake the necessary reforms;
Amendment 38 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Amendment 42 #
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;
Amendment 46 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 5
5. Expresses disappointment that, during the appointment procedure and unknown to Members of Parliament, one of the candidates proposedthe interim Executive Director and proposed candidate for the post of executive director of the Agency was a person of interest in the second ongoing OLAF investigation;
Amendment 49 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 7 – introductory part
7. Recognises the efforts made by the Agency to implement 36 out of 42 FSWG recommendations and the tangible progress made in this respect; recommends, on the basis of the FSWG recommendations, that the following further specific actions be taken:
Amendment 50 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 7 – indent 1
Amendment 54 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 7 – indent 2
Amendment 57 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 7 – indent 3
Amendment 61 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 7 – indent 4
Amendment 65 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 11
Amendment 67 #
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 72 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 13
Amendment 83 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 14
14. WelcomNotes the Agency’s decision to scale down its activities in Lithuania in July 2022 in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on 30 June 2022 as regards the Lithuanian law and decrees on asylum and migration; noteIs pleased to stress that the Agency still has officers on the ground supporting national authorities with border checks at selected border crossing points and assisting return- related activities in Lithuania; recommends that the Agency take a more proactive approach to protecting the Union’s principles and values rather than await CJEU rulings; __________________ 10 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 30 June 2022, M.A. v Valsybès sienos apsaugos tarnyba, C-72/22PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2022:505.
Amendment 87 #
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.Welcomes the fact that the Agency continues to support Hungarian authorities in carrying out returns;
Amendment 94 #
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 investing in appropriate assets for such operations;
Amendment 99 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 17
17. Notes that Parliament has previously taken the view that a permanent, robust and effective Union response in search and rescue operations at sea is crucial to prevent the death toll of migrants attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea from escalating12; remains convinced that the Agency could have a key role to play in a more proactive response by the EU and Member States to search and rescue, particularly in the Mediterranean Sea, and to the fight against criminal smugglers and human traffickers; __________________ 12 European Parliament resolution of 12 April 2016 on the situation in the Mediterranean and the need for a holistic EU approach to migration, OJ C 58, 15.2.2018.remains convinced that the Agency could have a key role to play in the fight against criminal smugglers and human traffickers;
Amendment 103 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 18
Amendment 113 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 19
Amendment 118 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 20
20. Urges the Commission to conduct fundamental rights impact assessments prior to concludinge negotiations for a status agreement with a third country in order to be able to fully consider the fundamental rights impact of cooperating with that country; calls on the Agency to share periodical evaluations of joint operations in third countries and constantly assess the impact and scope of active operations, including in respect of fundamental rights;
Amendment 122 #
2023/2729(RSP)
Paragraph 24
24. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, the Commissionuncil and the Councilmmission.
Amendment 29 #
2023/2172(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WelcomesIs concerned that in 2022 the, Frontex went through significanthas experienced managerialment 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; further welcomes steps taken by Frontex to undergo a transition process and to improve the management culture and leading the Agency to prioritize fundamental rights to the detriment of its primary mission of border promote staff well-beingction;
Amendment 38 #
2023/2172(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Nnotes with satisfaction that in order to improve accountability, regularity, and legality of all Frontex activitiesthat 22 additional 22 Ffundamental Rrights Monitors (FROMs) were externally recruited, exceeding the obligation of 40 FROMobservers have been recruited externally, thus exceeding the 40 fundamental rights observers required by Article 110(6) of the Regulation; welcomeregrets that the Fundamental Rights Office conducted 1 183 deployment days visiting 50 countries which is a substantial increase in comparison to the previous year; further appreciates that the monitors took place in in 37 return missions contributing to the full compliance of the activities with the legal framework in placese observers obstruct the Agency's border protection mission and calls for the cancellation of the 18 additional recruitments planned by 2026;
Amendment 9 #
2023/2129(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that Member States stepped up implementation of their national programmes in 2022; is concerned that significant amounts remain undisbursed for both Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) (26 %) and, notably for the Internal Security Fund (ISF) (33 %), meanwhile acknowledges that funding for 2014-2020 has to be spent by June 2024; urges the Commission to step up its efforts towards assisting Member States in the effective implementation of their respective national programmes;
Amendment 30 #
2023/2129(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 20 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 26 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises the crucial role played by grassroots and communityof transparency and control played by the European Parliament over funds allocated to organiszations, trade unions, activist groups, human rights defenders and non- governmental organiszations (NGOs) in promoting and upholding democracy, equality, the rule of law and fundamental rights and in ensuring accountability for state and private actions;
Amendment 32 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that civil society is a broader category than that of NGOs; notes that while NGOs are, on the onstresses therefore thand, a favoured institutional form of the neoliberal state and therefore rarely truly oppositional, on the other hand many resist instrumentalisation and expose the excesses of state and private interests; stresses, therefore, that they must be protected, including through the provision of adequate funding, including foreign funding; notes that it is short-sighted to treat NGOs as a singular bloc with a singular policy outlookt funding, private and public, national and foreign, must be made public in order to guarantee the transparency of their actions and avoid foreign interference;
Amendment 37 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that civil society is a broader category than that of NGOs; notes that while NGOs are,NGOs must provide annual detailed assesement onf the onprovenance hand, a favoured institutional form of the neoliberal state and therefore rarely truly oppositional, on the other hand many resist instrumental use of all their funds; details of all mission to which European funds have been allocated shall mention any participating organisations and expose the excesses of state and private interests; stresses, therefore, that they must be protected, including through the provision of adequate funding, including foreign funding; notetheir contribution highlighting be able to give details of the missions to which European Union funds that it is short-sighve been allocated; tohe treat NGOs as a singular bloc with a singular policy outlookaceability of funds must be given without suffering significant delays between request and receipt;
Amendment 52 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Remains deeply concerned by threats to and attacks on NGOs ine lack of transparency in the financing of NGOs; recalls that well-known NGOs have been financed by States to exert pressure against French nuclear power or to oppose policies pursued by democratically elected Member States;
Amendment 52 #
2023/2122(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Calls for an end to the funding of NGOs undertaking search and rescue operations, which contribute to illegal migration towards European countries and facilitate human smuggling;
Amendment 55 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Remains deeply concerned by threats to and attacks on NGOs in Member Statee lack of transparency of European funds sent and more particularly those intended for Palestine and their final recipients;
Amendment 73 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Member States and the EU to improve the legal environment for civil society by ensuring that any measure restricting the right of associations to seek, secure and use resources, including foreign resources, must pursue one of the legitimate aims under Article 11(2) of the European Convention on Human RightsNGO is obliged to make public its private and public, national and foreign funding, in order to guarantee the transparency of their actions and avoid foreign interference;
Amendment 74 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Member States and the EUparticularly the European Union to improve the legal environment for civil society by ensuring that any measure restricting the right of assthe transparency of funds allociations to seek, secure and use resources, including foreign resources, must pursue one of the legitimate aims under Article 11(2)ed to NGOs or any other organization claiming to be part of civil society, and to strengthen parliamentary controls ofn the European Convention on Human Rightallocation of these funds;
Amendment 78 #
2023/2122(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Regrets that some NGOs supported financially by the EU promote values that are contrary to those of freedom and democracy; calls to cease all funding of NGOs with links to Islamism and Islamist-linked organisations;
Amendment 87 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that transparency and accountability measures must only serve the purpose ofaim to ensuringe legitimate public scrutiny; stresses that reporting requirements for NGOs must remain strictly necessary and proportionate to the specific aims pursued; , and that to this end MEPs must be able to consult a database updated regularly, specifying the amounts and recipients, particularly regarding NGOs, of funds allocated by the European Union;
Amendment 89 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that transparency and accountability measures must only serve the purpose ofo ensuringe legitimate public scrutiny; stresses that reporting requirements forimposed on NGOs must remainbe strictly necessary and proportionate to the specific aims pursued enough to prevent foreign powers from interfering in the policies pursued by Member States;
Amendment 101 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that current EU instruments are likely insufficient for achieving proportionate transparency goals concerning funding and particularly NGO funding;
Amendment 103 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that current EU instruments are likely insufficient for achieving proportionate transparency goals concerning NGO funding;
Amendment 115 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 122 #
2023/2122(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Warns emphatically against the weaponisation of the concept of ‘foreign interference’ and emphasises that this can be and is being used by governments to repress civil society and NGOthat the lack of transparency on funding enables misappropriation of funds, and raises legitimate suspicions about the allocation of EU funds directly or indirectly financing Islamic terrorist organizations, such as Hamas.
Amendment 123 #
2023/2122(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Is concerned about cases of fraud and irregularities, notably in situations where NGOs that are members of different international networks or platforms that receive EU funding are at risk of conflicts of interest, double funding, corruption or money laundering; is concerned about the lack of publicly available data on the fraud cases involving NGOs; calls on the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to compile and provide such data to Parliament and the ECA and to draw up a list of NGOs that have broken the law; insists for the scope of the anti-money laundering directive to be broadened to also apply to NGOs;
Amendment 204 #
2023/2122(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26 a. Calls for financial aid to NGOs to be made conditional on the provision of documents attesting to the use of funds in recent financial years, the specific projects supported, the results of the due diligence carried out and the responsibility to report within 6 months of the payment of funds;
Amendment 86 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that Member State governments and EU elected representatives, leaders and officials should set an example by refraining from any corrupt practices and that there should be no government or political interference in corruption investigations; points out that EU elected representatives and officials as well may be involved in corruption, as demonstrated by ‘Qatargate’, therefore reiterates its demand for the annual report to also cover the EU institutions;
Amendment 135 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 174 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
Amendment 222 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
Amendment 226 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Strongly regrets the fact that the Commission is not taking stronger action to enforce EU law; calls therefore on the Commission to step up the number of new infringement procedures and to push forward existing infringement procedures with more audacity and urgency; calls onEncourages the Commission not to use ‘dialogue’ with Member States or the ‘pilot’ procedure as an open-ended means to avoid launching actual infringement procedures; calls on the Commission to revise its policy – which has no basis in the Treaties – not to use infringement actions for ‘individual’ cases, as this policy has led to serious deprivation of rights for citizens across the EU, especially where their own governments are refusing to comply with EU law or CJEU judgments, as most of these cases are not individual but address strategic and fundamental issuas a means of settling disputes with national authorities;
Amendment 230 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
Amendment 259 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Takes note of the Council’s ongoing evaluation of its rule of law dialogue and of the Council’s stated position that it will consider further possible interfact that, in accordance with the Treaties, it is the sole institutional with coomperation in that context; calls on the Council to maketence in the area and its rule of law dialogue more inclusive, by inviting othnot obliged to engage in any inter institutions and stakeholders to its sessions, in particular Council of Europe bodies such as the Venice Commission, as well as representatives of the European Parliamental cooperation either with other EU institutions or with external stakeholders;
Amendment 262 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Regrets thatTakes note of the Commission and the Council have so far rejected Parliament’s offerdecisions not to enter into an interinstitutional agreement on the rule of law; reaffirms its willingness to resume talks on this agree with Parliament;
Amendment 268 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. CondemnsTakes note of the total lack of progress in the ongoing Article 7(1) TEU procedures; urges the Council to address all new developments affecting the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights; reiterates its call on the Council to address recommendations in the framework of this procedure, underlining that any further delaying of such action would amount to a breach of the rule of law principle by the Council itself; insists that Parliament’s role and competences be respected and consequently invites the Council to close them;
Amendment 273 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Calls on the Commission to include, strictly monitor and safeguard the DRF conditions in all budgetary instruments and processes; calls on the Commission in this regard not to unblock any cohesion funds for Hungary unless all enabling conditions have been fully met and the judiciary in that Member State can be considered fully independent on paper and in practice; calls on the Commission and the Council to apply the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation further and without delay where needed, and not to lift the measures adopted in the case of Hungary until all the milestones have been effectively fulfilled; calls on the Commission to rigorously verify that the rule of law related milestones in the various Member State recovery and resilience plans are fulfilled as a condition for disbursing funding when Member States make payment requests; calls on the Commission to assign the primary responsibility for the application ofstop using the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation to put political pressure on some Member States to change policies approved in democratic elections that fall within theseir conditions to the Commissioners responsible for the rule of lawmpetence;
Amendment 276 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)
Paragraph 45 a (new)
45a. Stresses that each Member State has its own national identity and constitutional traditions that are in line with European values and which must always be treated with respect, objectivity and in conformity with the principle of equality; underlines that the rule of law is a fundamental value for all Member States; expresses its concern that the misuse of the concept of the rule of law for political purposes is destroying mutual trust and sincere cooperation between Member States;
Amendment 278 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 b (new)
Paragraph 45 b (new)
45b. recalls that the Member States are and remain, under public international law, the masters of the Treaties; calls for a reform of the EU towards a Europe that preserves the sovereignty and identity of our European nations and peoples;
Amendment 279 #
2023/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the governments of the Member States and the Commission.
Amendment 9 #
2023/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas, to prevent the European Union from being submerged by migration, asylum and migration policy needs to be reformed by processing asylum seekers’ files in Member States’ embassies and consulates in the third countries of origin or in the Member States of transit;
Amendment 10 #
2023/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas the Commission prefers deploying Frontex staff in many of the countries from which the migrants depart rather than funding the physical barriers on the European Union’s external borders that a majority of the Member States are calling for;
Amendment 11 #
2023/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 27 #
2023/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas Mauritania has no national legal asylum system in place; whereas the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) grants de facto protection with the issuance of refugee cards and certificates on the basis of a memorandum with the authorities; whereas people deemed ineligible for protection are structurally deported by the authorities without further procedure; whereas this has included deportations of people whose cases have not been assessed by the UNHCR; whereas Mauritania’s current legal framework does not allow for effective protection of women and childrone of the actions provided for in the Agreement of 7 July 2002 between Frontex and Mauritania is to propose to the Mauritanian authorities that an informal dialogue on migration and the national asylum system be held between the EU and Mauritania, focusing in particular on combating the trafficking of migrants and on border management, or of LGBTIQ+ persons; whereas same-sex activity is illegal in Mauritania; so as to best determine their needs in this area and identify the possibilities for Frontex support;
Amendment 35 #
2023/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
Amendment 46 #
2023/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Welcomes Mauritania’s initiative to cooperate with Frontex with a view to securing Europe against mass immigration, criminality and terrorism;
Amendment 47 #
2023/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Expresses its deep concern about the situation of fundamental rights in Mauritania, particularly for migrants and refugeesin connection with slavery, and considers that the deployment of Frontex executive powers in Mauritania entails a high risk of becoming complicit in serious and most likely persistent violations of fundamental rights or international protection obligationswill make it possible to better assess the risks, in particular for the EU’s security; calls on Frontex to draw up a table of developments and trends in the areas of illegal migration and cross-border criminal activity at the borders and to share that information with the EU Member States and the Commission; recommends that such information be used to plan its future activities in Mauritania;
Amendment 61 #
2023/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that if the Model Status Agreement falls short of addressing the above-mentioned concerns, thia tool like the Africa-Frontex Intelligence Community – which was launched in 2010 to provide a framework for the regular sharing of information on migrant-trafficking and border security threats – provides for close cooperation with a certain number of countries, including Mauritania since 20 September 2022; points could lead to accountability gaps in the event of fundamental rights violations committed either by the third country’s authorities and/or by Frontex’s deployed personnelt that this is brought about by means of a series of training activities to develop national and regional strategies on combating cross- border crime and also includes the establishment of integrated border- management systems, as well as improvements in the gathering, sharing and analysis of relevant data; emphasises that all this is taking place in full compliance with fundamental rights;
Amendment 73 #
2023/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – point 3.1 – point -a (new)
Paragraph 3 – point 3.1 – point -a (new)
-a. fund physical barriers at the EU’s external borders to dissuade migrants from coming and thereby protect them from any attacks on fundamental rights;
Amendment 75 #
2023/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – point 3.1 – point a
Paragraph 3 – point 3.1 – point a
a. include explicitensure that all existing safeguards allowing deployed officers to disregard orders issued by the third country’s authorities that contradict the Agency’s fundamental rights obligations that derive from EU and international lawobligations;
Amendment 105 #
2023/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – point 3.2 – point a
Paragraph 3 – point 3.2 – point a
Amendment 125 #
2023/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – point 3.2 – point b – point ii
Paragraph 3 – point 3.2 – point b – point ii
ii. ensure a Frontex presence in critical areas where the apprehension of migrants is likely to take place, and envisage giving the FRO and Fundamental Rights Monitors full access to the operational area to ensure that the issue of migration can be managed as well as possible on the spot;
Amendment 127 #
2023/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – point 3.2 – point b – point iii
Paragraph 3 – point 3.2 – point b – point iii
iii. work closely with the UNHCR during operationauthorities in Mauritania in order to guarantee the right to asylumidentify any threats, such as mass immigration, criminality and terrorism, and thereby protect the EU Member States and, where necessary, respond to those threats;
Amendment 133 #
2023/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – point 3.2 – point c
Paragraph 3 – point 3.2 – point c
c. adoptcomply with guidelines on the mandatory waiving of immunity for deployed staff, specifying how requests from the third -country authorities will be dealt with, as well as enshrining a strong role for the FRO; make the deployment of standing corps officers conditional on these guidelinesnd bearing in mind that immunity should only be granted with the utmost prudence and proportionality given the major implications for Mauritania’s sovereignty;
Amendment 31 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas hate speech must be defined precisely and impartially and must not be susceptible to political manipulation; whereas the Council of Europe is the only international intergovernmental organisation to have adopted an official definition of hate speech;
Amendment 35 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas European Court of Human Rights case-law on the application of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to hate speech is sufficient;
Amendment 56 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas in the last few decades there has been a sharp rise in discrimination, hate crime and hate speech across the EU4, an increase in various forms of racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance and an alarming spike in online and offline hate speech and incitement; whereas this is being exacerbated in many Member States by extremist and populist movements and the multiplier effect of the online environment and social media, which favours revictimisation; _________________ 4 See, for instance, the Annual Report on ECRI’s activities covering the period from 1 January to 31 December 2019 and the Annual Report on ECRI’s activities covering the period from 1 January to 31 December 2020, and the study commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs entitled ‘Hate speech and hate crime in the EU and the evaluation of online content regulation approaches’, July 2020.
Amendment 72 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas Member States do not address hate speech and hate crime in the same way in their respective criminal laws, which makes it difficult to define a common European strategy to combat it;
Amendment 106 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
Amendment 117 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas Article 83(1) TFEU requires unanimity in the Council to identify ‘other areas of crime’; whereas this requirement proved detrimental to achieving necessary common progress in an area where the common European interest should prevailpasserelle clauses are not to be used given the nature of the text;
Amendment 123 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 138 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Strongly regretNotes that almost two years have passed since the publication of the Commission communication and that no progress has been made;
Amendment 139 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 159 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Deplores the fact thatCalls for Article 83 TFEU, which requires unanimity in the Council, and calls for the passerelle clause to be activato be respected;
Amendment 169 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Recalls that fFreedom of expression should not be exploited as a shield for hate speech and hate crimes, but neither should it be unjustifiably restricted;
Amendment 178 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Asks the Commission to consider an open-end closed approach whereby the list of grounds of discrimination will not be limited in order to effectively combat hate speech and hate crimes motivated by new and changing social dynamicsis limited;
Amendment 263 #
2023/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b
Directive 2012/29/UE
- paragraph 6
- paragraph 6
6. Victim support services shall remain operational in times of crisis, such as health crises, significant migratory situations or otheat all times, even during a crisis or states of emergency.
Amendment 282 #
2023/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b
2012/29/UE
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) targeted and integrated support, including trauma support and counselling, for victims with specific needs, such as victims of sexual violence, victims of gender-based violence, including violence against women, in particular in public spaces, and domestic violence covered by Directive (EU) …/… of the European Parliament and of the Council64 [on combating violence against women and domestic violence], victims of trafficking in human beings, victims of organised crimes, victims with disabilities, victims of exploitation, victims of hate crime, victims of terrorism, victims of core international crimes. _________________ 64 Directive (EU) …/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating violence against women and domestic violence (OJ …).
Amendment 378 #
2023/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1– paragraph 1 – point 10 – point d
Article 1– paragraph 1 – point 10 – point d
2012/29/UE
Article 22 - paragraph 2 - point a
Article 22 - paragraph 2 - point a
(a) the personal characteristics of the victim, including relevant experiences of discrimination, also when based on a combination of several grounds such as sex, gender, age, disability, religion or belief, language, racial, social or ethnic origin, sexual orientation;
Amendment 392 #
2023/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point d
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point d
In this regard, victims of terrorism, organised crime, human trafficking, gender-based violence, including violence against women, especially in public places, and domestic violence, sexual or reproductive violence, or exploitation, or hate crime, victims of core international crime and victims with disabilities shall be duly considered. Particular attention shall be paid to victims who fall under more than one of those categories.’;
Amendment 407 #
2023/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11
2012/29/EU
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) all interviews with victims of sexual violence, gender-based violence including victims of violence against women and domestic violence covered by Directive (EU) …/… of the European Parliament and of the Council65 [on combating violence against women and domestic violence], unless conducted by a prosecutor or a judge, being conducted by a person of the same sex as the victim, if the victims so wisherequests, provided that the course of the criminal proceedings will not be prejudiced.’; _________________ 65 Directive (EU) …/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating violence against women and domestic violence (OJ …).’;
Amendment 469 #
2023/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16
2012/29/EU
Article 28(1)
Article 28(1)
1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to establish a system for the collection, production and dissemination of statistics on victims and perpetrators of crime. The statistics shall include data relevant to the application of national procedures on victims of crime, including at least the number and type of reported crimes and the number, the age, sex of the victims and the type of the offence. They shall also include information on how victims have accessed the rights set out in this Directive. They shall also include useful data on perpetrators of crime, such as their age, sex, nationality, relationship to the victim, the sentence handed down and, where applicable, the existence of previous convictions.
Amendment 144 #
2023/0135(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) To root out corruption, both preventive and repressive mechanisms are needed. Member States are encouraged to take a wide range of preventive, legislative and cooperative measures as part of the fight against corruption. Whereas corruption is first and foremost a crime and specific acts of corruption are defined in national and international law, failings in integrity, undisclosed conflicts of interests or serious breaches of ethical rules can become corrupt activities if left unaddressed. The prevention of corruption mitigates the need for criminal repression and has wider benefits in promoting public trust and managing the conduct of public officials. Effective anti-corruption approaches often build on measures to enhance transparency of political funding, ethics and integrity, deontological rules for at-risk audiences, codes of conduct in companies and declarations of interests and of assets for public officials, as well as by regulating in areas such as conflict of interest, lobbying and revolving doors. Public bodies should seek the highest standards of integrity, transparency and independence as an important part of tackling corruption more broadly.
Amendment 153 #
2023/0135(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) To avoid impunity for corruption offences in the public sector, the scope of application, encompassing all public officials and public servants, needs to be well defined. First of all, the concept of public official should also cover persons working in international organisations, including the institutions, agencies and bodies of the European Union and international courts. This should, amongst other things, encompass all members of control and audit bodies, judges (national judges of Member States, judges sitting in European courts and judges sitting in international courts), all parliamentarians (sitting in the parliaments of the Member States or in the European Parliament), members of the governments of the Member States and the leaders of the European executive (European Commissioners and the President of the European Council), persons acting as members of collegial bodies responsible for deciding on the guilt of an accused person in the framework of a trial, as well as persons who by virtue of an arbitration agreement are called upon to render a legally binding decision in disputes submitted by the parties to the arbitration agreement. Secondly, many entities or persons nowadays exercise public functions without holding a formal office. Therefore, the concept of public official is defined to cover all relevant officials, whether appointed, elected or employed on the basis of a contract, holding a formal administrative or judicial office, as well as all persons providing a service, which have been vested with public authority or who are subject to the control or supervision of public authorities in relation to the carrying out of such a service, even if they do not hold formal office. For the purposes of this Directive, the definition should cover persons working in state-owned and state- controlled enterprises, as well as in asset management foundations and privately- owned companies performing public service functions and the legal persons established or maintained by them. Any person holding a legislative office should be treated as a public official for the purposes of this Directive.
Amendment 165 #
2023/0135(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) It is necessary to strenghthen the legal framework to combat bribery and to provide law enforcement and prosecution with the necessary tools. In bribery of public officials, there are two sides to distinguish. Active bribery exists when a person, directly or through an intermediary, promises, offers or gives an advantage of any kind to influence a public official. Passive bribery exists when the public official requests or receives himself or a third party to act or refrain from acting in accordance with his duty or in the exercise of his functions. Passive bribery exists when the public official promises, offers or gives, directly or through an intermediary, such an advantagesin order to act or to refrain from acting in a certain way. This Directive should also set minimum rules on bribery and other forms of corruption in the private sector, where the immediate victims include companies that are impacted unfairly and where free competition is diminished by each bribe offered or accepted. , for himself or for a third party, in order to act in accordance with his duty or in the exercise of his functions. The concept of a public official guilty of active bribery or passive bribery shall cover both officials of the European Union and those of the Member States. This Directive should also set minimum rules on bribery and other forms of corruption in the private sector, where the immediate victims include companies that are impacted unfairly and where free competition is diminished by each bribe offered or accepted. It should also state that as all public officials are required to exercise their judgement or discretion impartially, the payment of bribes intended to influence the judgement or discretion of a public official and the acceptance of such bribes should fall under the definition of corruption.
Amendment 188 #
2023/0135(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) Persons reporting information to competent authorities concerning past, ongoing or planned instances of corruption, which they have acquired in the context of their work-related activities, risk suffering retaliation in that context. Such whistleblowers’ reports can strengthen enforcement by enabling the competent authorities to effectively prevent, detect and prosecute corruption. Given the public interest in shielding public and private institutions from such acts, and in enhancing transparency, good governance and accountability, it is necessary to ensure that effective arrangements are in place to enable whistleblowers to use confidential channels, to alert competent authorities and to protect them from retaliation. Whistle- blowing can be a fundamental source of information in the fight against organised crime and in the investigation of corruption in the public sector. Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council47 applies to reports of breaches affecting the financial interests of the Union as referred to in Article 325 of the Treaty and as further specified in relevant Union measures and thus applies to the reporting of all criminal offences falling within the scope of Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council48. As regards the criminal offences referred to in this Directive, Directive (EU) 2019/1937 should be applicable to the reporting of such offences and to the protection of persons reporting such offences under the conditions established therein. Beyond the obligations flowing from Directive (EU) 2019/1937, competent national authorities should ensure that persons providing evidence or otherwise cooperating with criminal investigations are given the necessary protection, support and assistance in the context of criminal proceedings. _________________ 47 Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ L 305 26.11.2019). 48 Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the protection of the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law (OJ 198 L, 28.7.2017, p. 29).
Amendment 202 #
2023/0135(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) To provide for an equivalent level of protection between the Union’s and the national financial interests, the provisions of Directive (EU) 2017/137160 should be aligned with those of this Directive by bringing together the provisions on public officials and the private sector in a single legal act. To this end, the rules applicable to criminal offences affecting the Union’s financial interests as regards sanctions, aggravating and mitigating circumstances and limitation periods should be equivalent to those laid down by this Directive. _________________ 60 Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the protection of the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law, OJ 198 L, 28.7.2017, p. 29.
Amendment 417 #
2023/0135(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) an offender who, at the time of the offence, was subject to the Staff Regulations or the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, provided that a Member State has jurisdiction over such offences when they are committed outside its territory;
Amendment 23 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Recital A
A. whereas the Union is founded on the common values enshrined in Article 25(3) 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; whereas democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are mutually reinforcing values which, when undermined, may states that ‘under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed a systemic threat to the Unction cand the rights and freedoms of its citizens; whereas respect for the rule of law is binding on the Union as a whole and its Member States at all levels of governance, including subnational entitiesnot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States’;
Amendment 31 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas there is no commonly accepted legal definition of the concept of the ‘rule of law’ at EU level and the Commission seeks to attribute a subjective set of values and principles to it;
Amendment 32 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Recital C
C. whereas the principle of sincere cooperation in Article 4(3) TEU places an obligation on the Union and the Member States to assist each other in carrying out obligations which arise from the Treaties in full mutual respect, and on Member States to take any appropriate measure, general or in particular, to ensure the fulfilment of the obligations arising from the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Unioneach Member State has its own national identity and the abuse of the concept of the rule of law for political aims destroys mutual trust and sincere cooperation between Member States;
Amendment 42 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Recital F
F. whereas it is necessary to strengthen and streamline existing mechanisms and to develop a single comprehensive EU mechanism 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 rightsthere is no general competence in the EU Treaties that allows the institutions of the EU to enforce its interpretation of the rule of law throughout the Union;
Amendment 49 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission’s third annual rule of law report arecalls that the Member States part of the Commission’s rule ofe and remain, under public international law, toolbox; considers that while the report represents a step towards a coherent mechanism to preserve Union values, the toolbox remains too flexible and too broad an approach to the rule of lawhe masters of the Treaties; calls for a reform of the EU towards a Europe that upholds the sovereignty and identity of our European nations and peoples;
Amendment 66 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 3
Amendment 70 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 5
Amendment 76 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the addition of country- specific recommendaCalls on the EU institutions, as a follow up to the reiterated calls from Parliament to this end; recalls that the annual reports serve as a basis for informed discusnd the Member States to abandon their economically and politically disastrous centralising visions 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, the fact that the recommendations are not binding; calls on the Commission to develop the annual rule of law cycle further by assessing the implementation of the country-specific recommendations in the next annual report, with specific benchmarks and a clear timeline for implementationf an ‘ever closer union’, and instead calls for a form of European cooperation that respects the limitations of the EU as laid down by the existing Treaties and is in accordance with the principles of national sovereignty, democracy, transparency, strict subsidiarity and accountability;
Amendment 85 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 8
8. Urges the Commission to initiate the relevant procedures without hesitation or delay, especially when governments show no willingness to comply with the country-specific Stresses that each Member State has its own national identity and constitutional traditions, which are in line with European values and must always be treated with respect, objectivity and with regard to the principle of equality; underlines that the rule of law is a fundamental value for all Member States; expresses concern that the abuse of the concept of the rule of law for political aims destroys mutual trust and sincere commendationoperation between Member States;
Amendment 88 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 9
9. Commends the efforts by the Commission to engage better with national stakeholders; recognises civil society as an essential actor for the rule of law, with an 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 alls for an investigation into violations of fundamental rights by non- governmental organisations, including those facilitating the follow-up to the report at national level, in cooperation withsmuggling of illegal migrants into the FRAEU;
Amendment 102 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 12
Amendment 112 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 13
13. Strongly regrets the inabilityCalls ofn the Council to make meaningful progress in the ongoing Article 7(1) TEU procedures; urges the Council to address all new developments affecting the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights; reiterates its call on the Council to address recommendations in the framework of this procedure, underlining that any further delaying of such action would amount to a breach of the rule of law principle by the Councimmission to stop using the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation to put political pressure on some Member States to change policies approved in democratic elections that fall witself; insists that Parliament’s role and competences be respectedhin their competence;
Amendment 117 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 14
14. Strongly condemns Member States’ authorities that refuse to engage in the Commission’s annual Rule of Law Dialoguethe pressure put on Member States that wish to defend their constitutional identities;
Amendment 125 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 16
16. Recalls its position regarding the involvement of a panel of independent experts to advise the three inSupports the ongoing investitugations, in close cooperation with the FRA; repeats its call on the Commission to invite the FRA to provide methodological advice and conduct comparative research to add detail in key areas ofto allegations of wrongdoing by the mannual report, given the intrinsic links between fundamental rights and the rule of lawagement of the EU Agency for Asylum;
Amendment 130 #
2022/2898(RSP)
Paragraph 17
17. Reiteratecalls that the annual rule of law cycle should serve as input for the activation of other instruments to respond to threats or breaches of the rule of law at national level, such as Article 7 TEUUnion acted outside its powers in adopting the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation, going beyond the competences conferred upon it in the Treaties by the Member States; stresses, furthermore, that the Regulation infringes the principle of legal certainty; rejects, therefore, the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation; infringement procedures or instruments under EU financial legislation; reiterates its call on the Commission to create a direct link between the annual rule of law reports, among other sources, and the Rule of Law Conditionality Mechanism its entirety; considers, too, that it is essentially a political tool for bypassing the principle of unanimity laid down in Article 7 of the EU Treaty and it thus infringes EU law;
Amendment 3 #
2022/2134(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 15 #
2022/2134(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes that staff of the European Asylum Support Office have lodged a complaint with OLAF and the Commission, calling for a probe into its director-general, whom they accuse of nepotism, misleading reports and mishandling harassment claims; therefore recommends that the Committee on Budgetary Control postpone granting the discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Asylum Support Office’s budget for the financial year 2021 until such time as the case has been legally resolved;
Amendment 19 #
2022/2134(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes with concern the Court’s findings on weaknesses in management and control systems in relation to Frontex, Europol, CEPOL and EPPO;
Amendment 24 #
2022/2124(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes the drawing up of a fundamental rights strategy and action plan; regrets that the obligation included in Article 110(6) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 to deploy at least 40 fundamental rights monitors has been met with significant delay; notes that the number of fundamental rights monitors now stands at 46; deeply deplores that despite the significant overall staff increase for the Agency, the Fundamental Rights Officer still lacks adequate human resources; urges the Agency to provide its fundamental rights officer with adequate resources and staffRegrets the narrative according to which Frontex is, in practice, to be made into a kind of fundamental rights body to check what the Member States are doing at their external borders, as demonstrated by the recruitment of 46 fundamental rights monitors; points out that the role of Frontex is in fact to maintain order and support the Member States in managing and protecting the external borders;
Amendment 29 #
2022/2124(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 36 #
2022/2124(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Is extremely concerned at the Commission’s willingness to weaken the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in its role of protecting the external borders;
Amendment 37 #
2022/2124(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 50 #
2022/2124(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Reiterates its profound concerns about the findings of the OLAF report of 15 February 2022 on investigations into Frontex, andCommission’s attitude in having pressured the Executive Director of Frontex to resign; expresses its utter dismay inat the behaviour and actions described in the findings and theof the institution concerned and at its lack of accountability; considers that the flindings of the OLAF report are a matter of public interest and should be made publicks between pro-migrant NGOs and the Commission must be brought to light without further delay;
Amendment 61 #
2022/2124(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Expresses its deep concerns in relation to media revelations that in the context of the expansion of a mass surveillance programme at Europe’s external bkeen interest in the revelations of links between NGOs and migrant traffickers; notes that in Greece legal proceedings are being brought against humanitarian wordkers (PeDRA, or ‘Processing of Personal Data for Risk Analysis’), Frontex and the European Commission side-lined their own data protection oversight bodies for migrant trafficking, money laundering and fraud; notes that following a long investigation by Italiand pursued an intrusive collection of personal data from migrants and refugees to feed into Europol’s criminal databaserosecutors, 21 crew members of migrant rescue vessels from three European NGOs stand accused of colluding with Libyan smugglers;
Amendment 77 #
2022/2124(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Recommends that the Committee on Budgetary Control to postpone granting thegrant discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2021, until the structural shortcomings related to respect by Frontex of its fundamental rights obligations have been fully addressed.
Amendment 1 #
2022/2123(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the fact that the Court of Auditors (‘The Court’) has declared the transactions underlying the annuals accounts of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) for the financial year 2021 to be legal and regular in all material respects; highlights that theits budget for 2021 was 33 million EUR, but in reality this means 23 920 698 EUR budget as the Court report counts in the total payment appropriations available during the financial year; reiterates its concern that the FRA continues to suffer from; reiterates its concern that FRA, a body that is in favour of the migratory submersion, has such significant financial and staff resources constraints;
Amendment 7 #
2022/2123(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Deplores that FRA’s establishment plan has not been increased since 2017; further deplores that the increase in workload and requests, particularly after the entry into force of the new mandate which introduced new activities in the areas of justice and police cooperation, was not accompanied with additional resourcese high number of staff employed by FRA; calls for FRA to be shut down, given its exorbitant budget and the fact that it does not meet the expectations of the people of Europe;
Amendment 19 #
2022/2121(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Notes that Europol's new mandate, approved in February 2022, allows it to continue processing the data already in its possession; notes that the Agency's new data processing expertise is a vital tool in combating crime in a digitalised world;
Amendment 22 #
2022/2121(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is concerned aboutWelcomes the enhanced and non-transparent cooperation between Europol and Frontex; reminds the reports about Frontex’s PeDRA program ‘Processing of Personal Data for Risk Analysis', which allows Frontex border guards to collect sensitive personal data from migrants and asylum seekers to process and share it with Europol and security agencies of Member States, and to scan social media profiles; requests that cooperation among JHA Aagency is fully transparent and accountability ensured; calls on the Agency to take measures to ensure full compliance with EU transparency rules as well as with fundamental rights and data protection standardsies be strengthened;
Amendment 33 #
2022/2121(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recommends the Committee on Budgetary Control to postpone granting the discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2021, until the Court of Justice of the European Union delivers its judgement;
Amendment 11 #
2022/2120(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WelcomesExpresses regret at the fact that Eurojust and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) intend to increase their cooperation in the future; supports the perspective of strengthened cooperation between Eurojust and the FRA, in particular with regard to detention conditions problems, access to lawyers, and victims’ rightnotes that this agency uses fundamental rights to impede the work of law enforcement agencies.
Amendment 12 #
2022/2098(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes that staff of the European Asylum Support Office sent a complaint to OLAF and the Commission, calling for a probe into its head, whom they accuse of nepotism, misleading reports and mishandling harassment claims; points out that undue salaries have been paid out and that the European Asylum Support Office has hired people linked to corruption cases as well as relatives of some of the Agency’s directors, who got to skip the queue to land jobs;
Amendment 19 #
2022/2098(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Recommends that the Committee on Budgetary Control postpone granting the discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Asylum Support Office’s budget for the financial year 2021 until the accusations against it have been resolved;
Amendment 6 #
2022/2096(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. WelcomesDisapproves of the creation of the Expert Group on Fundamental Rights with the aim to integrating a fundamental rights dimension in all CEPOL training and events; Welcomes the signature of the working Arrangement with the Fundamental Rights Agencystates that fundamental rights are used by the European Union to prevent the Member States’ law enforcement agencies from being able to properly do their job;
Amendment 8 #
2022/2096(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Reinstterates the importance of law enforcement training on strategies to fighat the police authorities are not racismt and discrimination, and to prevent racial and ethnic profiling and violence. Underlines the urgent need for specialised training focusing on the dangers and proper use of AI technologies by police authoritiesthat any attempt to destabilise these services must be thwarted; expresses concern about far- left’s attacks on these services and the Commission’s deliberate will not to oppose them;
Amendment 4 #
2022/2091(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. WelcomesTakes note of the EPPO 2021 Annual Report; notes that the EPPO has started its operations on 1 June 2021 and has been financially autonomous since 24 June 2021;
Amendment 17 #
2022/2091(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 9 #
2022/2089(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 4 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. SupporRejects the proposals madetaken over 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 up, therefore, on the Union to not to promorte systematically uphold the rule of law principles and ensure fundamental rights protection, and to scrutinize respect for these values and principles, bopositive action employment schemes, easier access to the labour market for migrants, education for Europeans on migration issues, increased EU support for NGOs that encourage the in the accession of new members and continually across all Union pollegal entry of migrants, simplification of asylum applications, redistribution of responsibilicties and across the Member Statemigrants among Member States, or better reception facilities for asylum seekers; _________________ 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 15 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls for the abolishment ofsupport for all unanimity requirements in the Treaties for adopting legislation in the area of freedom, security and justice, including for the use of passerelle clauses;
Amendment 19 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 27 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Recalls that the Union acted outside its powers in adopting the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation, going beyond the competences conferred upon it in the Treaties by the Member States; stresses, furthermore, that the Regulation infringes the principle of legal certainty; rejects, therefore, the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation in its entirety; considers, too, that it is essentially a political tool for bypassing the principle of unanimity laid down in Article 7 of the EU Treaty and it thus infringes EU law;
Amendment 33 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that the Treaties currently do not contain a legal basis to introduce legislation to defend the common values expressed in Article 2 TEU and that this absence has seriously limited the Union in creating suitable mechanisms to redress national threats to the common values; calls for the inclusion of such a provision, which would allow the Union, through the ordinary legislative proceduCondemns the desire to turn the European Union into a tool of persecution for many states rejecting its pro-immigration and pro-fre,e to introduce new mechanisms for the structural monitoring and assessment of the developments as regards the common values in each Member State, including annual reports on the srade ideology; calls for respect for the constituation as regards the Article 2 TEU values in each of the Member States, and to issue country- specific recommendations and impose measures in case of lack of remedial actional identity of the Member States;
Amendment 49 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 55 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls on the European Commission to stop using migrants' fundamental rights as an excuse to exacerbate the rising tide of migrants in the European Union;
Amendment 58 #
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, its status as an authority independent from both the EU institutions and the Member States, its powers and its new mandate, and introducing the ordinary legislathe dissolution of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, which is a genuine catalyst for the rising tivde procedure for amending its mandatof migration into Europe;
Amendment 69 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 78 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls for the introduction in the TFEU of a new shared Union competence for setting up an effective legal framewban on, and penalties fork, againstny disinformation and on holding media undertakings, social networks, and online platforms responsible to counter disinformationprovided by the various bodies of the European Union; calls on these institutions to respect freedom of expression in the Member States;
Amendment 96 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 101 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Is surprised that a number of proposals aimed at countering the immigration policy, and supported by the citizens on the Conference on the Future of Europe's digital platform, were not taken over; condemns this censorship of the will of a majority of Europeans and calls for the reasons for it to be given;
Amendment 105 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses however that action at EU level remains incomplete due to the institutional imbalance between the co- legislators; recommendsNotes the rising tide of migration in the European Union, encouraged by the European Commission, and its harmful effects; supports, therefore, that the ordinary legislative procedure applye Member States that are seeking to chall Union policies on border checks, asylum and immigration, including for the evaluation of the implementation of those policies (Article 70 TFEU); calls for competences to be fully shared between the EU and the Member States, including for harmonisation of the laws and regulations ofenge the Family Reunification Directive, opt out of the common asylum policy more generally and strengthen the protection of the EU's external borders; recalls that, according to the Commission itself, the Menumber States, which at the moment excludes integration measures, even though integration is the natural end point for efforts to develop common rules from the arrival ofof illegal immigrants readmitted to their countries of origin is particularly low; calls, therefore, for additional resources to be used to send these illegal immigrants back to theird- country nationals into the EU and is a key part of the implementationies of origin; condemns the pro- immigration drift of the Court of Justice of the Common European Asylum SystemUnion;
Amendment 44 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the EU Action Plan is the first EU policy instrument to recognise the structural dimension of racism, which has historical roots dating back to colonialism and slaveis pandering to Islamists and wokism, using the language of discrimination, anti-racism, blame, intersectionality and post-colonial theory;
Amendment 53 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas according to the FRA, racialcases of discrimination and harassment affecting people of European descent remain normalised throughout the EU10; whereas racism and extreme righleft-wing sentiments and ideology continue to pose serious challenges in our Union; _________________ 10 https://fra.europa.eu/fr/news/2019/montee -des-inegalites-et-du-harcelement-et- regression-de-la-protection-des-droits
Amendment 61 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas structural and institutionalised racism is also mirrored in socioeconomic inequality and poverty, and whereas these factors interact and reinforce each otherthe anti-white racism of some non-European immigrants is not rooted in poverty;
Amendment 85 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas there are barriers tois easy access to justice for victims of racial discrimination; whereas equality bodies in thanks to the Member States lack th, which make human and financial resources and/or political will and independence to bridge this gapwidely available;
Amendment 110 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the EU Action Plan lacks follow-up mechanisms and measurable targets for anti-white racism and Christianophobia;
Amendment 119 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the EU institutions need to take concrete steps to ensure sustainable changes towards a fully inclusive and respectful workplace; whereas discrimination is often multidimensional and only an intersectional approach can pave the way to sustainable changesworkplace that does not breed woke and Islamist propaganda;
Amendment 149 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises the urgent need for the Union to develop a robust and comprehensive agenda for effectively combating rac‘Islamo-leftism’ and discriminationthe wokism from which it stems on all grounds and in all areas in the EU; insists that the Union and its institutions must lead by example in the fight against structural and institutional racism and anti-discriminationIslamism, which is not the case at present;
Amendment 155 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls onNotes that the Commission to assess the implementation of the current EU legal framework for combating discrimination, racism, xenophobia and other types of intolerance in order to determine how to improve it where needed, and to take part does not give any consideration to certain types of intolerance, refusing, for example, to appoint a regular dialogue and exchange of best practices with Member States and stakeholdersEuropean coordinator to combat Christianophobia;
Amendment 181 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Member States to ensure the full implementation of the Racial Equality Directive; condemns the fact that racial, ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities face structural racism, discrimination, hate crime and hate speech, a lack of access to justice, and sustained socioeconomic inequalities in areas such as housing, healthcare, employment and education, which need to be acknowledged as major barriers to full enjoyment of fundamental rights and key barriers to inclusion and equalityNotes that minorities can fully enjoy their fundamental rights in the Member States;
Amendment 198 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Regrets that 14 years after the adoption of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, several Member States have not yet fully and correctly transposed its provisions into national law; calls on the Member States to put measures in place that encourage victims and witnesses to come forward and report hateall crime, and strengthen the ability of national law enforcement systems to correctly identify and record it;
Amendment 241 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Urges the EU institutions to address intersectional forms of discrimination in EU anti-discrimination legislation and policies and to promote an EU framework on intersectional discrimination with cross-cutting objectives and measurIslamism and wokism in EU legislation and policies;
Amendment 252 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Emphasises the need to ensure meaningful participation of all groups affected by intersectional discrimination in policymaking at EU, national and local levels, especially racialised groupsBelieves that it is necessary to avoid the fragmentation of European societies by promoting policies aimed solely at specific groups, thereby undermining the unity of the people of Europe;
Amendment 267 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on all Member States to adopt national action plans against racism and discrimination by the end of 2022, as provided for in the EU Anti-racism Action Plan; highlights the need to continue this EU Action Plan beyond 2025 and encourages the Commission to begin this work before the end of its current mandatIslamism and to combat cancel culture;
Amendment 278 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Underlines the importance of representation and diversity as a tool for the development of inclusive societies; rRecalls that the media have a responsibility to reflect societies in all their diversity, and regrets the; urges all media to avoid being ‘politically cuorrent lack of diversity at all levelct’ by excessively policing or changing words because they could upset certain minorities;
Amendment 300 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls for structural on the Europeand institutionalised racism, discrimination and the underrepresentation of minorities within the structures of the European institutions to be addressed and for the adoption of a workforce diversity and inclusion strategys to stop promoting minorities to the detriment of the majority and to put an immediate end to funding for organisations that are destroying the cohesion of our societies in Europe;
Amendment 312 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. WelcomeStrongly condemns the Commission’s appointment of the first anti-racism coordinator in 2021 and the continuous re-appointment since 2015 of the coordinator on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life; but deplores that the position of anti-Muslim hatred coordinator has been left vacant since July 2021position that there is no need to appoint a coordinator to combat anti-Christian hatred nor to draw up a specific European strategy to address this problem, despite having appointed an anti-racism coordinator, a coordinator on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life, and an anti-Muslim hatred coordinator;
Amendment 336 #
2022/2005(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls for the systematic integration of issues related to anti-racism, discrimination and intersectionalityChristian hatred into its annual reports on fundamental rights and the rule of law; calls for this dimension to be fully integrated and reflected in the final report of the panel of independent experts to be set up through the public procurement procedure requested by Parliament’s Bureau as part of the rule of law report;
Amendment 63 #
2022/0426(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) In order to tackle the steady increase of the number and relevance of offences concerning trafficking in human beings committed for purposes other than sexual or labour exploitation, it is necessary to include forced marriage and, illegal adoption and surrogacy in the forms of exploitations explicitly listed in the Directive and to ensure that the Member States address within their national legal systems the widest range of forms of exploitation, insofar as these fulfil the constitutive elements of trafficking in human beings.
Amendment 135 #
2022/0426(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Directive 2011/36/EU
Article 2 – paragraph 3
Article 2 – paragraph 3
(1) in Article 2, paragraph 3, “or forced marriage, or illegal adoption, or surrogacy” is added at the end of the paragraph.
Amendment 54 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Draft legislative resolution
Citation 4 a (new)
Citation 4 a (new)
– having regard to its resolution of 21 January 2021 on the EU Strategy for Gender Equality (2019/2169(INI)),
Amendment 55 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Citation 1 a (new)
Citation 1 a (new)
– having regard to Articles 1, 3(2)(c), 5(1) and 5(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
Amendment 56 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Citation 1 b (new)
Citation 1 b (new)
– having regard to Article 1 of the UN Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery,
Amendment 57 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Children derive a number of rights from parenthood, including the right to an identity, a name, nationality (where governed by ius sanguinis), custody and access rights by their parents, maintenance rights, succession rights and the right to be legally represented by their parents. The non-recognition in a Member State of the parenthood established in another Member State can have serious adverse consequences on children’s fundamental rights andconsequences on the rights that theychildren derive from national law. This may prompt families to start litigaresult in administrative or judicial actions to have the parenthood of theira child recognised in another Member State, although t. Those proceedings have uncertain results and involve significant time and costs for both families and the Member States’ judicial systems. Ultimately, families may be deterred from exercising their right to free movement for fear that the parenthood of their child will not be recognised in another Member State for the purposes of rights derived from national lawensure the necessary balance between the interests and rights of the child and respect for the legal order of the host Member State.
Amendment 72 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18 a (new)
Recital 18 a (new)
(18a) It is recognised that the practice of surrogacy, also known as gestation for others, is a universal crime because it seriously harms the dignity of the woman and the unborn child, commodifying the body and life of the child, as recognised by feminist movements.
Amendment 73 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) As a result of the absence of Union provisions on international jurisdiction and applicable law for the establishment of parenthood in cross-border situations and on the recognition of parenthood between Member States, fFamilies may encounter difficulties in having the parenthood of their children recognised for all purposes within the Union, including when they move to another Member State or return to their Member State of origin.
Amendment 73 #
2022/0402(CNS)
(18b) In its Resolution of 21 January 2021 on the EU Strategy for Gender Equality, the European Parliament acknowledged that sexual exploitation for surrogacy ‘is unacceptable and a violation of human dignity and human rights’.
Amendment 76 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Children derive a number of rights from parenthood, including the right to an identity, a name, nationality (where governed by ius sanguinis), custody and access rights by their parents, maintenance rights, succession rights and the right to be legally represented by their parents. The non-recognition in a Member State of the parenthood established in another Member State can have serious adverse consequences on children’s fundamental rights and on the rights that theychildren derive from national law. This may prompt families to start litigationbe resolved through administrative or judicial proceedings to have the parenthood of theira child recognised in another Member State, although t. Those proceedings have uncertain results and involve significant time and costs for both families and the Member States’ judicial systems. Ultimately, families may be deterred from exercising their right to free movement for fear that the parenthood of their child will not be recognised in another Member State for the purposes of rights derived from national lawensure the necessary balance between the child’s interests and rights, and respect for the host Member State’s judicial system.
Amendment 76 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Pursuant to Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (‘TEU’), respect for human dignity, equality and non- discrimination are amongst the values on which the Union is founded and which are common to the Member States. Article 21 of the Charter1, the third indent of Article 3(2) and Articles 5(1) and 5(3) of the Charter state that human dignity is inviolable, that it is prohibited to make the human body and its parts as such a source of financial gain, that no one may be held in slavery or servitude and that trafficking in human beings is prohibited; Article 21 thereof prohibits discrimination on grounds of, amongst others, birth. Article 3 TEU and Article 24 of the Charter provide for the protection of the rights of the child, and Article 7 of the Charter provides for everyone’s right to respect for their private and family life.
Amendment 86 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) This Regulation shouldall not apply to the establishment of parenthood in a Member State in a domestic situation with no cross-border elements. This Regulation should not therefore include provisions on jurisdiction or applicable law for the establishment of parenthood in domestic cases, such as the parenthood of a child further to a domestic adoption in a Member State. However, in order to safeguard children’s rights without discrimination in cross-border situations as laid down in the Charter, in application of the principle of mutual trust between Member States as confirmed by the Court of Justice, the provisions of this Regulation on the recognition or, as the case may be, acceptance of court decisions and authentic instruments on parenthood should also apply to the recognition of parenthood established in a Member State in domestic situations, such as the parenthood established in a Member State further to a domestic adoption in that Member State. The provisions of this Regulation concerning the relevant attestation and the European Certificate of Parenthood should therefore also apply as regards the parenthood established in a Member State in domestic situations, such as further to a domestic adoption in a Member State.
Amendment 92 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18 a (new)
Recital 18 a (new)
(18a) However, in its resolution of 21 January 2021 on the EU Strategy for Gender Equality, Parliament acknowledged that sexual exploitation for surrogacy is unacceptable and a violation of human dignity and human rights.
Amendment 93 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Pursuant to Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (‘TEU’), respect for human dignity, equality and non- discrimination are amongst the values on which the Union is founded and which are common to the Member States. Articles 1, 3(2)(c), 5(1) and 5(3) of the Charter provide that human dignity is inviolable, that the human body and its parts as such must not be made a source of financial gain, that no one shall be held in slavery or servitude, and that trafficking in human beings is prohibited; Article 21 of the Charter prohibits discrimination on grounds of, amongst others, birth. Article 3 TEU and Article 24 of the Charter provide for the protection of the rights of the child, and Article 7 of the Charter provides for everyone’s right to respect for their private and family life.
Amendment 96 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) The requirements for the recording of parenthood in a register shouldall be excluded from the scope of this Regulation. It shouldall therefore be the law of the Member State in which the register is kept that shouldall determine under what legal conditions and how the recording must be carried out, and which authorities are in charge of checking that all requirements are met and that the documentation presented or established is sufficient or contains the necessary information. In order to avoid duplication of documents, the national registration authorities should accept the documents drawn up in another Member State by the competent authorities whose circulation is provided for by this Regulation. In particular, the European Certificate of Parenthood issued under this Regulation should constitute a valid document for the recording of parenthood in a register of a Member State. As the procedure for the issuance of the European Certificate of Parenthood and its contents and effects should be uniform in all Member States as set out in this Regulation, and the European Certificate of Parenthood should be issued in conformity with the rules on jurisdiction and applicable law laid down in this Regulation, the authorities involved in the registration should not require that the European Certificate of Parenthood be first transposed into a national document on parenthood. This should not preclude the authorities involved in the registration from confirming the conditions necessary to establish the authenticity of the European Certificate of Parenthood or from asking the person applying for registration to provide such additional information as required under the law of the Member State in which the register is kept, provided that information is not already included in the European Certificate of Parenthood. The competent authority may indicate to the person applying for registration how the missing information can be provided. The effects of recording the parenthood in a register (for example, depending on the national law, whether registration establishes parenthood or only provides evidence of the parenthood already established) should also be excluded from the scope of this Regulation and be determined by the law of the Member State in which the register is kept.
Amendment 100 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) Notwithstanding the differences in national laws, parenthood is typically established by operation of law or by an act of a competent authority. Examples of the establishment of parenthood by operation of law include parenthood by birth as regards the person giving birthmother, and parenthood by legal presumption as regards the spouse or the registered partner of the person giving birthmother. Examples of the establishment of parenthood by an act of a competent authority include the establishment of parenthood by a court decision (such as in adoption, or in proceedings where parenthood is contested, or in proceedings where parenthood is claimed, for example by proving a possession of state), by a notarial deed (for example, in adoption or where the child is not yet born), by an administrative decision (for example, after an acknowledgment of paternity) or by registration. Parenthood is typically registered in the civil, personal or population register. Evidence of parenthood can be provided by the document establishing the parenthood (such as the court decision, the notarial deed or the administrative decision establishing parenthood). However, evidence of parenthood is most often provided by the registration of the parenthood in the register itself, by an extract from the relevant register or by a certificate containing the information registered in the relevant register (such as a birth certificate or a parenthood certificate).
Amendment 104 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
Recital 38
(38) This Regulation shouldmust respect the different systems for dealing with parenthood matters in the Member States. As regards 'authentic instruments', Member States often empower authorities, such as notaries, administrative authorities or registrars to draw up authentic instruments establishing parenthood with binding legal effect in the Member State in which they have been drawn up or registered (‘authentic instruments with binding legal effect’), or to draw up authentic instruments which have no binding legal effect in the Member State in which they have been drawn up or registered but which have evidentiary effects in that Member State (‘authentic instruments with no binding legal effect’). The term 'empowerment' in this Regulation is to be interpreted autonomously in accordance with the definition of 'authentic instrument' used horizontally in Union instruments and in the light of the objectives of this Regulation.
Amendment 105 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) To safeguard the child’s interests, jurisdiction should be determined according to the criterion of proximity. Consequently, where possible jurisdiction should lie with the Member State of the habitual residence of the child. However, in order to facilitate the child’s access to justice in a Member State, alternative jurisdiction should also be granted to the Member State of the nationality of the child, to the Member State of the habitual residence of the respondent (for example, the person in respect of whom the child claims parenthood), to the Member State of the habitual residence of any of the parents, to the Member State of the nationality of any of the parents or to the Member State of the child’s birth.
Amendment 108 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40
Recital 40
(40) In accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice, the child’s place of habitual residence must be established on the basis of all the circumstances specific to each individual case. In addition to the physical presence of the child in the territory of a Member State, other factors must be chosen which are capable of showing that that presence is not in any way temporary or intermittent and that it reflects some degree of integration of the child into a social and family environment, which is the place which, in practice, is the centre of that child’s life. Such factors include the habitual place of residence of the child’s parents, the duration, regularity, conditions and reasons for the child’s stay on the territory of the Member State concerned and the child’s nationality, with the relevant factors varying according to the age of the child concerned. They also include the place and conditions of the child’s attendance at school, and the family and social relationships of the child in the Member State. The intention of the parents to settle with the child in a given Member State may also be taken into account where that intention is manifested by tangible steps, such as the purchase or lease of a residence in the Member State concerned. By contrast, the nationality of the person giving birth or the previous residence of this person in the Member State of the court seised is not relevant, whereas the fact that the child was born in that Member State and holds the nationality of that Member State is insufficient.
Amendment 112 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) This Regulation shouldall not apply to the establishment of parenthood in a Member State in a domestic situation with no cross-border elements. This Regulation should not therefore include provisions on jurisdiction or applicable law for the establishment of parenthood in domestic cases, such as the parenthood of a child further to a domestic adoption in a Member State. However, in order to safeguard children’s rights without discrimination in cross-border situations as laid down in the Charter, in application of the principle of mutual trust between Member States as confirmed by the Court of Justice, the provisions of this Regulation on the recognition or, as the case may be, acceptance of court decisions and authentic instruments on parenthood should also apply to the recognition of parenthood established in a Member State in domestic situations, such as the parenthood established in a Member State further to a domestic adoption in that Member State. The provisions of this Regulation concerning the relevant attestation and the European Certificate of Parenthood should therefore also apply as regards the parenthood established in a Member State in domestic situations, such as further to a domestic adoption in a Member State.
Amendment 114 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46
Recital 46
Amendment 122 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 53
Recital 53
Amendment 125 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) The requirements for the recording of parenthood in a register shouldall be excluded from the scope of this Regulation. It should therefore be the law of the Member State in which the register is kept that shouldall determine under what legal conditions and how the recording must be carried out, and which authorities are in charge of checking that all requirements are met and that the documentation presented or established is sufficient or contains the necessary information. In order to avoid duplication of documents, the national registration authorities should accept the documents drawn up in another Member State by the competent authorities whose circulation is provided for by this Regulation. In particular, the European Certificate of Parenthood issued under this Regulation should constitute a valid document for the recording of parenthood in a register of a Member State. As the procedure for the issuance of the European Certificate of Parenthood and its contents and effects should be uniform in all Member States as set out in this Regulation, and the European Certificate of Parenthood should be issued in conformity with the rules on jurisdiction and applicable law laid down in this Regulation, the authorities involved in the registration should not require that the European Certificate of Parenthood be first transposed into a national document on parenthood. This should not preclude the authorities involved in the registration from confirming the conditions necessary to establish the authenticity of the European Certificate of Parenthood or from asking the person applying for registration to provide such additional information as required under the law of the Member State in which the register is kept, provided that information is not already included in the European Certificate of Parenthood. The competent authority may indicate to the person applying for registration how the missing information can be provided. The effects of recording the parenthood in a register (for example, depending on the national law, whether registration establishes parenthood or only provides evidence of the parenthood already established) should also be excluded from the scope of this Regulation and be determined by the law of the Member State in which the register is kept.
Amendment 128 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 56
Recital 56
(56) Considerations of public interest should allow courts and other competent authorities establishing parenthood in the Member States to disregard, in exceptional circumstances, certain provisions of a foreign law where, in a given case, applying such provisions would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy (ordre public) of the Member State concerned. However, the courts or other competent authorities should not be able to apply the public policy exception in order to set aside the law of another State when doing so would be contrary to the Charter and, in particular, Article 21 thereof, which prohibits discrimination.
Amendment 130 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58
Recital 58
Amendment 134 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) Notwithstanding the differences in national laws, parenthood is typically established by operation of law or by an act of a competent authority. Examples of the establishment of parenthood by operation of law include parenthood by birth as regards the person giving birthmother, and parenthood by legal presumption as regards the spouse or the registered partner of the person giving birthmother. Examples of the establishment of parenthood by an act of a competent authority include the establishment of parenthood by a court decision (such as in adoption, or in proceedings where parenthood is contested, or in proceedings where parenthood is claimed, for example by proving a possession of state), by a notarial deed (for example, in adoption or where the child is not yet born), by an administrative decision (for example, after an acknowledgment of paternity) or by registration. Parenthood is typically registered in the civil, personal or population register. Evidence of parenthood can be provided by the document establishing the parenthood (such as the court decision, the notarial deed or the administrative decision establishing parenthood). However, evidence of parenthood is most often provided by the registration of the parenthood in the register itself, by an extract from the relevant register or by a certificate containing the information registered in the relevant register (such as a birth certificate or a parenthood certificate).
Amendment 134 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 60
Recital 60
Amendment 138 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) The smooth and correct functioning of a Union area of justice with respect for the Member States’ different legal systems and traditions is fundamental for the Union. In that regard, mutual trust in one another’s justice systems should be further enhancedand the mutual trust of Member States in one another’s justice systems require respect for the Member States’ different legal systems and traditions.
Amendment 138 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 63
Recital 63
(63) The recognition of a court decision shouldmay be refused only, for example, if one or more of the grounds for refusal of recognition provided for in this Regulation are present. The list of grounds for refusal of recognition in this Regulation is exhaustive. It should not be possible to invoke, as grounds for refusal, grounds which are not listed in this Regulation such as, for example, a violation or if a court contests the well- foundedness of the decision pursuant to the general principles of international law, in particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ofr the lis pendens rule. A later court decision should always supersede an earlier court decisInternational Convention ton the extent that they are irreconcilableRights of the Child.
Amendment 140 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 65
Recital 65
Amendment 142 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
Recital 38
(38) This Regulation shouldall respect the different systems for dealing with parenthood matters in the Member States. As regards 'authentic instruments', Member States often empower authorities, such as notaries, administrative authorities or registrars to draw up authentic instruments establishing parenthood with binding legal effect in the Member State in which they have been drawn up or registered (‘authentic instruments with binding legal effect’), or to draw up authentic instruments which have no binding legal effect in the Member State in which they have been drawn up or registered but which have evidentiary effects in that Member State (‘authentic instruments with no binding legal effect’). The term ‘empowerment’ in this Regulation is to be interpreted autonomously in accordance with the definition of ‘authentic instrument’ used horizontally in Union instruments and in the light of the objectives of this Regulation.
Amendment 147 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) To safeguard the child’s interests, jurisdiction should be determined according to the criterion of proximity. Consequently, where possible jurisdiction should lie with the Member State of the habitual residence of the child’s parents. However, in order to facilitate the child’s access to justice in a Member State, alternative jurisdiction should also be granted to the Member State of the nationality of the child, to the Member State of the habitual residence of the respondent (for example, the person in respect of whom the child claims parenthood), to the Member State of the habitual residence of any of the parents, to the Member State of the nationality of any of the parents or to the Member State of the child’s birth.
Amendment 149 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40
Recital 40
(40) In accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice, the child’s place of habitual residence must be established on the basis of all the circumstances specific to each individual case. In addition to the physical presence of the child in the territory of a Member State, other factors must be chosen which are capable of showing that that presence is not in any way temporary or intermittent and that it reflects some degree of integration of the child into a social and family environment, which is the place which, in practice, is the centre of that child’s life. Such factors include the parents’ place of habitual residence, the duration, regularity, conditions and reasons for the child’s stay on the territory of the Member State concerned and the child’s nationality, with the relevant factors varying according to the age of the child concerned. They also include the place and conditions of the child’s attendance at school, and the family and social relationships of the child in the Member State. The intention of the parents to settle with the child in a given Member State may also be taken into account where that intention is manifested by tangible steps, such as the purchase or lease of a residence in the Member State concerned. By contrast, the nationality of the person giving birth or the previous residence of this person in the Member State of the court seised is not relevant, whereas the fact that the child was born in that Member State and holds the nationality of that Member State is insufficient.
Amendment 153 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 75
Recital 75
(75) Considerations of public interest should allow Member State courts or other competent authorities to refuse, in exceptional circumstances, to recognise or, as the case may be, accept a court decision or authentic instrument on the parenthood established in another Member State where, in a given case, such recognition or acceptance would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy (ordre public) of the Member State concerned. However, the courts or other competent authorities should not be able to refuse to recognise or, as the case may be, accept a court decision or an authentic instrument issued in another Member State when doing so would be contrary to the Charter and, in particular, Article 21 thereof, which prohibits discrimination, or with the general principles of international law, in particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the International Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Amendment 156 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46
Recital 46
Amendment 158 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 76
Recital 76
Amendment 166 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 51
Recital 51
(51) As a rule, the law applicable to the establishment of parenthood in cross- border situations should be the law of the State of the habitual residence of the person giving birthmother at the time of birth. This connecting factor should ensure that the applicable law can be determined in the vast majority of cases, including as regards a new-born, whose habitual residence may be difficult to establish. The time of birth should be interpreted strictly, referring to the most frequent situation in which parenthood is established upon birth by operation of law and registered in the relevant register within a few days following birth. That law should apply both to situations in which the person giving birthmother has the habitual residence in the State of birth (as would be the typical situation) and also to situations in which tshe person giving birth has the habitual residence in a State other than the State of birth (for example, when birth occurs while travelling). The law of the State of the habitual residence of the person giving birthmother at the time of birth should apply, by analogy, where the parenthood of the child needs to be established before the child is born. To ensure that the applicable law can be determined in all circumstances, the law of the State of birth of the child should apply in the rare cases where the habitual residence of the person giving birthmother at the time of birth cannot be established (for example, in the case of a refugee or an internationally displaced mother).
Amendment 170 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 53
Recital 53
Amendment 173 #
2022/0402(CNS)
(54) To ensure legal certainty and the continuity of parenthood, where parenthood has been established in a Member State in accordance with one of the laws designated as applicable by this Regulation, the change of applicable law as a result of a change of the habitual residence of the person who gave birthmother or of the nationality of either parent should not affect the parenthood already established.
Amendment 178 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 56
Recital 56
(56) Considerations of public interest should allow courts and other competent authorities establishing parenthood in the Member States to disregard, in exceptional circumstances, certain provisions of a foreign law where, in a given case, applying such provisions would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy (ordre public) of the Member State concerned. However, the courts or other competent authorities should not be able to apply the public policy exception in order to set aside the law of another State when doing so would be contrary to the Charter and, in particular, Article 21 thereof, which prohibits discrimination.
Amendment 205 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b
(b) has been established by a public authority or other authority empowered for that purpose by the Member State of origin; in accordance with the general principles of international law, in particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the International Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Amendment 207 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
This Regulation shall not affect the competence of the authorities of the Member States to deal with parenthood matters, recognition of parenthood conflicting with their domestic legal system or where recognition of parenthood results from instruments that are contrary to international or EU law.
Amendment 210 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
In matters relating to parenthood, jurisdiction shall lie in the following order of priority with the courts of the Member State:
Amendment 214 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) of the nationality of the child at the time the court is seised, or
Amendment 225 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16
Article 16
Any law designated as applicable by this Regulation shall be applied whether or not it is the law of a Member State.rticle 16 deleted Universal application
Amendment 254 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2
Article 22 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraph 1 shall be applied by the courts and other competent authorities of the Member States in accordance with the general principles of international law, in particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, and in observance of the fundamental rights and principles laid down in the Charter, in particular Article 21 thereof on the right to non- discriminations 1, 3 and 5 thereof.
Amendment 259 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1
Article 24 – paragraph 1
1. A court decision on parenthood given in a Member State shallmay be recognised in all other Member States without any special procedure being requiredmandatory.
Amendment 262 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 2
Article 24 – paragraph 2
2. In particular, no special procedure shall be required forA Member State may make the updating theof its civil- status records of a Member State on the basis of a court decision on parenthood given in another Member State and against which no further appeal lies under thesubject to a check on compliance with respect for the fundamental principles set out by the relevant international conventions, EU law ofr that Member State’s own law.
Amendment 265 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1
Article 27 – paragraph 1
1. If the documents specified in Article 26(1) are not produced, the court or other competent authority before which a court decision given in another Member State is invoked may specify a time for its production, accept equivalent documents or, if it considers that it has sufficient information before it, dispense with its production.
Amendment 267 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
The court before which a court decision given in another Member State is invoked mayshall stay its proceedings, in whole or in part, where:
Amendment 271 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The recognition of a court decision shall be refused, in particular:
Amendment 276 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) if such recognition is manifestly contrary to the public policy of the Member State in which recognition is invoked, taking into account the child’s interests;
Amendment 288 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 1
1. ‘parenthood’ means the parent- child relationship established in law and recognised in all Member States. It includes the legal status of being the child of a particular parent or parents;
Amendment 300 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b a (new)
(ba) is not manifestly inconsistent with the general principles of international law, in particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child;
Amendment 302 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
This Regulation shall cannot affect the competence of the authorities of the Member States to deal with parenthood matters or make decisions regarding the recognition of parenthood when it is at odds with their national law or where parenthood has been recognised on the basis of instruments that violate international or EU law.
Amendment 304 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
In matters relating to parenthood, in order of priority, jurisdiction shall lie with the courts of the Member State:
Amendment 307 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) of the habitual residenclegal domicile of the child's parents at the time the court is seised, or
Amendment 309 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) of the nationality of the child at the time the court is seised, or
Amendment 329 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46
Article 46
Amendment 348 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2
Article 22 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraph 1 shall be applied by the courts and other competent authorities of the Member States in accordance with the general principles of international law, in particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, and in observance of the fundamental rights and principles laid down in the Charter, in particular Article 21 thereof on the right to non- discrimination1, 3 and 5 thereof.
Amendment 352 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1
Article 24 – paragraph 1
1. A court decision on parenthood given in a Member State shall be recognised in all other Member States without any special procedure being required, in compliance with the general principles of international conventions and EU law, including the principle of non- discrimination, women’s rights and the ban on human trafficking.
Amendment 356 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 2
Article 24 – paragraph 2
2. In particular, no special procedure shall be required forThe updating of the civil- status records of a Member State on the basis of a court decision on parenthood given in another Member State and against which no further appeal lies under the law of that Member State. may be subject by the former Member State to a review of compliance with the fundamental principles set out in the relevant international conventions, EU law and its own national law.
Amendment 373 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The recognition of a court decision shall in particular be refused:
Amendment 376 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) if such recognition is manifestly contrary to the public policy of the Member State in which recognition is invoked, taking into account the child’s interests;
Amendment 391 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1
Article 32 – paragraph 1
1. The procedure for making an application for refusal of recognition shall, in so far as it is not covered by this Regulation, be governed by the law of the Member State in which proceedings for non- recognition are brought.
Amendment 392 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 2
Article 32 – paragraph 2
Amendment 395 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 5
Article 32 – paragraph 5
5. The court may, where necessary, require the applicant to provide a translation or transliteration of the court order or of the translatable content of the free text fields of the appropriate attestation issued pursuant to Article 29.
Amendment 396 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 6
Article 32 – paragraph 6
Amendment 397 #
Amendment 399 #
Amendment 409 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1
Article 36 – paragraph 1
Amendment 414 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 1
Article 37 – paragraph 1
1. The competent authority of the Member State of origin as communicated to the Commission pursuant to Article 71 shall, upon application by a party, issue an attestation for an authentic instrument establishing parenthood with binding legal effect using the form set out in Annex II.
Amendment 420 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 5
Article 37 – paragraph 5
5. If the attestation is not produced, the authentic instrument shall not, a priori, be recognised in another Member State.
Amendment 424 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) if such recognition is manifestly contrary to the public policy of the Member State in which recognition is invoked, taking into account the child’s interests;
Amendment 431 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 2
Article 39 – paragraph 2
2. Point (a) of paragraph 1 shall be applied by the courts and other competent authorities of the Member States in accordance with the general principles of international law, in particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, and in observance of the fundamental rights and principles laid down in the Charter, in particular Article 21 thereof on the right to non-discrimination1, 3 and 5 thereof.
Amendment 439 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1
Article 40 – paragraph 1
The jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin establishing parenthood may not be reviewed. The test of public policy referred to in point (a) of Article 31(1) may not be applied to the rules relating to jurisdiction set out in Articles 6 to 9.
Amendment 443 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1
Article 41 – paragraph 1
Amendment 456 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 2
Article 45 – paragraph 2
2. The public policy (ordre public) referred to in paragraph 1 shall be applied by the courts and other competent authorities of the Member States in accordance with the general principles of international law, in particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, and in observance of the fundamental rights and principles laid down in the Charter, in particular Article 21 thereof on the right to non-discrimination1, 3 and 5 thereof.
Amendment 460 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Chapter VI – title
Chapter VI – title
VI EUROPEAN CERTIFICATE OF PARENTHOOD. chapter deleted
Amendment 544 #
Amendment 548 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 66 – paragraph 1
Article 66 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation shall not affectbe without prejudice to the provisions of the international conventions to which one or more Member States are party at the time when this Regulation is adopted and which lay down provisions on matters governed by this Regulation.
Amendment 604 #
Amendment 622 #
Amendment 134 #
2022/0134(COD)
Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out, taking into account the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the CommissionRejects the Commission’s legislative proposal;
Amendment 135 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) The integrassimilation of third-country nationals who are EU long-term residents in the Member States is a key element in promoting economic and social cohesion, a fundamental objective of the Union stated in the Treanecessity.
Amendment 136 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) The prospect of obtaining EU long-term resident status in a Member State after a certain time is an important element for the full integration of beneficiaries of international protection in the Member State of residence. Beneficiaries of international protection should therefBeneficiaries of international protection should not be able to obtain, on a mandatorey be able to obtainasis, EU long-term resident status in the Member State which granted them international protection, subject to the same conditions as other third-country nationals.
Amendment 139 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The main criterion for acquirduration of residence ing the status of EU long-term residentterritory of a Member State should not be the duration of residence sole criterion for acquiring the territory of a Member Statestatus of EU long-term resident. Residence should at any rate be both legal and continuous in order to show that the person has put down roots in the country. Provision should be made for a degree of flexibility so that account can be taken of circumstances in which a person might have to leave the territory on a temporary basis.
Amendment 145 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) The required period of residence for the acquisition of EU long-term resident status should be completed in the same Member State of application. However, in order to promote the intra-EU mobility of third-country nationals, Member States should allow third-country nationals to cumulate periods of residence in different Member States. With the aim to limit the attractiveness of investor residence schemes and in account of the fact that not all Member States have regulated this category of residence permits, Member States should not take into account periods of residence as a holder of a residence permit granted on the basis of any kind of investment in another Member State for the purpose of cumulating periods.
Amendment 148 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) AnyNot all periods of residence spent by a holder of a long-stay visa or residence permit issued under Union or national law should be counted for acquiring the EU long-term resident status, including periods of residence under a status or in a capacity that is excluded from the scope of the Directive, such as residence for study purposes or vocational training, residence as beneficiary of national or temporary protection, or residence initially based solely on temporary grounds. Where the third- country national concerned has acquired a title of residence which will enable him/her to be granted EU long-term resident status, these periods should be taken into account fully in the calculation of the period required to acquire EU long- term resident status, provided that the overall residence has been legal and continuous.
Amendment 151 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) To acquire EU long-term resident status, third-country nationals should prove that they have adequate resources and sickness insurance, to avoid becoming a burden for the Member State. Member States may indicate a certain sum as a reference amount, but they may not impose a minimum income level, below which all applications for EU long-term resident status would be refused, irrespective of an actual examination of the situation of each applicant. When making an assessment of the possession of stable and regular resources, Member States may take into account factors such as contributions to the pension system and fulfilment of tax obligations. The concept of ‘resources’ should not concern solely the ‘own resources’ of the applicant for EU long-term resident status, but may also cover the resources made available to that applicant by a third party provided that, in the light of the individual circumstances of the applicant concerned, they are considered to be stable, regular and sufficient.
Amendment 160 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Member States should be able to require applicants for EU long-term resident status to comply with integrassimilation conditions, for example by requiring them to pass a civic integration or language examination. However, the means for implementing this requirement should not be liable to jeopardise the objective of promoting the integration of third-country nationals, having regard, in particular, to the level of knowledge required to pass a civic integration examination, to the accessibility of the courses and material necessary to prepare for that examination, to the amount of fees applicable to third- country nationals as registration fees to sit that examination, or to the consideration of specific individual circumstances, such as age, illiteracy or level of education.
Amendment 163 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 a (new)
Recital 12 a (new)
(12a) Compliance with the common values of the Member States and the ability to assimilate are essential criteria for obtaining EU long-term resident status;
Amendment 166 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
Amendment 167 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) A set of rules governEach Member State should retaing the procedures for the examination ofower to accept or refuse application s for the acquisition of EU long-term resident status should be laid down. Those procedures should be effective and manageable, taking account of the normal workload of the Member States’ administrations, as well as transparent and fair, in order to offer appropriate legal certainty to those concerned. They should not constitute a means of hindering the exercise of the right of residence.
Amendment 168 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
Amendment 172 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) In order to constitute a genuine instrument for the integration of EU long- term residents into the society in which they live,t is up to each Member State to decide whether EU long-term residents should enjoy equality of treatment with citizens of the Member State in a wide range of economic and social matters, under the relevant conditions defined by this Directive.
Amendment 178 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) EU long-term residents should not enjoy reinforced protection against decisions ending their legal stay . Member States should provide for effective legal redress against such decisions .
Amendment 180 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) Decisions ending the legal stay of EU long-term residents should notmay be founded on economic considerations.
Amendment 181 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
Recital 24
Amendment 184 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Where tThe refoulement of a beneficiary of international protection outside the territory of the Union is permitted under Directive 2011/95/EU Member States should be obliged to ensure that all information is obtained from relevant sources, including, where appropriate, from the Member State that granted international protection, and that it is thoroughly assessed with a view to guaranteeing that the decision to refoule that beneficiary is in accordance with Article 4 and Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Unionshould be facilitated, if necessary by cooperation between Member States.
Amendment 186 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) In order to promote better integration of EU long-term residents, rules on favourable conditions forEU long-term resident status shall prohibit family reunification and access to w, which is a majork for spouses should be introduced. Thus specific derogations from Council Directive 2003/86/EC should be provided for. Family reunification should not be subject to conditions relating to integration, as EU long-term residents and their families are deemed to be integrated in the host societyactor in the rising tide of migration and undermines unity and cohesion in the European Union.
Amendment 191 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
Recital 27
Amendment 197 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) Harmonisation of the terms of acquisition of the EU long-term resident status promotes mutual confidence between Member States. However, tThis Directive should be without prejudice to the right of Member States to refuse to issue residence permits of permanent or unlimited validity other than the EU long- term residence permit. Such national residence permits, if awarded, should not confer the right to reside in other Member States without their approval.
Amendment 198 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) Member States shouldall remain free to ensure a level playing field between EU long-term residence permits and national residence permits of permanent or unlimited validity, in terms of procedural and equal treatment rights, procedures and access to information. In particular, Member States should ensure that the level of procedural safeguards and rights granted to EU long- term residents and their family members is not lower than the level of procedural safeguards and rights enjoyed by holders of national residence permits of permanent or unlimited validity. Member States should also ensurMember States may decide that applicants for an EU long-term residence permit are not required to pay higher fees for the processing of their application than applicants for national residence permits. Finally, Member States should engage in the same level of information, promotion and advertisement activities with respect to the EU long-term residence permit as they do for national residence permits of permanent or unlimited validity, for example with regard to information on national websites on legal migration and information campaigns, and training programmes provided to the competent migration authorities.
Amendment 203 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
Recital 30
Amendment 206 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) In view of the right of beneficiaries of international protection to reside in Member States other than the one which granted them international protection, it is necessary to ensure that those other Member States are informed of the protection background of the persons concerned to enable them to comply with their obligations regarding the principle of non-Member States other than the one which granted them international protection shall be entitled to engage in refoulement.
Amendment 207 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
Amendment 209 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) In order to facilitaterestrict the intra-EU mobility of EU long-term residents for the exercise of an economic activity in an employed or self-employed capacity, no, a check of the labour market situation should be carried out when examining applications for residence in a second Member State.
Amendment 210 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) As soon as an EU long-term resident submits a complete application for residence in a second Member State within the deadline provided for in this Directive, it should be possible for that Member State to allow the EU long-term resident to begin employment or study. EU long-term residents should be entitled to begin employment or study at the latest 30 days after submitting the application for residence in the second Member StateEach Member State shall remain sovereign in matters of asylum policy, residence or labour law.
Amendment 213 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) Where EU long-term residents intend to apply for residence in a second Member State in order to exercise a regulated profession, their professional qualifications should not be recognised in the same way as those of Union citizens exercising the right to free movement, in accordance with Directive 2005/36/EC and other applicable Union and national law.
Amendment 216 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
Recital 37
Amendment 220 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) To avoid rendering the right of residence nugatory, EU long-term residents should enjoy in the second Member State the same treatment, under the conditions defined by this Directive, they enjoy in the Member State in which they acquired the status. Thhe possible granting of benefits under social assistance is without prejudice to the possibility for the Member States to withdraw the residence permit if the person concerned no longer fulfils the requirements set by this Directive.
Amendment 225 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 42
Recital 42
Amendment 235 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Notwithstanding paragraph 3 of this article, Member States shallmay grant EU long- term resident status to third-country nationals who have resided legally and continuously within its territory for five years immediately prior to the submission of the relevant application.
Amendment 243 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Amendment 252 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Periods of absence from the territory of the Member State concerned shall notmay interrupt the period referred to in paragraph 1 and shall be taken into account for its calculation where they are shorter than six consecutive months and do not exceed in total 10 months within the period referred to in paragraph 1.
Amendment 261 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, point (a), Member States shall evaluate the stable and regular resources by reference to their nature and regularity and may take into account the level of minimum wages and pensions prior to the application for long-term resident status. Member States may indicate a certain sum as a reference amount, butand they may not impose a minimum income level, below which all applications for EU long-term resident status would be refused, irrespective of an actual examination of the situation of each applicant.
Amendment 268 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 4
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. Where Member States issue national residence permits in accordance with Article 14, they shall notmay require EU long- term resident permit applicants to comply with stricter resources and integration conditions than those imposed on applicants for such national residence permits.
Amendment 274 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 278 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. The refusal referred to in paragraph 1 shall notmay be founded on economic considerations.
Amendment 289 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 4
Article 7 – paragraph 4
4. Where an application for an EU long-term resident permit concerns a third- country national who holds a national residence permit issued by the same Member State in accordance with Article 14, that Member State shall notmay require the applicant to give evidence of the conditions provided for in Article 5(1) and (2), even if the compliance with those conditions was already verified in the context of the application for the national residence permit.
Amendment 292 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall issue an EU long-term residence permit to EU long- term residents. The permit shall be valid at least for five years; it shall, upon application if required, be automatically renewable on expiry be renewable on expiry at the Member States’ discretion.
Amendment 293 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 296 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) adoption of a decision ending the legal stay under the conditions provided for in Article 13the national law of the relevant Member State;
Amendment 299 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) in the event of absence from the territory of the Union for a period of 24two consecutive months.
Amendment 301 #
2022/0134(COD)
Amendment 307 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 3
3. Member States may provide that the EU long-term resident shall no longer be entitled to maintain his/her EU long- term resident status in cases where he/she constitutes a threat to public policy, in consideration of the seriousness of the offences he/she committed, but such threat is not a reason for ending his/her legal stay within the meaning of Article 13.
Amendment 311 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
In any case after six yearmonths of absence from the territory of the Member State that granted EU long-term resident status the person concerned shall no longer be entitled to maintain his/her EU long term resident status in the said Member State.
Amendment 316 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 3
Member States shall notmay require third- country nationals who apply for the re- acquisition of the EU long-term resident status to comply with integrassimilation conditions.
Amendment 317 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 7
Article 9 – paragraph 7
7. The expiry of an EU long-term residence permit shall in noautomatically cause entailthe withdrawal or loss of EU long-term resident status.
Amendment 318 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 8
Article 9 – paragraph 8
Amendment 320 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. Reasons shall be givenIt shall not be mandatory to give reasons for any decision rejecting an application for EU long-term resident status or withdrawing that status. Any such decision shall be notified to the third-country national concerned in accordance with the notification procedures under the relevant national legislation. The notification shall specify the possible redress procedures available and the time limit for taking action.
Amendment 322 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
2. Where an application for EU long- term resident status is rejected or that status is withdrawn or lost or the residence permit is not renewed, the person concerned shall not have the right to mount a legal challenge in the Member State concerned.
Amendment 326 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. EU long-term residents shallmay possibly enjoy equal treatment with nationals as regards:
Amendment 332 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 345 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. The decision referred to in paragraph 1 shall notmay be based on economic considerations.
Amendment 346 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Before taking a decision to end the legal stay of an EU long-term resident, Member States shall have regard tomay possibly take the following factors into account:
Amendment 347 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Before taking a decision to end the legal stay of an EU long-term resident, Member States shall have regard tomay possibly take the following factors into account:
Amendment 349 #
2022/0134(COD)
Amendment 357 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 8
Article 13 – paragraph 8
Amendment 359 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15
Article 15
Amendment 402 #
2022/0134(COD)
Amendment 437 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 28
Article 28
Amendment 439 #
2022/0134(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 1
Article 29 – paragraph 1
Amendment 95 #
2022/0131(COD)
Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out, taking into account the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the CommissionRejects the Commission’s legislative proposal;
Amendment 97 #
2022/0131(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2 a (new)
Recital 2 a (new)
(2a) Takes the view that labour migration from outside Europe is not the answer to the supposed 'labour shortage in the EU'; believes that adequate levels of pay and training and a pro-natalist policy in Europe are the solutions that should be put in place in the Member States;
Amendment 125 #
2022/0131(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) All third-country nationals who are legally residing and working in Member States should enjoy at least a common set of rights based on equal treatment with the nationals of their respective host Member State, irrespective of the initial purpose of or basis for admission. The right to equal treatment in the fields covered by this Directive should be granted not only to those third-country nationals who have been admitted to a Member State to work but also to those who have been admitted for other purposes and have been given access to the labour market of that Member State in accordance with other provisions of Union or national law, including family members of a third-country worker who are admitted to the Member State in accordance with Council Directive 2003/86/EC45; and third-country nationals who are admitted to the territory of a Member State in accordance with Directive (EU) 2016/801 of the European Parliament and of the Council46. _________________ 45 Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ L 251, 3.10.2003, p. 12). 46 Directive (EU) 2016/801 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing (OJ L 132, 21.5.2016, p. 21).
Amendment 172 #
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 59 #
2022/0117(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6 a (new)
Recital 6 a (new)
(6a) Increasing numbers of journalists are being harassed, threatened and attacked either while reporting on or after having filed reports on Islamism; it is vital to ensure their safety and to address this specific threat;
Amendment 68 #
2022/0117(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The purpose of this Directive is to provide protection to natural and legal persons who engage in public participation on matters of public interest, in particular journalists and, human rights defenders and academics, against court proceedings, which are initiated against them to deter them from public participation (commonly referred to as strategic lawsuits against public participation or ‘SLAPPs’).
Amendment 69 #
2022/0117(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a) Human rights defenders play an important role in democracies, particularly in defending national and European borders, when deterring irregular immigrants from taking potentially life-threatening risks such as crossing the Mediterranean or the English Channel;
Amendment 73 #
2022/0117(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8 a (new)
Recital 8 a (new)
(8a) Is worried about the French Government’s threats to a private audiovisual conglomerate owing to ideological disagreements; notes that this is an attack on the independence of France’s Public Authority for the Regulation of Audiovisual and Digital Communication (ARCOM) and a breach of the duty of confidentiality; points out that ARCOM subsequently opposed the government, stressing that the conglomerate in question was in full compliance with rules on political pluralism;
Amendment 74 #
2022/0117(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) Human rights defenders also play an important role in European democracies, especially in upholding fundamental rights, democratic values, social inclusion, environmental protection and the rule of law. They should be able to participate actively in public life and make their voice heard on policy matters and in decision-making processes without fear of intimidation. Human rights defenders refer to individuals or organisations engaged in defending fundamental rights and a variety of other rights, such as environmental and climate rights, women’s rights, LGBTIQ rights, the rights of the people with a minority racial or ethnic background, labour rights or religious freedoms. Other participants in public debate, such as academics and researchers, also deserve adequate protection.
Amendment 82 #
2022/0117(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a) Through their research and teaching activities, academics play a key role in public participation by helping students of all ages develop their competences and especially improve their analytical skills, and by carrying out individual or collective research, innovation or creative work, all of which must be done with a high degree of freedom of thought;
Amendment 89 #
2022/0117(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) To foster this environment, it is important to protect in particular journalists and, human rights defenders and academics from court proceedings against public participation. Such court proceedings are not initiated for the purpose of access to justice, but to silence public debate typically using harassment and intimidation.
Amendment 95 #
2022/0117(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Court proceedings against public participation may have an adverse impact on the credibility and reputation of journalists and human rights defenderspersons targeted and exhaust their financial and other resources. Because of such proceedings, the publication of information on a matter of public interest may be delayed or altogether avoided. The length of procedures and the financial pressure may have a chilling effect on journalists and human rights defendersthem. The existence of such practices may therefore have a deterrent effect on their work by contributing to self-censorship in anticipation of possible future court proceedings, which leads to the impoverishment of public debate to the detriment of society as a whole.
Amendment 102 #
2022/0117(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17 a (new)
Recital 17 a (new)
(17a) With a view to reinforcing freedom of expression, takes the view that something should be done to combat anonymous activist groups attempting to scare advertisers away from media outlets that do not share their ideology;
Amendment 106 #
2022/0117(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) The notion of a matter of public interest should include also quality, safety, immigration policy or other relevant aspects of goods, products or services where such matters are relevant to public health, safety, the environment, climate or enjoyment of fundamental rights. A purely individual dispute between a consumer and a manufacturer or a service provider concerning a good, product or service should be covered only when the matter contains an element of public interest, for instance concerning a product or service which fails to comply with environmental or safety standards.
Amendment 127 #
2022/0117(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
Amendment 160 #
2022/0117(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
(a) public health, safety, immigration policy, the environment, climate or enjoyment of fundamental rights;
Amendment 261 #
2022/0117(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Amendment 266 #
2022/0117(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. Member States may establish time limits for the exercise of the right to file an application for early dismissal. The time limits shall be proportionate and not render such exercise impossible or excessively difficult.
Amendment 270 #
2022/0117(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Amendment 272 #
2022/0117(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Amendment 277 #
2022/0117(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Amendment 298 #
2022/0117(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a natural or legal person who has suffered harm as a result of an abusive court proceedings against public participation is able to claim and to obtain full compensation for that harm.
Amendment 38 #
2022/0084(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
(1a) There are concerns surrounding the fact that the Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) are putting in place two concurrent initiatives to collaborate with private companies on cybersecurity threats.
Amendment 41 #
2022/0084(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Therefore, relevant rules ensuring a common level of information security in all Union institutions and bodies should be laid down, especially as the cybersecurity threats are growing and many national bodies have been attacked. They should constitute a comprehensive and coherent general framework for protecting EUCI and non- classified information, and should ensure equivalence of basic principles and minimum standards.
Amendment 47 #
2022/0084(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) EU governments should keep ownership of their sensitive information.
Amendment 52 #
2022/0084(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) By creating a minimum common level of protection for EUCI and non- classified information, this Regulation contributes to ensuring that the Union institutions and bodies have the support of an efficient and independent administration in carrying out their missions. At the same time, each Union institution and body retains its autonomy in determining how to implement the rules laid down in this Regulation, in line with its own security needs. This Regulation shall in no case prevent Union institutions and bodies to fulfil their mission, as entrusted by the EU legislation, or encroach on their institutional autonomy. This minimum common level of protection for EUCI should ensure a careful balance between transparency and the use of classification in a way that prevents the EU bodies from carrying out their role.
Amendment 57 #
2022/0084(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6 a (new)
Recital 6 a (new)
(6a) Most of the information on cyberthreats relates to the vulnerabilities exploited, in other words the weaknesses hackers exploit to obtain unauthorised access. The European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) may not have sufficient capacity to deal with the volume of reports received from product manufacturers about such vulnerabilities. Member States would prefer these notifications to be sent to the national computer security incident response teams (CSIRT).
Amendment 61 #
2022/0084(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) The Coordination Group should closely cooperate with the National Security Authorities of the Member States with a view to enhancing information security in the Union. An Information Security Committee of the Member States should therefore be set up to provide advice to the Coordination Group, while respecting the prerogatives of the Member States as regards confidential security data.
Amendment 66 #
2022/0084(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) With the purpose of adjusting to the new teleworking practices, the networks used for connecting to the Union institution’s or body’s remote access services should be protected by adequate security measures, through investment in end-to-end network security.
Amendment 68 #
2022/0084(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) Since Union institutions and bodies frequently make use of contractors and outsourcing, it is important to establish common provisions relating to contractors’ personnel carrying out tasks related to information security. and to verify the quality and confidentiality of external contractors.
Amendment 253 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
Amendment 287 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Violence against women and domestic violence can be exacerbated where it intersects with discrimination based on sex and other grounds of discrimination prohibited by Union law, namely nationality, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation. Member States should therefore pay due regard to victims affected by such intersectional discrimination, through providing specific measures where intersecting forms of discrimination are present. In particular, lesbian, bisexual, trans, non-binary, intersex and queer (LBTIQ) women, women with disabilities and women with a minority racial or ethnic background are at a heightened risk of experiencing gender-based violencediscrimination.
Amendment 315 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13 a (new)
Recital 13 a (new)
(13a) Given its extreme gravity, rape must be condemned in the strongest terms and Member States are asked to be vigilant about possible reductions in penalties for offenders, to avoid fostering a sense of impunity on the part of offenders – which is a factor in reoffending – or a deep feeling of injustice on the part of victims.
Amendment 340 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) In order to address the irreparable and lifelong damage female genital mutilation has on victims, this offence should be specifically and adequately addressed in the criminal laws. Female genital mutilation is an exploitative practice that pertains to the sexual organs of a girl or a woman and that is performed for the purpose of preserving and asserting domination over women and girls and exerting social control over girls and women’s sexuality. It is sometimes performed in the context of child forced marriage or domestic violence. Female genital mutilation may occur as a traditional practice with an origin outside Europe which some communities perform on their female members. It should cover practices undertaken for non-medical reasons. It may, however, be performed in Europe, or when European nationals return to their family’s country of origin, for example for holidays. The term “excising” should refer to the partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia majora. “Infibulating” should cover the closure of the labia majora by partially sewing together the outer lips of the vulva in order to narrow the vaginal opening. The term “performing any other mutilation” should refer to all other physical alterations of the female genitals.
Amendment 366 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) It is necessary to provide for harmonised definitions of offences and penalties regarding certain forms of cyber violence. Cyber violence particularly targets and impacts women politicians, journalists and human rights defenders. It can have the effect of silencing women and hindering their societal participation on an equal footing with men. Cyber violence also disproportionately affects women and girlschildren in educational settings, such as schools and universities, with detrimental consequences to their further education and to their mental health, which may, in extreme cases, lead to suicide.
Amendment 614 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 59
Recital 59
(59) Member States should take measures to prevent the cultivation of harmful gender stereotypes to eradicate the idea of the inferiority of women or stereotyped roles of women and men. This could also include measures aimed anot allow prejudice against women to be perceived as a justification for offences of violence against women or domestic violence. Member States should be particularly vigilant vis-a-vis such prejudices, particularly those deriving from cultures outside Europe. Member States must ensuringe that culture, custom, religion, tradition or honour is not perceived as a justification for, or a more lenient treatment of, offences of violence against women or domestic violence. Considering that from a very young age onwards, children are exposed to gender roles that shape their self-perception and influence their academic and professional choices as well as expectations of their roles as women and men throughout their life, it is crucial to address gender stereotypes as of early-childhood education and care.
Amendment 637 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 61 a (new)
Recital 61 a (new)
(61a) In order to counteract underreporting, Member States should also combat the feeling of injustice that is spreading as a result of reductions in penalties which Europeans, particularly women, consider to be too lenient.
Amendment 647 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 64
Recital 64
(64) Policies to adequately tackle violence against women and domestic violence can only be formulated on the basis of comprehensive and comparable disaggregated data. In order to effectively monitor developments in the Member States and fill the gaps of comparable data, Member States should regularly conduct surveys using the harmonised methodology of the Commission (Eurostat) to gather data and transmit these data to the Commission (Eurostat). Member States should, in particular, collect data providing them with information on the profile of perpetrators of violence against women, including their nationality and migration status.
Amendment 726 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) “victim” means any person, regardless of sex or gender, unless specified otherwise, who has suffered harm, which was directly caused by acts of violence covered under this Directive, including child witnesses of such violence;
Amendment 1019 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 16 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Member States shall, however, ensure that the competent authorities in contact with the victim can transfer personal data relating to the residence status of the alleged offender to the competent migration authorities where appropriate.
Amendment 1171 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) how to treat victims in a trauma-, gendersex- and child-sensitive manner;
Amendment 1179 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) how to avoid gender stereotypesprejudices of any kind;
Amendment 1466 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 36 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 36 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The prevention of violence must be supported by an effective judicial system. Tough and effective penalties must be applied to perpetrators of violence, particularly of sexual violence.
Amendment 1557 #
2022/0066(COD)
1a. To combat reoffending, Member States shall ensure that the penalties imposed are effective.
Amendment 1580 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 41 – paragraph 1
Article 41 – paragraph 1
Member States shall cooperate with and consult civil society organisations, including non-governmental organisations working with victims of violence against women or domestic violence, in particular in providing support to victims, concerning policymaking initiatives, information and awareness-raising campaigns, research and education programmes and in training, as well as in monitoring and evaluating the impact of measures to support and protect victims. Such bodies must be credible and politically and ideologically neutral.
Amendment 1609 #
2022/0066(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The statistics shall include the following data disaggregated by sex, age and nationality of the victim and of the offender, relationship between the victim and the offender and type of offence:
Amendment 9 #
Amendment 11 #
2022/0031(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council1 lays down a framework for the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable COVID-19 vaccination, test and recovery certificates (EU Digital COVID Certificate) for the purpose of facilitating the holders’ exercise of their right to free movement during the COVID- 19 pandemic, even though there have been operational issues with the digital certificate that have reduced its effectiveness, particularly involving fraudulent use of secret cryptographic keys. It is also to contribute to facilitating the gradual lifting of restrictions to free movement put in place by the Member States, in accordance with Union law, to limit the spread of SARS- CoV-2, in a coordinated manner. _________________ 1 Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2021 on a framework for the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable COVID-19 vaccination, test and recovery certificates (EU Digital COVID Certificate) to facilitate free movement during the COVID-19 pandemic, OJ L 211, 15.6.2021, p. 1.
Amendment 16 #
2022/0031(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) According to Regulation (EU) 2021/953, test certificates are to be issued based on two types of tests for SARS-CoV- 2 infection, namely molecular nucleic acid amplification tests (‘NAAT’), including those using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (‘RT-PCR’), and rapid antigen tests, which rely on detection of viral proteins (antigens) using a lateral flow immunoassay that gives results in less than 30 minutes, provided they are carried out by health professionals or by skilled testing personnel. However, Regulation (EU) 2021/953 does not cover antigenic assays, such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays or automated immunoassays, which test for antigens in a laboratory setting. As of July 2021, the technical working group on COVID-19 diagnostic tests2, responsible for preparing updates to the common list of COVID-19 rapid antigen tests3 agreed by the Health Security Committee established by Article 17 of Decision No 1082/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council4, also reviews proposals put forward by Member States and manufacturers for COVID-19 laboratory- based antigenic assays. Those proposals are assessed against the same criteria as those used for rapid antigen tests, and the Health Security Committee has established a list of the laboratory-based antigenic assays that meet those criteria. As a result, and in an effort to enlarge the scope of the different types of diagnostic tests that may be used as the basis for the issuance of an EU Digital COVID Certificate, the definition for rapid antigen tests should be adapted to include laboratory-based antigenic assays. Tests confirming the presence of COVID-19 antibodies should also enable a Digital COVID Certificate to be obtained for a renewable period of 90 days in order to facilitate free movement, as is the case in Switzerland, a member of the Schengen Area. It should thus be possible for Member States to issue test certificates on the basis of the antigen tests included in the EU common list agreed, and regularly updated, by the Health Security Committee as meeting the established quality criteria. _________________ 2 https://ec.europa.eu/health/health- security-and-infectious-diseases/crisis- management/covid-19-diagnostic-tests_en 3 https://ec.europa.eu/health/system/files/202 2-01/covid-19_rat_common-list_en.pdf 4 Decision No 1082/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on serious cross-border threats to health and repealing Decision No 2119/98/EC (OJ L 293, 5.11.2013, p. 1).
Amendment 17 #
2022/0031(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 a (new)
Recital 2 a (new)
(2a) Notes a blind spot in the application of Regulation (EU) 2021/953 regarding the validity period of the COVID certificate after the booster dose (3rd dose).
Amendment 18 #
2022/0031(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) In particular in light of the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, the continued development and study of COVID-19 vaccines and drug treatments is a crucial aspect in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. In this context, it is important to facilitate the participation of volunteers in clinical trials, that is, studies performed to investigate the safety or efficacy of a medicine, such as a COVID-19 vaccine or drug treatment. Clinical research plays a fundamental role in the development of vaccines and treatments, and voluntary participation in clinical trials should therefore be encouraged. Depriving vaccine trial volunteers from access to EU Digital COVID Certificates could constitute a major disincentive to participate, delaying the conclusion of clinical trials and negatively impacting public health more generally. In addition, the integrity of clinical trials, including in terms of data blinding and confidentiality, should be preserved to ensure the validity of their results. It should thus be clarified that Member States may issue EU Digital COVID Certificates to participants in clinical trials that have been approved by Member States’ ethical committees and competent authorities, regardless whether they have received the COVID-19 vaccine candidate or, to avoid undermining the studies, the dose administered to the control group. In addition, it should be clarified that other Member States may accept vaccination certificates for COVID- 19 vaccines undergoing clinical trials in order to waive restrictions to free movement put in place, in accordance with Union law, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. If a COVID-19 vaccine undergoing clinical trials is subsequently granted a marketing authorisation pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/20045, vaccination certificates for that vaccine fall, as of that moment, within the scope of the first subparagraph of Article 5(5) of Regulation (EU) 2021/953. To ensure a coherent approach, the Commission should be empowered to ask the Health Security Committee, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) or the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to issue guidance with regards to the acceptance of certificates issued for a COVID-19 vaccine undergoing clinical trials that has not yet received a marketing authorisation, which should take into account the ethical and scientific criteria necessary for carrying out clinical trials. It would, however, be irresponsible if volunteers who have participated in clinical trials, whose certificate is deactivated due to non-authorisation of the trialled vaccine, were forced to be re- vaccinated with an authorised product whose possible short-, medium- or long- term interactions with the trialled vaccine have not been evaluated, particularly given the proximity in time of the vaccine administration. Following the precautionary principle, their certificates should therefore be valid for life. _________________ 5 Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1).
Amendment 23 #
2022/0031(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Since the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2021/953, the epidemiological situation with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic has evolved considerably. On the one hand, by 31 January 2022, more than 80% of the adult population in the Union have completed their primary vaccination cycle, and more than 50% have received a booster dose, despite significant differences between Member States6. Increasing vaccine uptake remains a crucial objective in the fight against the pandemic, given the increased protection against hospitalisation and severe disease afforded by vaccination, and thus plays an important role in ensuring that restrictions to the free movement of persons can be lifted. It would be appropriate to review the legitimacy of the COVID Certificate in the light of the number of vaccinated people in the EU and the lower risk presented by the new variants, as restricting the free movement of persons within the Union should remain an exception. _________________ 6 https://vaccinetracker.ecdc.europa.eu/publi c/extensions/COVID-19/vaccine- tracker.html
Amendment 24 #
2022/0031(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Since the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2021/953, the epidemiological situation with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic has evolved considerabimproved substantially. On the one hand, by 31 January 2022, more than 80% of the adult population in the Union have completed their primary vaccination cycle, and more than 50% have received a booster dose, despite significant differences between Member States6. Increasing vaccine uptake remains a crucial objective in the fight against the pandemic, given the increased protection against hospitalisation and severe disease afforded by vaccination, and thus plays an important role in ensuring that restrictions to the free movement of persons can be lifted. Nine Member States do not require incoming travellers to provide any kind of COVID- 19 certificates to access their national territory. _________________ 6 https://vaccinetracker.ecdc.europa.eu/publi c/extensions/COVID-19/vaccine- tracker.html
Amendment 25 #
2022/0031(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) On the other hand, the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern ‘Delta’ in the second half of 2021 caused an increase in the number of infections, hospitalisation and deaths, requiring Member States to adopt strict public health measures in an effort to protect healthcare system capacity, which is often under pressure as a result of budget cuts due mainly to austerity policies, promoted by the European Commission in its recommendations to Member States as part of the European Semester. In early 2022, the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern ‘Omicron’ caused sharp increases in the number of COVID-19 cases, rapidly replacing Delta and reaching an unprecedented intensity of community transmission across the Union. As noted by ECDC in its Rapid Risk Assessment of 27 January 20227, Omicron infections appear less likely to lead to a severe clinical outcome that requires hospitalisation or admission to intensive care units, and notes that some Member States have decided to consider COVID- 19 an endemic disease. Although the reduction in severity is partially due to inherent characteristics of the virus, results from vaccine effectiveness studies have shown that vaccination plays a significant role in preventing severe clinical outcomes from Omicron infection, with effectiveness against severe illness increasing significantly among people having received three vaccine doses. However, the vaccine’s efficacy against infectiousness has proven to be limited. Furthermore, given the very high levels of community transmission, leading to many people being sick at the same time, Member States are likely to undergo a period of substantial pressure on their healthcare systems and on the functioning of the society as a whole, mainly through absence from work and education. Member States should therefore be encouraged to maintain or increase their budgetary provisions such that the number of hospital beds is at least equal to the number prior to the pandemic. In the light of the shortage of healthcare workers, Member States should exempt such workers from the obligation to be vaccinated, since vaccination has been shown not to prevent transmission. _________________ 7 https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/fil es/documents/RRA-19th%20update-27- jan-2022.pdf
Amendment 27 #
2022/0031(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) After a peak in Omicron cases, a high proportion of the population is expected to enjoy, at least for a certain period, protection from COVID-19 either due to vaccination or prior infection, or both. However, it is not possible to predict the impact of a possible increase in infections in the second half of 2022. In addition, the possibility of a worsening, or not, of the pandemic situation because of the emergence, or non-emergence, of new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern cannot be ruled out. As also noted by ECDC, significant uncertainties remain at this stage of the COVID-19 pandemicregarding the evolution of COVID-19.
Amendment 28 #
2022/0031(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
Amendment 31 #
2022/0031(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) As a result, it cannot be excluded that Member States continue to require Union citizens exercising their right to free movement to present proof of COVID-19 vaccination, test or recovery beyond 30 June 2022, the date when Regulation (EU) 2021/953 is set to expire. It is thus important to avoid that, in the event that certain restrictions to free movement based on public health are still in place after 30 June 2022, Union citizens and their family members are deprived of the possibility to make use of their EU Digital COVID Certificates, which are an effective, secure and privacy-preserving way of proving one’s COVID-19 status. At the same time, given that any restrictions to the free movement of persons within the Union put in place to limit the spread of SARS-CoV- 2, including the requirement to present EU Digital COVID Certificates, should be lifted as soon as the epidemiological situation allows, the extension of the application of Regulation (EU) 2021/953 should be limited to 123 months. In addition, the extension of that Regulation should not be understood as requiring Member States, in particular those thatMember States should lift domestic public health measures, to maintain or impose free movement restrictions. The power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union delegated to the Commission pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2021/953 should be equally extended. It is necessary to ensure that the EU Digital COVID Certificate system can adapt to scientific progress in containing the COVID-19 pandemichat restrict freedoms. It is necessary to ensure that the EU Digital COVID Certificate system is a tool to be used only in exceptional circumstances and is not to be used permanently.
Amendment 36 #
2022/0031(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8 b (new)
Recital 8 b (new)
(8b) The EU Digital COVID Certificate has been conceived only as a tool to facilitate free movement within the Union during the COVID-19 pandemic, taking into account the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination. However, in contravention of the objective of Regulation (EU) 2021/953, the EU Digital COVID Certificate has been used by many national, regional and local authorities in the Member States, as well as by the Union institutions, to impose restrictions for internal and domestic purposes. Without prejudice to Member States’ competence to introduce national restrictions on grounds of public health this Regulation and the EU Digital COVID Certificate should not be intended as a tool for Member States to impose unjustified, disproportionate or discriminatory restrictions for domestic purposes.
Amendment 47 #
2022/0031(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a – point i
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a – point i
Regulation (EU) 2021/953
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) a certificate confirming that the holder has been subject to a NAAT test, or an antigen test listed in the EU common list of COVID-19 antigen tests agreed by the Health Security Committee, or an immunological test showing the presence of antibodies, carried out by health professionals or by skilled testing personnel in the Member State issuing the certificate and indicating the type of test, the date on which it was carried out and the result of the test (test certificate);
Amendment 49 #
2022/0031(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a – point i a (new) Regulation (EU) 2021/953
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a – point i a (new) Regulation (EU) 2021/953
(ia) point (c) is replaced by the following: (c) a certificate confirming that, following a positive result of a NAAT test, or a rapid antigen test listed in the EU common list of COVID-19 antigen tests agreed by the Health Security Committee, or an antibody test listed in the EU common list of COVID-19 antibody tests agreed by the Health Security Committee, carried out by health professionals or by skilled testing personnel, the holder has recovered from a SARS-CoV-2 infection (certificate of recovery). Or. en (Regulation (EU) 2021/953)
Amendment 60 #
2022/0031(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point –a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point –a (new)
Regulation (EU) 2021/953
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
(-a) In Article 7, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: "1. Each Member State shall issue, upon request, certificates of recovery referred to in point (c) of Article 3(1) following a positive result of a NAAT test carried out by health professionals or by skilled testing personnel. A Member State may also issue, upon request, certificates of recovery referred to in point (c) of Article 3(1) following a positive result of a rapid antigen test listed in the EU common list of COVID-19 antigen tests agreed by the Health Security Committee carried out by health professionals or by skilled testing personnel. Member States may issue certificates of recovery based on rapid antigen tests carried out by health professionals or by skilled testing personnel on or after 1 October 2021, provided that the rapid antigen test used was included in the EU common list of COVID-19 antigen tests agreed by the Health Security Committee at the time the positive test result was produced. A Member State may also issue certificates of recovery referred to in point (c) of Article 3(1) following a positive result of an antibody test carried out by health professionals or by skilled testing personnel, provided that the antibody test used was included in the EU common list of COVID-19 antibody tests agreed by the Health Security Committee at the time the positive test result was produced. Certificates of recovery shall be issued at the earliest 11 days after the date on which a person was first subject to a NAAT test or rapid antigen test that produced a positive result, or the day after the date on which a person was subject to an antibody test that produced a positive result. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 12 to amend the number of days after which a certificate of recovery is to be issued, on the basis of guidance received from the Health Security Committee in accordance with Article 3(11) or on scientific evidence reviewed by ECDC."
Amendment 68 #
2022/0031(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 d (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 d (new)
Regulation (EU) 2021/953
Article 11 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 4 a (new)
(5d) In Article 11, the following paragraph is added: “4a. Member States shall not make use of the EU Digital COVID Certificate as a tool to implement domestic restrictions.”;
Amendment 70 #
2022/0031(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Regulation (EU) 2021/953
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Amendment 76 #
2022/0031(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 e (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 e (new)
Regulation (EU) 2021/953
Article 16 – paragraph 3 (new)
Article 16 – paragraph 3 (new)
Amendment 77 #
2022/0031(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8
Regulation (EU) 2021/953
Article 17 – paragraph 2
Article 17 – paragraph 2
Amendment 82 #
2022/0031(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 8
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 8
Regulation (EU) 2021/953
Article 17 – paragraph 2
Article 17 – paragraph 2
It shall apply from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 20232.;
Amendment 9 #
2021/2180(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that respect for the rule of law entails compliance with EU primary and secondary law, andhas nothing to do with compliance with the corealleged principle of the primacy of EU law;
Amendment 19 #
2021/2180(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that certain measures taken in urgency can be considerably disproportionate and even have democratic deficits, and lead to corruption, and that they lack proper scrutinymoreover can result in unjustified breaches of fundamental freedoms; stresses, therefore, the need for clear legal arrangements ensuring respect for the rule of law also during times of crisis;
Amendment 33 #
2021/2180(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WelcomesTakes note of the Commission’s second Rule of Law Report (‘the Report’) and considers that the periodic review of the state of the rule of law is of great significance and is an essential monitoring tool; welcomstresses the importance that it rightly places on justice systems; stresses that effectiveness, independence and, efficiency are threend neutrality are four characteristics of justice systems which are equally essential for upholding the rule of law and which constitute the basis for mutual trust within the EU’s area of freedom, security and justice; notes the need for lawyers, judges and prosecutors to be able to exercise their functions with full autonomy and independence, without interference from any other institution or body, in accordance with the principle of the separation of powers; argues that this is an indispensable condition for ensuring equality and the protection of citizens’ rights under the law; with regard to judges specifically, emphasises that the politicisation of some of their unions undermines their neutrality and credibility;
Amendment 39 #
2021/2180(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Welcomes the fact that lawyers are now part of the EU Justice Scoreboard’s questionnaire; stresses that independent lawyers are also essential to independent justice systems; reiterates the need for lawyers and the judiciary to be highly qualified and regularly trained in the rule of law and in EU law in general, and calls on the Commission to extend the scope of its next Report to include this area;
Amendment 49 #
2021/2180(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Defends the position that the principle of the separation of powers is essential to the proper functioning of justice systems across the EU and requires institutional structures where not only judges but also prosecution services are independent from undue political pressure;
Amendment 57 #
2021/2180(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 61 #
2021/2180(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 66 #
2021/2180(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 72 #
2021/2180(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Urges the Council to resume all pending procedures under Article 7(1) TEU and to inform Parliament thereof; underlines that any further delaying of such action would amount to a breach of the rule of law principle by the Council itselfNotes the state of play at the Council with regard to the procedures under Article 7(1) TEU;
Amendment 15 #
2021/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas better law-making is a common goal for all EU Institutions, and should be achieved by increasing transparency, accountability and cooperation between the institutions and Member States, citizens and stakeholders, ensuring full respect of all fundamental European values, including democracy, the rule of law and, human rights;, sovereignty and the identity of European nations whereas legislation should be fit for purpose, balanced, clear, transparent and comprehensive in order to benefit citizens and stakeholders;
Amendment 18 #
2021/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas better law-making is a common goal for all EU Institutions, and should be achieved by increasing transparency, accountability and cooperation between the institutions and Member States, citizens and stakeholders, ensuring full respect of all fundamental European values, including democracy, the rule of law and human rights;freedom and equality whereas legislation should be fit for purpose, balanced, clear, transparent and comprehensive in order to benefit citizens and stakeholders;
Amendment 26 #
2021/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas better law-making must aim to serve the EU’s political ambitions, especially its long-term objectives, such as social progress and the binding objective of Union climate neutrality by 2050, and the long-term priority objective for 2050 that citizens live well, within the limits of our planet;and its Member States' political ambitions whereas sustainability should be at the heart of quality law-making, placing social, environmental and economic considerations on an equal footing;
Amendment 29 #
2021/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas better law-making must aim to serve the EU’s political ambitions of all Member States, especially itstheir long-term objectives, such as social progress and the binding objective of Union climate neutrality by 2050, and the long-term priority objective for 2050 that citizens live well, within the limits of our planetfor instance; whereas sustainability should be at the heart of quality law-making, placing social, environmental and economic considerations on an equal footing;
Amendment 44 #
2021/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the aim of the regulatory fitness and performance (REFIT) programme is to simplify EU laws and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens with a view to improve regulatory compliance;
Amendment 51 #
2021/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the Treaties grant Parliament the direct right of initiative only in very limited cases; whereas Parliament has called for increasing its right of initiative in its resolution on Parliament’s right of initiative; whereas under the principle of parallelism of procedures, a right of initiative for the other co- legislator, the Council, should also be considered;
Amendment 57 #
2021/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to making better use of foresight, mainstreaming the Sustainable Development Goals in all its legislative proposals, without obeying a punitive ecological logic, in line with the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, to paying greater attention to gender equality and equality for all, and to ensuring that the ‘do no significant harm’ and precautionary principles are applied across all policy areas; calls for the Commission to clearly define the ‘do no significant harm’ principle in order to ensure its consistent application; welcomes the proposal that sustainability and digitalisation should be better taken into account in law-making; calls on the Commission to implement a ‘sustainability first’ approach;
Amendment 58 #
2021/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomesTakes note of the Commission’s commitment to making better use of foresight, mainstreaming the Sustainable Development Goals in all its legislative proposals, in line with the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, to paying greater attention to gender equality and equality for all, and to ensuring that the ‘do no significant harm’ and precautionary principles are applied across all policy areas; calls for the Commission to clearly define the ‘do no significant harm’ principle in order to ensure its consistent application; welcomes the proposal that sustainability and digitalisation should be better taken into account in law-making; calls on the Commission to implement a ‘sustainability first’ approach;
Amendment 70 #
2021/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. WelcomNotes the Commission’s initiative to make the ‘Have your say’ web portal more accessible to people with disabilities and to consolidate public consultations into a single ‘call for evidence’; calls for all related documents, questionnaires and contributions to be available in all EU official languages; calls for greater transparency on how replies are taken into account; calls for the Commission to involve more representations in the Member States, institutions such as the European Economic and Social Committee or the Committee of the Regions, as well as national authorities with a view to disseminating more information on public consultations;
Amendment 84 #
2021/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. CRecalls forthat the mainstreaming of children’s rights in EU legislationEU's powers to legislate in areas where children are involved remain limited; calls in this regard for the introduction of a children’s rights test in impact assessments and for the launch of more public consultations addressed to children and adolescents;
Amendment 114 #
2021/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Takes note of the use of instruments such as the regulatory fitness and performance programme (REFIT) and the ‘Fit for Future’ Platform to identify opportunities for simplification and reducing unnecessary costs before the Commission proposes a revision, while scrupulously respecting the constitutional traditions of the Member States and while ensuring the highest standards of protection and enhancing compliance with EU law; recalls that the ‘Fit for Future’ platform’s role is also to assess whether specific Union legislation and its objectives remain future-proof and adapted to new challenges;
Amendment 117 #
2021/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Takes note of the use of instruments such as the regulatory fitness and performance programme (REFIT) and the ‘Fit for Future’ Platform to identify opportunities for simplification and reducing unnecessary costs before the Commission proposes a revision, while ensuring the highest standards of protection and enhancing compliance with EU law; recalls that the ‘Fit for Future’ platform’s role is also to assess whether specific Union legislation and its objectives remain future-proof and adapted to new challenges;
Amendment 123 #
2021/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Underlines that ‘strategic foresight’ could play a key role in helping to future- proof EU policy-making by all Member States by ensuring that assessments of new initiatives are grounded in a longer-term perspective, emphasising the added value of quality legislation as an investment in the future; welcomes the integration of ‘foresight elements’ into the Commission’s better regulation agenda in impact assessments and evaluations; considers, however, that the Commission’s methodology for quantifying costs, deciding on trade-offs and implementing strategic foresight remains unclear, and that practice will allow assessment of how these approaches have been followed in practice; encourages the Commission to look into innovative cost assessment tools;
Amendment 151 #
2021/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Invites the Conference on the Future of Europe to discuss the strengthening of the European Parliament’s and the Council's right of legislative initiative, as it is the only democratically elected body in the EU and directly represents European citizens; recalls Commission President von der Leyen’s commitment to support Parliament’s right of initiative; regrets that this possibility has been regularly deferred to future Treaty revisions;
Amendment 3 #
2021/2146(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 4 #
2021/2146(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Deeply regrets that the obligation included in Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 to recruit at least 40 fundamental rights monitors by 5 December 2020 has still not been fulfilled; urges the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (the ‘Agency’) to swiftly recruit the remaining fundamental rights monitors and to appoint them at AD level, asStates that the recruitment of 40 fundamental rights monitors by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (the ‘Agency’), under pressure from the European Parliament and the European Commission have repeatedly called for; reminds the Agency that that is one of seven conditions set by the Parliament in its previous discharge reports; recognises the progress made by the Agency in that respect; highlights however that the lack of fulfilment of those conditions increases the risk of, only serves to transform it into a committee to help migrants, whereas its role is to protect the European borders; affirms that the absence of recruitment of monitors or the attribution of a grade to them cannot be a reason for refusaling to grant discharge for the financial year 2020;
Amendment 9 #
2021/2146(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 10 #
2021/2146(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. RegretNotes that the call to suspend the Agency’s support for return-related operations from Hungary for as long as, and as concluded by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the return decisions issued by the Hungarian authorities are incompatible with Directive 2008/115/EC and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has not been fulfilled; is deeply concerned that the Agency’s management board has still not adopted a detailed procedure for the implementation of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, especially in the light of developments in Greeceaccording to the document "Reflection on the current legal and operational developments" released by the Agency in July 2022, no complaint or serious incident report has been received by Frontex in any of the returns by Hungary supported by Frontex so far, neither from individuals or from any organisation; congratulates Hungary and Greece for their vital work in protecting Europe's borders to combat the flood of migrants; urges the EU to support these Member States;
Amendment 22 #
2021/2146(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 23 #
2021/2146(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. WelcomesNotice the decision to partially grant access to the report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on the investigation conducted with respect to the activities of the Agency,into the Agency's activities to the members of Parliament’'s Committee on Budgetary Control and Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs; regretdenounces the lcong delay taken towards grantclusions of this investigation; requests, ing that access; is profoundly concerned about the findings of that investigation; expresses its utter disappointment in the behaviour and actions described in the findings presented; recommends, given those findings, toe interests of transparency and impartiality, that the answers given by the former Executive Director, Mr. Leggeri, at his hearing before the Frontex Management Board in connection with this investigation also has to be published; pending these answers, recommends that Parliament’'s Committee on Budgetary Control not to grant discharge for the financial year 2020;
Amendment 24 #
2021/2146(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the decision to partially grant access to the report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on the investigation conducted with respect to the activities of the Agency, to the members of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control and Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs; regrets the long delay taken towards granting that access; is profoundly concerned about the findings of that investigation; expresses its utter disappointment in the behaviour and actions described in the findings presented; recommends, given those findings, to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control not to grant discharge for the financial year 2020Requests that the former Executive Director of Frontex, who claims that the mandate of the Agency is unclear - to be a European border police force or a body verifying how Member States apply fundamental rights at borders - has to be heard in the European Parliament;
Amendment 31 #
2021/2146(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the appointment of the interim executive director on 1 July 2022Regrets that the Strategic Risk Analysis 2022 report published by the Executive Director ad interim of the Agency proposes the future development of legal pathways for migration to Europe in response to possible future global geographic imbalances; condemns this promotion of migration by the Agency;
Amendment 36 #
2021/2146(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 37 #
2021/2146(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the acknowledgeCondemns the harassment byof the acting eformer Executive dDirector of the standing problems of the Agency and the commitments she madeAgency and countries in ther presentation in Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on 30 May 2022, which included commitments to ensure that the Agency fully implements its mandate and operates in full respect of the rule of law and fundamental rights, to change the organisational culture of the Agency, including to make sure people are not afraid to speak up about possible wrongdoings, to organise a dialogue with the members of staff, to encourage delegation of powers and to build relationships of trust with other institutions and the public; expects decisive steps to fulfil those commitments; notes with concern the statements of the acting executive director about the demotivation and distress of the staff; expects a detailed strategy to tackle that issue front line of the flood of migrants, such as Hungary, Poland or Greece, which are protecting the continent; states that this harassment is the work of the European Commission and the European Parliament; demands that it cease; expects the Agency to be able to carry out its work of defending the borders of the European Union with the support of the European institutions;
Amendment 38 #
2021/2146(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the acknowledgement by the acting executive directRecalls that the annual report ofn the standing problems of the Agency and the commitments she made in her presentation in Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on 30 May 2022, which included commitments to ensure that the Agency fully implements its mandate and operates in full respect of the rule of law and fundamental rights, to change the organisational culture of the Agency, including to make sure people are not afraid to speak up about possible wrongdoings, to organise a dialogue with the members of staff, to encourage delegation of powers and to build relationships of trust with other institutions and the public; expects decisive steps to fulfil those commitments; notes wimplementation of Regulation (EU) No 656/2014, establishing rules for the surveillance of the external sea borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by the Agency on activities carried out in 2021, indicates that the Agency has ensured the application of provisions of this Regulation in iths concern the statements of the acting executive director about the demotivation and distress of the staff; expects a detailed strategy to tackle that issueordinated maritime operations;
Amendment 48 #
2021/2146(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the management board and Commission to recruit as soon as possible a new eExecutive dDirector as soon as possible.whose priority is the protection of the European Union's external borders;
Amendment 17 #
2021/2114(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Opposes compulsory vaccination against Covid-19, which amounts to a disproportionate violation of privacy;
Amendment 1 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5
Citation 5
Amendment 12 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 23
Citation 23
Amendment 15 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 24
Citation 24
Amendment 20 #
2021/2103(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines that the main responsibility for this regression lies with Member States and the European Union;
Amendment 41 #
2021/2103(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Condemns all attemptthe decisions by Member States to control civil society actors and discriminate between them on a political basis, including by over-regulating the sectorrestrict citizens’ freedoms disproportionately in connection with the health crisis;
Amendment 43 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas in some Member States, restrictions have been imposed with the deliberate aim of limiting civic space and are accompanied by legal, administrative and fiscal harassment, criminalisation and negative rhetoric aimed at stigmatising and delegitimising CSOs and draining their capacity to carry out their legitimate work; whereas hate speech, harassment and attacks also emanate from non-state actors; whereas CSOs working on women’s rights, including sexual and reproductive health and rights, environmental issues and the protection of minorities and LGBTI rights, as well as those providing assistance to asylum seekers and those involved in search and rescue operationgender equality, environmental issues and the freedom to criticise Islamic fundamentalism, as well as those fighting to prevent Europe from being overrun by migrants, are particularly exposed;
Amendment 52 #
2021/2103(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Strongly cCondemns, in particular, the adoption by Hungarian anwidespread Prolish authorities of acts that restrict the access of non-governmental organisations to funding and that target LGBTIQ+ persons and activistl-out of the health pass;
Amendment 59 #
2021/2103(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 75 #
2021/2103(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Condemns the severexcessive restrictions imposed by Member States on the right to protest, the disproportionate use of violence by public authorities, and the arbitrary arrests of protesters;
Amendment 82 #
2021/2103(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 91 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Asserts the crucial role played by CSOs in the realisation of EU values and fundamental rights, and the implementation of EU policies and strategiesEurope; stresses their key contribution to informed public debate, articulating aspirations present in society, giving a voice to vulnerable and marginalised people, to populations worried about the preservation of their identities, providing expertise in policy- making, promoting active citizenship and acting as schools of democracy and whistleblowers;
Amendment 103 #
2021/2103(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Condemns the increasing criminalisation and judicial harassment of certain civil society actors; is concerned about the growing use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) by powerful public and private actors, and strongly recommends the adoption of an anti- SLAPPs directive protecting all parties legitimately engaging in public participation;
Amendment 107 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Condemns far-left organisations using social media to decry advertisers whose adverts appear in the media in order to intimidate them into withdrawing financial support; takes the view that by doing so, these organisations seek to censor and as such undermine freedom of expression and media pluralism;
Amendment 110 #
2021/2103(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 126 #
2021/2103(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 139 #
2021/2103(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Denounces the extreme inequality in access to information and decision- makers between industry representatives on the one hand, and civil society actorbetween lobbies defending powerful private interests on the one hand, and citizens and their representatives on the other, including within the EU institutions;
Amendment 155 #
2021/2103(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Deplores the growing concentration of media ownership at the expense of plurality, independence and fair public representation of the ideas and actionsinterests of citizens and of civil society organisations.
Amendment 217 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. WelcomesStrongly disapproves of the adoption with an increased budget of the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Programme; calls on the Commission to actively consult CSOs in the definition of work programmes and funding mechanisms so as to ensure transparency, flexibility and user- friendliness; welcomes re-granting mechanisms in the Union Values strandstop funding campaigns, as it did with the ‘Rights, Equality and Citizenship’ programme, that promote the hijab or other cultural practices that run counter to gender equality and the European identity;
Amendment 234 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Urges the Commission to ensure that EU funds are onlynot awarded to organisations that are strictly independent from any government and fully adhere to EU valuesstaging the invasion of Europe; calls instead for it to support organisations working to prevent this from happening;
Amendment 241 #
2021/2103(INI)
19. CondemnWelcomes attempts by certain Member States to impose limitations on foreign funding andwith the related political narratives they have promulgated and measures they have taken with the aim of stigmatising CSOsaim of protecting CSOs from any outside interference;
Amendment 281 #
2021/2103(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Calls on the Commission to leverage the definition of national programmes implementing EU funds and the implementation by Member States of EU strategies and action plans to require Member States to put in place effective civil dialogue mechanismsstop using EU funds to blackmail Member States that it simply disagrees with ideologically and be open to dialogue;
Amendment 22 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 45 a (new)
Citation 45 a (new)
— having regard to Recommendation VIII of June 2015 of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) on combating the abuse of non-profit organisations;
Amendment 23 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 45 b (new)
Citation 45 b (new)
Amendment 32 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas independent journalism and, the safety of reporters, access to pluralistic information and freedom of expression are key pillars of democracy; whereas civil society is essential for any democracy to thrive;
Amendment 40 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. Whereas journalists, NGOs, civil society and media organisations are not above the law, nor should they be immune against legal action;
Amendment 42 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Amendment 45 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)
Recital A c (new)
A c. Whereas NGOs and civil society organisations are exempt from most AMLD and DAC transparency and reporting requirements; whereas the European Court of Auditors’ Special Report No 35/2018 highlights that NGOs are prone to be used for money laundering purposes;
Amendment 50 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 56 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are lawsuits or other legal actions (e.g. injunctions, asset-freezing) based on civil and criminal law, as well as the threats of such actions, with the purpose of censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with high costs for legal defense until they abandon their criticism of opposition, thereby preventing reporting on alleged breaches of Union and national law, corruption or other fraudulent practices or of blocking or undermining public participation;
Amendment 73 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas SLAPPs have become an increasingly widespread practice used against journalists, academics, civil society and NGOs, as demonstrated by many cases throughout the Union, such as the chilling case of investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, who was reportedly facing 47 civil and criminal defamation lawsuits, (resulting in the freezing of her assets) on the day of her strongly condemned assassination on 16 October 2017, and the lawsuits her heirs continue to face; whereas other illustrative and alarming cases include Realtid Media, which was repeatedly threatened with a lawsuit in a different jurisdiction from where the reporting in question took place, and Gazeta Wyborcza, which continues to be sued by a number of public entities and officials on a regular basis;
Amendment 117 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1
Subheading 1
Amendment 118 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Points out that SLAPPs are legal proceedings or actions based on civil and criminal law, as well as the threats of such actions, seeking to prevent reporting on breaches of Union and national law, corruption or other fraudulent practices or to block public participation;
Amendment 122 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights that SLAPPs are a direct attack on the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms; underlines that fundamental rights and democracy are linked to upholding the rule of law, and that undermining media freedom and public democratic participation threatens Union values as enshrined in Article 2 of the TEU; welcomes the fact that the rule of law report includes SLAPP lawsuits in its assessment of media freedom and pluralism across the Union, and points to best practices in countering them; calls for the annual report to include a thorough assessment of the legal environment for the media, and investigative journalism in particular;
Amendment 135 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Stresses that NGOs, civil society organisations, journalists and media organisations are not public prosecutors or judges, and that any allegation made by such organisations should be verified before an independent court of law, including examination by the plaintiff;
Amendment 140 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Recognizes that NGOs, civil society organisations, journalists and media organisations could both be the defendant and the plaintiff in SLAPPs, given the fact that many such organisations are multi-billion euro multinationals;
Amendment 147 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that public participation also has an important role to play in the proper functioning of the internal market, as it is often through public participation that alleged breaches of Union law, corruption and other practices threatening the proper functioning of the internal market are made known to the public, and can play an important role in legal proceedings;
Amendment 176 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. HighlightBelieves that ian recent years online hate speech has become increasingly widespread against journalists, NGOs, academics and civil society, including those defending LGBTQI rights, thoverly broad and imprecise definition of 'hate speech' could be ineffective and lead to the disproportionate and arbitrary use thereatening media freedom,of, undermining freedom of expression, media freedom and public safety given that online hate speech can incite real-world violenceand compromising the original intentions;
Amendment 181 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Highlights that in recent years online hate speech has become increasingly widespread against journalists, NGOs, academics and civil society, including those defending LGBTQI rights and those reporting on criminal acts by migrants, thus threatening media freedom, freedom of expression and public safety given that online hate speech can incite real-world violence;
Amendment 187 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Points out that hate speech laws could be used as a legal basis to file SLAPPs against NGOs, civil society organisations and journalists for providing politically incorrect information to the public;
Amendment 199 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that SLAPPs are often without meritless, frivolous or based on exaggerated claims, and that they are not initiated for the purposes of obtaining a favourable judicial outcome but rather only to intimidate, harass, tire out, put psychological pressure on or consume the financial resources of journalists, academics, civil society and NGOs, with the ultimate objective of blackmailing and forcing them into silenceubmission to imposed narratives through the judicial procedure itself; points out that this chilling effect can lead to self-censorship, suppressing participation in democratic life, and also discourages others from similar actions, from entering into these professions or from proceeding with relevant associated activities;
Amendment 205 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Points out that litigants that resort to SLAPPs use and abuse criminal defamation laws, civil lawsuits for libel, protection of one’s reputation or based on intellectual property rights such as copyright, but also that a variety of other instruments is used to silence public participation, such as labour sanctions (dismissal), or criminal charges of tax fraud, tax audit procedures and abuse of data protection rules;
Amendment 217 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses, with regard to this problem, that all Member States lack harmonised minimum standards to protect journalists, academics, civil society and NGOs and to ensure that fundamental rights are upheld in the Member State that all Member States should uphold fundamental rights;
Amendment 220 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses, with regard toBelieves that, in accordance with thise problem, that all Member States lack harmonised minimum standards toinciples of subsidiarity and proportionality, Member States are primarily responsible for addressing concerns regarding freedom of expression in the media and press, disinformation and propaganda and for protecting journalists, academics, civil society and NGOs and to ensure that fundamental rights are upheld in the Member Staterepresentatives and NGOs;
Amendment 232 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 237 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Regrets that no Member State has so far enacted targeted legislation to provide protection against SLAPPs; notes however that anti-SLAPP legislation is particularly well-developed in the states of the United States, in Australia and Canada; encourages the Commission to analyse anti-SLAPP best practices currently applied outside the EU which could provide valuable inspiration for Union legislative and non-legislative measures on the matter; underlines the importance of committing to the most ambitious legislation and best-practices currently in force which would discourage the use of SLAPPs in the Uniona potential Union measures on the matter, if a duly executed impact assessment would deem such an initiative fit; underlines the importance of enacting measures that are fit for purpose, and that fully respect the competences of Member States;
Amendment 239 #
Amendment 240 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Encourages Member States to adopt clear and effective and clear legislation that ensures the transparency of media ownership and to pay particular attention to the funding, transparency and objectives of traditional media outlets;
Amendment 241 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Agrees with the numerous academics, legal practitioners and victims who point to the need for legislative action against the growing problem of SLAPPs; urgently calls, therefore, for the Brussels I and Rome II Regulations to be amendments in order to prevent ‘libel tourism’ or ‘forum shopping’; urgently calls for the introduction of a uniform choice of law rule for defamation, as well as for proposals for binding Union legislation on harmonised and effective safeguards for victims of SLAPPs across the Union, including through a directive; argues that without such legislative action, SLAPPs will continue to threaten the rule of law and the fundamental rights of freedom of expression, association and information in the Union; is concerned that if measures only address lawsuits regarding information, actSuggests that the lack of national measures regulating the use of SLAPPs can be taken on board in the assessment in the framework of the Commission´s based on other civil matters or criminal procedures may still be usedannual Rule of Law Report;
Amendment 242 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Agrees with the numerous academics, legal practitioners and victims who point to the need for legislative action against the growing problem of SLAPPs; urgently calls, therefore, for the Brussels I and Rome II Regulations to be amendments in order to prevent ‘libel tourism’ or ‘forum shopping’; urgently calls for the introduction of a uniform choice of law rule for defamation, as well as for proposals for binding Union legislation on harmonised and effective safeguards for victims of SLAPPs across the Union, including through a directive; argues that without such legislative action, SLAPPs will continue to threaten the rule of law and the fundamental rights of freedom of expression, association and information in the Union; is concerned that if measures only address lawsuits regarding information, actions based on other civil matters or criminal procedures may still be used;
Amendment 264 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Affirms that legislative measures at Union level could be based on Article 81 of the TFEU (for cross-border civil lawsuits) and Article 82 of the TFEU (for threats of lawsuits in cross-border cases), and separately on Article 114 of the TFEU to protect public participation in order to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market by exposing corruption and other distortions; asserts that the latter measure could also address attempts to prevent investigation and reporting on breaches of Union law using the same legal base as Directive (EU) 2019/1937 (the ‘Whistleblower Directive’);
Amendment 270 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Considers that it is essential to adopt a legislative measure protecting the role of journalists, academics, civil society and NGOs in preventing breaches of Union law and ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market; urges the Commission to present a proposal for legislation that sets out safeguards for persons investigating and reporting on these matters of public interest;
Amendment 280 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Points out that the definition of the rule of law implies that it is binding on those who enact it and that freedom of expression must therefore be protected at European institutional level also, meaning that Union bodies must not seek to muzzle those opposed to their policies and practices through legal proceedings or the threat of prosecution;
Amendment 317 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Underlines the urgent need for a robust fund for supporting victims of SLAPPs; stress the importance for victims and potential victims of SLAPPs to have easy and accessible information about these type of cases, legal aid and support;
Amendment 331 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Welcomes the Union Strategy to tackle Organised Crime 2021-2025, and calls for efforts to be stepped up efforts in this regard; notes that legislative and soft law measures cannot be effective in Member States where there are concerns about the independence of the judiciary, such as Germany20a, or the fight against corruption; _________________ 20aOJ EU of 3 June 2019, C 187, p. 52, cases C-272/19 and C-276/2020; CJEU judgment of 27 May 2019, OG and PI, joined cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2019:456; Beschluss vom 18. Februar 2020 - 2 BvR 2082/19.
Amendment 337 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Stresses that Union level measures to combat SLAPPs should be complementary and consistent with other available tools, such as the mechanism for the protection of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, policies on combating corruption and current financial programmes to support civil society and justice systems;
Amendment 340 #
2021/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 1 #
2021/2025(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the Union is founded on the values enshrined in Article 2 of the TEUStresses that there is no legal basis in the EU Treaties that grants the Commission the competence to assess Member States' respect for or violation of the rule of law; recalls that according to Article 5 (1) TEU, the Commission should act in accordance with and within the boundaries of the Treaties; underlines that Article 2 TEU merely mentions the rule of law, but does not define it, nor does it give the Commission the power to enforce it; regrets that the Commission´s Rule of Law 2020 report mentions interpretation of the principle of the rule of law by the Court of Justice of the European Union, but fails to provide the references to the relevant case law;
Amendment 5 #
2021/2025(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 13 #
2021/2025(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. WelcomNotes the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report (the Report) and the importance that it places on the justice system;
Amendment 25 #
2021/2025(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses, in line with the Report, that effective justice systems which are independent and efficient are essential for upholding the rule of law; highlights, in particular, the need for the judiciary to be able to exercise its functions with full autonomyindependence, without intervention or pressure from any other institution or body, in accordance with the principle of separation of powers;
Amendment 26 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the annual rule of law review cycle is a welcome addition to the tools available to preserve the 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 law; whereas it is intended as a yearly cycle to ensure the rule of law and to prevent problems from emerging or deepeninghas been turned into a political tool and serves as a threat targeting Member States that may refuse to fall into line with the Commission's societal projects;
Amendment 32 #
2021/2025(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is deeply preoccupied by the fact that judicial independence continues to be a subject of serious concern in some Member States; expresses its regretnotes that Hungary and Poland lodged, as they are entitled to do, an action for annulment of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget in March 2021, which aims to address breaches of the rule of law with an impact on the Union’s financial interests;
Amendment 33 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
Amendment 42 #
2021/2025(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that the periodic review of the rule of law is of great significance and commends the efforts of the Commission to encourage structural reforms in the areas covered by the Report; believes, however, that while it is an essential monitoring tool, clear recommendations on the challenges identified and the required follow-up action is indispensable; urges the Commission to make robust use of infringement procedures where appropriate, to prevent backsliding on the rule of law in national justice systems and urges the Council to resume all pending procedures under Article 7(1) of the TFEU and to inform the Parliament thereofUrges the Commission to favour dialogue and persuasion over infringement procedures and invoking Article 7(1) TFEU;
Amendment 51 #
2021/2025(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes with satisfaction that the Report contains separate national chapters attempting to lay down a common methodology; calls on the Commission, however, to provide, in accordance with national legal traditions, a meaningful comparison between the different national justice systems, to underline where best practices for comparable systems might be applied and how similar deficiencies could be addressed;
Amendment 54 #
2021/2025(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Stresses the need to encourage Member States to continue their efforts to shore up the independence of the judiciary, in particular by abolishing special tribunals designed to remove ministers from their natural judges and by establishing a National Council of the Judiciary that is truly independent of political power;
Amendment 54 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the Commission’'s first annual Rule of Law Report awhich forms 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 toolboxpolitical instrumentalisation of the concept of the rule of law, the intention of which is to standardise lifestyles within the EU by means of the law;
Amendment 62 #
2021/2025(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that the Report rightfully addresses the necessary digitalisation of justice proceedings and training for judges, including on the rule of law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter); regrets that the Report is silent on training for advocates; regrets that the Report does not cover the rights laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, such as the right to be defended and represented and the right to legal aid; calls on the Commission to extend the scope of its next Report to those areas.
Amendment 67 #
2021/2025(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7 b. Is deeply concerned about the compatibility of several harsh lockdown measures and the far-reaching restrictions placed on social life by the police with the principles of the rule of law; recalls that public gatherings to express discontent with public policy, including sanitary policy, is covered by Articles 12 and 21 of the EU Charter of Human Rights; calls on the Commission to go beyond the general observations from the 2020 report and scrutinize national lockdown measures and laws more thoroughly as of next year;
Amendment 71 #
2021/2025(INI)
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 toolsConsiders that the Article 7(1) TEU procedure is the only one that may lawfully be used to manage allegations of breach of the rule of law;
Amendment 111 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 119 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. DecriNotes 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 bytakes into account the growing resistance of some Member States to comply with CJEU rulings on the legitimate grounds of sovereignty or unconstitutionality; believes that these developments pose a systemic threat to the Union; considers, therefore, that forthcoming annual reports should consider challenges to the Union’s legal architecture and principles as serious violaconstitute a protest against a change in direction by the Union which seeks to impose one single view of the rule of law and the EU model of society regardless of the legal, constitutional and cultural traditions inof the assessmentMember States;
Amendment 137 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Welcomes 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 167 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Is concerned by the worsening state of affairs as regards freedom of expression and the acceptance of a wide variety of opinions on certain social networks; considers that their monopoly position makes them essential to modern political life and that the arbitrary censorship of legally-held opinions has a serious impact on citizens' freedom of expression; urges the Commission to propose a penalty system for platforms exercising censorship without a court order;
Amendment 195 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 213 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 232 #
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 240 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 248 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 255 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 268 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Strongly regrets the inability of the Council to make meaningful 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 bothHighlights the fact that henceforth the Council is alone in being able to act in ongoing Article 7 TEU procedures;
Amendment 275 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
Amendment 283 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
Amendment 300 #
2021/2025(INI)
28a. Reiterates that the people are sovereign in a democracy and that the issue of respect for the rule of law shall not be used to restrict the exercise of power nor to influence the policy stance of democratically elected governments of the Member States when the rule of law is not being seriously and systematically breached, which the Council alone is able to determine through the procedure laid down in Article 7 TEU;
Amendment 2 #
2021/2013(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses the importance of developing a new EU pharmaceutical strategy which is consistent with the Union’s competences under the Treaties and with the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, as a means of stimulating the development of European enterprises and making them competitive at global level, of paving the way for scientific progress and of guaranteeing better prevention and preparedness and more effective responses to future health emergencies; stresses the need to draw up future European framework provisions for regulatory approval, access and incentives for innovation, accompanied by vigorous industrial policies, with attractiveness and predictable rules being regarded as the key to innovation, and to facilitate patients’ access to medicines; notes that EU pharmaceutical strategy and legislative measures must support European developers and producers in guiding scientific progress and remaining globally competitive; draws attention to the need to develop production chains within Europe through the formulation of rational regulatory framework provisions that are compatible between the Member States, thereby ensuring the supply of medicines by safeguarding the entire production process;
Amendment 25 #
2021/2013(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises the key importance of intellectual property protection in the EU, which is essential if the EU is not to be dependent on third countries and is to enhance its strategic autonomy in the field of medicines; calls for a joint review process involving European, national and regional institutions, along with health professionals, industry representatives and stakeholders, with a view to identifying shared approaches, in particular to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic; stresses that compulsory licensing should only be possible in exceptional cases, where no other solution can be found and where it appears to be justified and necessary to increase production capacity effectively;
Amendment 31 #
2021/2013(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Stresses that intellectual property plays a pivotal role in the expansion and growth of SMEs, which are penalised by a lack of knowledge of procedures and by inadequate or non-existent information regarding opportunities available to them;
Amendment 32 #
2021/2013(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Stresses the need for the Commission, the Member States and the holders of marketing authorisations for medicines to work together in order to identify and address the root causes of the shortfall in medicines on EU markets and to find appropriate ways of addressing the remaining barriers to timely and effective patient access; stresses that affordability of medicines remains a challenge for national health systems;
Amendment 50 #
2021/2013(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Stresses that full realisation of the potential of new technologies also depends on the proper use of health data; stresses the importance of using the potential of digital technologies and health data to expedite access to innovative technologies and to help Member States develop the infrastructure necessary to better assess safety data, health benefits and outcomes; notes that the current COVID-19 crisis has already highlighted the usefulness of data sharing in expediting research, and stepping up public health surveillance systems across the EU with the intention of saving lives;
Amendment 51 #
2021/2013(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Calls on the Commission to draw up guidelines to resolve problems relating to the interpretation of GDPR provisions on sharing health data for scientific purposes and a code of conduct for the processing of personal data in the health sector in accordance with Article 40 of the GDPR; recommends that appropriate consultations be carried out with the Member States and the scientific community in the implementation of these actions, so that the future health data space can truly fulfil its ambition to support scientific and medical research in Europe;
Amendment 63 #
2021/2013(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Amendment 73 #
2021/2013(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to use all the means at its disposal to prevent counterfeit products from entering the market and so protect intellectual property rights holders and European citizens, as these products are often of low quality and pose a danger to health; notes that this is compounded by the heavy economic impact, estimated at a loss of at least EUR 10 billion for the European pharmaceutical industry and 37 000 jobs; notes that it is necessary to provide technical assistance to the Member States for the proper implementation of the EMVS;
Amendment 76 #
2021/2013(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes that EU joint procurement agreements to address the COVID-19 crisis have not proven their effectiveness in the eyes of the Member States; stresses that such agreements fall within the competence of the Member States - and not the Commission - and help to mitigate the impact of cross-border health threats and guarantee increased security of supply;
Amendment 77 #
2021/2013(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Stresses the need to relocate the production of the most essential medicines into the EU; calls, therefore, on the Commission to prioritise the pharmaceutical production of vaccines in the EU, enabling Member States to conclude public contracts with the various European pharmaceutical laboratories producing vaccines in order to avoid a shortage of doses and ensure the safety of European citizens in the face of such a crisis;
Amendment 64 #
2021/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the one-stop-shop alternative dispute resolution system to be established under Article 35 of the UPCA; aAsks the Member States to enable the quick roll-out of the patent arbitration and mediation centre and calls on the Commission to assess whether the centre could, in the long term, deal with all IP disputes;
Amendment 70 #
2021/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that the supplementary protection certificate (SPC) regime within the EU, while is of great practical relevance, suffers from fragmented implementation across the Member States;
Amendment 71 #
2021/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 154 #
2021/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Suggests that an IP coordinator be established at European level in order to ensure a holistic and coordinated approach to EU IP policy and enhanced cooperation between the different national IP authorities, the Directorates-General of the Commission and other bodies in charge of IPR, such as the EPO, EUIPO and WIPO;
Amendment 92 #
Amendment 127 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Instrumentalisation of migrants can refer to situations where irregular travel of third country nationals has been actively encouraged or facilitated by a third country onto its own territory to reach the external border of the Member States but can equally refer to the active encouragement or facilitation of irregular travel of third country nationals already present in that third country. Instrumentalisation of migrants may also entail the imposition of coercive measures, intended to prevent the third country nationals from leaving the border areas of the instrumentalising third country, in a direction other than through a Member State. Instrumentalisation of migrants may also apply to action taken by NGOs to facilitate the irregular travel of third country nationals towards the European Union;
Amendment 131 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) The Union should mobilise all tools from its toolbox of diplomatic, financial and operational measures to support the Member States confronted with instrumentalisation. Diplomatic efforts by the Union or the Member State concerned, should be given priority as the means of addressing the phenomenon of instrumentalisation. This may be supplemented, where appropriate, by the imposition of restrictive measures by the Union. This includes a ban on EU funding for NGOs instrumentalising migrants;
Amendment 154 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) In an area without internal border controls, persons should be able to move freely, and in security between Member States. In this regard, it should be clarified that the prohibition of controls at internal borders does not affect the competence ofthe possibility for Member States to carry out checks on their territory, including at their internal borders, for purposes other than border controlas well as border controls, should be clarified. It should, in particular, be clarified that national competent authorities, including health or law enforcement authorities, remain, in principle, free to carry out checks in the exercise of public powers provided for under national law.
Amendment 158 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) While the prohibition of internal border controls also extends to checks having equivalent effects, checks by competent authorities should not be considered equivalent to the exercise of border checks where they do not have border control as an objective,Checks by competent authorities must be authorised where they are based on general information and experience of the competent authorities regarding possible threats to public security or public policy, including where they aim to combat irregular stay or residence and cross-border crimes linked to irregular migration, where they are devised and executed in a manner clearly distinct from systematic checks on persons at the external borders, and where they are conducted at transport hubs, such as ports, train or bus stations and airports or directly on board of passenger transport services, and where they are based on risk analysis.
Amendment 166 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) While iIrregular migratory flows should not, per se, be considered to be a threat to public policy or internal security, they may and require additional measures to ensure the functioning of the Schengen area.
Amendment 171 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) The combatting of illegal residence or stay and of cross-border crime linked to irregular migration such as human trafficking, migrant smuggling and document fraud and other forms of cross- border crime could in particular encompass measures allowing the verification of the identity, nationality and residence status of persons provided that such verifications are non-systematic and carried out on the basis of risk analysis.
Amendment 174 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) The use of modern technologies to monitor traffic flows, notably on motorways and other important roads determined by the Member States, can be instrumental in addressing threats to public policy or internal security. The prohibition of iInternal border controls should not be understood as preventing the lawful exercise of police or other public powers to carry out checks in the internal border areas. This includes checks that entail the use of monitoring and surveillance technologies which are generally used in the territory or that are based on a risk assessment for the purpose of protecting internal security. The use of such technologies for checks should therefore not be considered as equivalent to border controls.
Amendment 180 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) The prohibition of bBorder controls at internal borders should not limit the carrying out of checks provided for in other instruments of Union law. The rules provided for in this Regulation, should not therefore, affect the applicable rules regarding the carrying out of checks on passenger data against relevant databases in advance of arrival.
Amendment 181 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
Amendment 192 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) The procedure by which a Member State may transfer apprehended illegally staying third country nationals to a Member State from where the person came directly should take place swiftly but be subject to safeguards and carried out in full respect of fundamental rights and the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter, to prevent racial profiling. It should be possible for the authorities to carry out a verification of relevant information immediately available to the authorities concerning the movements of the persons concerned. Such information may include objective elements that would allow the authorities to conclude that the person had recently travelled from another Member States, such as the possession of documents, including receipts or invoices, evidencing recent travel from another Member State. Third country nationals subject to the transfer procedure should be provided with a reasoned decision in writing. While the decision should be immediately enforceable, the third country national should be afforded an effective remedy to appeal against or seek review of the transfer decision. This remedy should not have suspensive effect.
Amendment 209 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
Amendment 213 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
Amendment 218 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) The establishment of the new Schengen area safeguard mechanism should not affect the right of Member States to have prior recourse to unilateral measures in accordance with the Regulation, where the situation so requires. However, oOnce adopted, the Union measure shcould become the singl the basis for a coordinated response to the threat identified.
Amendment 220 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) In order to ensure compliance with the principle of proportionality, the decision of the Council should be adopted for a limited period of time of up to six months that may be prolonged subject to regular review upon a proposal from the Commission, as long as the threat is found to persist. The initial decision should include an assessment of the expected impact of the measures adopted, including its adverse side-effects, with a view to determining if controls at internal borders are justified or whether less restrictive measures could be applied in their place in an effective manner. Subsequent decisions should take account of the evolution of the identified threatto reintroduce controls should be adopted for as long as the threat persists. The Member States should immediately notify the Commission and the Member States of the reintroduction of internal border controls in accordance with the decision of the Council.
Amendment 227 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
Amendment 243 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) The notification to be provided by the Member States should be decisive when assessing compliance with the criteria and conditions for a temporary reintroduction of internal border controls. In order to ensure a comparable set of information, the Commission should adoptmay propose a template for the notification of reintroduction of border controls at internal borders in an implementing act. Member States should be entitled to classify all or parts of the information provided in the notification, without prejudice to the functioning of appropriate and secure police cooperation channels.
Amendment 248 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40
Recital 40
Amendment 255 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
Recital 41
Amendment 266 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44
Recital 44
(44) The Commission and Member States should retain the possibility to express any concern as regards the necessity and proportionality of a decision of a Member State to reintroduce internal border controls for reason of urgency or to address a foreseeable threat. In case controls at internal borders are reintroduced and prolonged for foreseeable threats for combined periods exceeding eighteen months, it should be a requirement for the Commission tomay issue an opinion assessing the necessity and proportionality of such internal border controls. Where a Member State considers that there are exceptional situations justifying the continued need for internal border controls for a period exceeding two years, the Commission shouldmay issue a follow-up opinion. Such an opinion is without prejudice to the enforcement measures, including infringement actions, which the Commission may take at any time against any Member State for failure to comply with its obligations under Union law. Where an opinion is issued, the Commission should launch consultations with the Member States concerned.
Amendment 272 #
2021/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 45
Recital 45
Amendment 37 #
2021/0427(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) A situation of instrumentalisation of migrants may arise where a third country or a non-state organisation, such as a non-governmental organisation (NGO), possibly on the pretext of conducting a humanitarian aid operation, instigates irregular migratory flows into the Union by actively encouraging or facilitating the movement of third country nationals to the external borders, onto or from within its territory and then onwards to those external borders, where such actions are indicative of an intention of a third country to destabilise the Union or a Member State, where the nature of such actions is liable to putof a third country or non-state organisation destabilise the Union or a Member State, for example by putting at risk essential State functions, including its territorial integrity, the maintenance of law and order or the safeguard of its national security.
Amendment 73 #
2021/0427(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article premier – paragraph 1 a (new)
A ‘situation of instrumentalisation of migrants’ means a situation where a third country or non-state organisation, such as a non-governmental organisation (NGO), possibly on the pretext of conducting a humanitarian aid operation, encourages or facilitates the movement of third- country nationals or stateless persons to the external borders, as defined in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/0399, or to a Member State, thereby destabilising the Union or a Member State, for example by putting at risk essential functions of a Member State including the maintenance of law and order or the safeguarding of its national security.
Amendment 159 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Member States should criminalise offence categories and provide for greater precision on the definitions of the offence categories, and harmonisation concerning sanction types and levels.
Amendment 171 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) In criminal proceedings and trials, due account should be taken of the involvement of organised criminal groups operating in ways that negatively impact the environment. Criminal proceedings should address corruption, money laundering, cyber-crime and document fraud and – in relation to business activities – the intention of the offender to maximise profits or save expenses, where these occur in the context of environmental crime. These crime forms are often interconnected with serious environmental crime forms and should therefore not be dealt with in isolation. In this respect, it is of particular concern that some environmental crimes are committed with the tolerance or active support of the competent administrations or officials performing his/her public duty. In certain cases this can even take the form of corruptionadministrative procedures, people often encounter situations such as procedures being incomprehensibly lengthy, access to public information being obstructed or entities that may be corrupt receiving unequal treatment. Examples of such behaviours are turning a blind eye or remaining silent on the infringement of laws protecting the environment following inspections, deliberately omitting inspections or controls for example with regard to whether the conditions of a permit are being respected by the permit- holder, resolutions or votes in favour of granting illegal licences or issuing falsified or untrue favourable reports.
Amendment 184 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) This Directive should apply without prejudice to the general rules and principles of national criminal law on the sentencing or the application and execution of sentences in accordance with the specific circumstances in each individual case, and in the strictest compliance with subsidiarity.
Amendment 193 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23 a (new)
Recital 23 a (new)
(23a) Greater involvement by the people concerned in the process of monitoring the implementation and enforcement of the law can help prevent such environmental crimes. This will result in greater transparency of procedures, thereby making it more difficult to deal with particular financial and economic interests to the detriment of public and individual interests.
Amendment 198 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Other persons may also possess valuable information concerning potential environmental criminal offences. They may be members of the community affected or members of society at large taking an active part, in a reasoned manner, in protecting the environment. Such persons who report environmental crimes as well as persons who cooperate with the enforcement of such offences should be provided the necessary support and assistance in the context of criminal proceedings, so that they are not disadvantaged for their cooperation but supported and assisted. These persons should also be protected from being harassed or unduly prosecuted for reporting such offences or their cooperation in the criminal proceedings.
Amendment 200 #
2021/0422(COD)
(26) Since nature cannot represent itself as a victim in criminal proceedings, for the purpose of effective enforcement members of the public concerned, as defined in this Directive taking into account Articles 2(5) and 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention26 and who correspond to the criteria laid down by the national laws of the Member States, should have the possibility to act on behalf of the environment as a public good, within the scope of the Member States’ legal framework and subject to the relevant procedural rules and with reasonable cause to think that a situation presents a serious and imminent danger to the environment. _________________ 26 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.
Amendment 208 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) To ensure an effective, integrated and coherent enforcement system that includes administrative, civil and criminal law measures, Member States should organise internal cooperation and communication between all actors along the administrative and criminal enforcement chains and between punitive and remedial sanctioning actors. Following the applicable rules, Member States should also cooperate through EU agencies, in particular Eurojust and Europol, as well as with EU bodies, including the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)as well as with EU bodies, in their respective areas of competence.
Amendment 213 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) The statistical data collected under this Directive on environmental offences should be comparable between the Member States and collected on the basis of common minimum standards. In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Directive, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to define the standard format for statistical data transmission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council27. _________________ 27 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13).
Amendment 232 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) failure to maintain in good condition devices protecting water, air or soil against pollution, radioactive contamination or ionising radiation;
Amendment 280 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point e a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point e a (new)
(ea) the polluter pays principle should prevail, depending on the nature of the damage identified in the immediate term, but also the expected damage over the longer term.
Amendment 409 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. A Member State shall inform the Commission where it decides tomay extend its jurisdiction to offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 which have been committed outside its territory, where:
Amendment 462 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 1
Article 22 – paragraph 1
Amendment 246 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Council Decisions 2008/615/JHA31 and 2008/616/JHA32 laying down rules for the exchange of information between authorities responsible for the prevention and investigation of criminal offences by providing for the automated transfer of DNA profiles, dactyloscopic data and certain vehicle registration data, solely in the case provided for by law and at an advanced stage of the investigation, have proven important for tackling terrorism and cross-border crime. _________________ 31 Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross- border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 1). 32 Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 12).
Amendment 259 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) By providing for the automated search or comparison of DNA profiles, dactyloscopic data, vehicle registration data, facial images and police records, the purpose of this Regulation is also to allow for the search of missing persons and unidentified human remains. This automated system should be subject to human supervision. This should be without prejudice to the entry of SIS alerts on missing persons and the exchange of supplementary information on such alerts under Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 of the European Parliament and of the Council.33 . _________________ 33 Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 2018 on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, amending and repealing Council Decision 2007/533/JHA, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1986/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Decision 2010/261/EU (OJ L 312, 7.12.2018, p. 56).
Amendment 370 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Member States shall ensure the availability of DNA reference data from their national DNA analysis files as referred to in paragraph 1. They may have such data at their disposal on condition that, in accordance with the national law of each Member State, it may be transferred between the competent authorities of the Member States concerned.
Amendment 379 #
Amendment 389 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Should an automated search show that a supplied DNA profile matches DNA profiles entered in the requested Member State's searched file, the national contact point of the requesting Member State shall receive in an automated way, after human verification, shall receive the DNA reference data with which a match has been found.
Amendment 394 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. The national contact point of the requesting Member State shall confirm a match of DNA profiles data with DNA reference data held by the requested Member State following the automated supply of the DNA reference data required for confirming a match.
Amendment 403 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – title
Article 7 – title
Amendment 405 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. Member States may, via their national contact points, compare the DNA profiles of their unidentified DNA profiles with all DNA profiles from other national DNA analysis files for the investigation of criminal offences. Profiles shall be supplied and compared in an automated manner.
Amendment 406 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. Should a requested Member State, as a result of the comparison referred to in paragraph 1, find that any DNA profiles supplied match any of those in its DNA analysis files, it shall, without delay, supply the national contact point of the requesting Member State with the DNA reference data with which a match has been found. At this stage, this data should be subject to human verification in order to confirm or not a match between DNA profiles before supply to the requesting Member State.
Amendment 408 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. The human confirmation of a match of DNA profiles with DNA reference data held by the requested Member State shall be carried out by the national contact point of the requesting Member State followafter human verification ing the automated supply of the DNA reference data required for confirming a matchrequested Member State and following the supply of the DNA reference data.
Amendment 409 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8
Article 8
Amendment 417 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. A request for an automated search or comparison shall include only the following information:
Amendment 424 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Article 11 – paragraph 3
3. Automated nNotification of a match shall only be provided if the automated search or comparison has resulted in a match of a minimum number of loci. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts to specify this minimum number of loci, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 76(2).
Amendment 440 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. The national contact point of the requesting Member State shall confirm a match of dactyloscopic data with dactyloscopic reference data held by the requested Member State following the automatehuman verification and supply of the dactyloscopic reference data required for confirming a match.
Amendment 451 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 504 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2
Article 22 – paragraph 2
2. The requesting Member State shall receive a list composed of matches concerning likely candidates. That Member after human verification in the requested Member State. That first State shall review the list to determine the existence of a confirmed match.
Amendment 521 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States may decide, in accordance with their national law, to participate in the automated exchange of police records. Member States participating in the automated exchange of police records shall ensure the availability of biographical data of suspects and criminals from their national police records indexes established for the investigation of criminal offences. This set of data, if available, shall contain the following data:
Amendment 530 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. For the investigation of criminal offences, Member States shallmay allow national contact points of other Member States and Europol access to data from their national police records indexes, to conduct automated searches.
Amendment 535 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The requesting Member State shall receive the list of matches, after human verification, with an indication of the quality of the matches.
Amendment 559 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1
Article 32 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that automated searching or comparison of DNA profiles, dactyloscopic data, vehicle registration data, facial images and police records is possible 24 hours a day and seven days a week.
Amendment 561 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 32 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. National contact points shall immediately inform each other, the Commission, Europol and eu-LISA of the technical fault causing unavailability of the automated data exchange.
Amendment 583 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 2
Article 34 – paragraph 2
2. Any automated exchange of data in accordance with this Regulation shall use the UMF standard.
Amendment 600 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 3
Article 37 – paragraph 3
3. Any matches resulting from the query in each Member States’s databases and Europol data shall be sent back in an automated manner, after human verification, to the router.
Amendment 618 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 2
Article 38 – paragraph 2
Should the data be unsuitable for an automated comparison, the requested Member State shall inform the requesting Member State about it via the router without delay.
Amendment 626 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1
Article 40 – paragraph 1
Amendment 630 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 40 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The logs referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 may be used only for the collection of statistics and data protection monitoring, including checking the admissibility of a query and the lawfulness of data processing, and for ensuring data security and integrity.
Amendment 638 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 2
Article 41 – paragraph 2
2. Where it is technically impossible to use the router to query one or several national databases or Europol data because of a failure of the national infrastructure in a Member State, that Member State shall notify the other Member States, eu-LISA and the Commission and Europol in an automated manner. Member States shall take measures to address the technical impossibility to use the router without delay.
Amendment 641 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 3
Article 41 – paragraph 3
3. Where it is technically impossible to use the router to query one or several national databases or Europol data because of a failure of the infrastructure of Europol, Europol shall notify the Member States, and eu-LISA and the Commission in an automated manner. Europol shall take measures to address the technical impossibility to use the router without delay.
Amendment 669 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 2
Article 46 – paragraph 2
2. Where it is technically impossible to use EPRIS to query one or several national databases because of a failure of the national infrastructure in a Member State, that Member State shall notify Europol and the Commission in an automated manner. Member States shall take measures to address the technical impossibility to use EPRIS without delay.
Amendment 756 #
2021/0410(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 60
Article 60
Amendment 43 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) As the register has been set up after Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 had already been adopted, the European Judicial Counter-Terrorism Register is neither technically well integrated at Eurojust nor legally well integrated in Regulation (EU) 2018/1727. Therefore, it is necessary to remedy that by adopting a consistent approach to the verification of identified potential links between terrorism cases and the effective follow-up of these links. The management of the information in the European Judicial Register and the follow-up of potential links must be carried out in full respect of confidentiality and data ownership.
Amendment 48 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) As terrorist organisations are increasingly involved in other forms of seriousserious and sophisticated forms of financial and organised crimes, such as trafficking in human beings, drug trafficking or money laundering, it is also necessary to cross- check judicial proceedings against such serious crimes.
Amendment 53 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) The competent authorities need to know exactly what kind of information they have to transmit to Eurojust, at what stage of the national proceedings, in accordance with national law, and in which cases, in order to provide such data. This is expected to increase the information Eurojust receives significantly.
Amendment 60 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) For the identification of cross-links between terrorism investigations and judicial proceedings against suspects of terrorist offences, reliable identification data is crucial. Due to the uncertainties regarding alphanumerical data especially for third country nationals, it should be possible to exchange biometric data, provided that such data are collected and stored and can be transmitted to the competent national authorities in accordance with the national law of each Member State. Due to the sensitive nature of biometric data and the impact processing of biometric data has on the respect for private and family life and the protection of personal data, as enshrined in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, a strict necessity test should be applied by the competent authorities and Eurojust in each case.
Amendment 66 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) As information about existing cross-links to other judicial proceedings is most useful at an early stage of the investigation, it is necessary that the competent authorities provide information to Eurojust as soon as judicial authorities are involvedthe opportunity arises, in accordance with the national law of each Member State. If the competent national authorities are already aware of cross-links, they should inform Eurojust accordingly.
Amendment 71 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) Given the sensitive nature of judicial proceedings against suspects of terrorist offences, it is not always possible for the competent national authorities to share the information on terrorist offences at the earliest stage. Such derogations from the obligation to provide informationIf the transmission of information could jeopardise ongoing investigations or the security of the person or the Member State concerned, the competent national authorities should not be obliged to provide Eurojust with information on terrorist offences at the initial stage of the proceedings. Information sharing should remain an exceptional measure.
Amendment 86 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21 a (new)
Recital 21 a (new)
(21a) The transnational dimension of cross-border terrorism investigations poses several practical problems for the national authorities involved. For this reason, Eurojust should play an important role, in particular as regards constraints related to travel, limited access to operational equipment and language barriers.
Amendment 87 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21 b (new)
Recital 21 b (new)
(21b) The free movement of people in the European Union strengthens terrorism. Eurojust's operational missions should support the actions taken by Member States in the fight against this movement of criminals by strengthening police and judicial cooperation.
Amendment 93 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22 a (new)
Recital 22 a (new)
(22a) The competent national authority, in accordance with its domestic legislation, may decide whether to retain the data of persons who have been acquitted or refused prosecution after final judgements.
Amendment 2 #
2021/0383(NLE)
Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Refuses to gGives its consent to the draft Council decision
Amendment 31 #
2021/0373(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) It should likewise be possible for pParticipation by elected municipal officers in the election of a parliamentary assembly toshould likewise be reserved exclusively for own nationals. Otherwise, differing rules would apply to non- nationals, with a distinction being made between those who would have the right to vote, following their election, and those who would not. That would furthermore undermine a sense of belonging to a national community.
Amendment 34 #
2021/0373(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
Amendment 42 #
2021/0373(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) In order to improve the accessibility of eElectoral information, such information should be made available in at least one other official language of the Union than that or those of the host Member State, broadly understood by the largest possible number of Union citizens residing on its territory. Member States may use different official languages of the Union in specific parts of their territory or their regions depeUnion language of the host Member State so that nationals living on its territory and wishing to participate in the electoral process demonstrate their assimilation through an understanding onf the language understood by the largest group of Union citizens residing thereinofficial language of the State concerned.
Amendment 55 #
2021/0373(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
Recital 23
Amendment 69 #
2021/0373(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 72 #
2021/0373(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. If, in order to vote or to stand as candidates, nationals of the Member State of residence must have spent a certain minimum period as a resident in the territory of that State, voters and persons entitled to stand as candidates pursuant to Article 3 shall be deemed to have fulfilled that condition where they have resided for an equivalent period in other Member Statesalso be subject to that condition.
Amendment 86 #
2021/0373(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Having regard to the Treaty and to general legal principles, Member States may take appropriate, necessary and proportional measures to ensure that the offices referred to in the first subparagraph can only be held and the interim functions referred to in the second subparagraph can be performed only by their own nationals.
Amendment 103 #
2021/0373(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 4
Article 8 – paragraph 4
Amendment 111 #
2021/0373(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Amendment 125 #
2021/0373(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12
Article 12
Amendment 157 #
2021/0373(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Amendment 171 #
2021/0373(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16
Article 16
Amendment 227 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) This new instrument is part of a comprehensive package aiming at strengthening the Union’s AML/CFT framework. Together, this instrument, Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation - COM/2021/420 final], Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for a recast of Regulation (EU) 2015/847 - COM/2021/422 final] and Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for establishment of an Anti- Money Laundering Authority - COM/2021/421 final] will form the legal framework governing the AML/CFT requirements to be met by obliged entities and underpinning the Union’s AML/CFT institutional framework, including the establishment of an Authority for anti- money laundering and countering the fina widening of the remit of the existing European Banking Authority (‘EBA’), an independent EU body that aims to ensure an effective and consistent level of prudential regulation and supervision across the European bancking of terrorism (‘AMLA’)sector.
Amendment 229 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Specific money laundering and terrorist financing threats, risks and vulnerabilities affecting certain economic sectors at national level diminish in distinct manners Member States ability to contribute to the integrity and soundness of the Union financial system. As such, it is appropriate to allow Member States, upon identification of such sectors and specific risks to decide to apply AML/CFT requirements to additional sectors than those covered by Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation]. With a view to preserving the effectiveness of the internal market and the Union AML/CFT system, the Commission should be able, with the support of AMLA,EBA, as an independent authority, should be able to assess whether the intended decisions of the Member States to apply AML/CFT requirements to additional sectors are justified. In cases where the best interests of the Union would be achieved at Union level as regards specific sectors, the Commission should inform that Member State that it intends to take action at Union level instead and the Member State should abstain from taking the intended national measures.
Amendment 236 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) The CommissionABE is well placed to review specific cross-border threats that could affect the internal market and that cannot be identified and effectively combatted by individual Member States. It should therefore be entrusted with the responsibility for coordinating the assessment of risks relating to cross-border activities. Involvement of the relevant experts, such as the Expert Group on Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing and the representatives from the FIUs, as well as, where appropriate, from other Union-level bodies, is essential for the effectiveness of the process of the assessment of risks. National risk assessments and experience are also an important source of information for that process. Such assessment of the cross- border risks by the CommissionABE should not involve the processing of personal data. In any event, data should be fully anonymised. National and Union data protection supervisory authorities should be involved only if the assessment of the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing has an impact on the privacy and data protection of individuals.
Amendment 244 #
2021/0250(COD)
(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 and the AMLAABE 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 252 #
2021/0250(COD)
(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 can, 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 286 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) Directive (EU) 2018/843 achieved the interconnection of Member States’ central registers holding beneficial ownership information through the European Central Platform established by Directive (EU) 2017/1132 of the European Parliament and of the Council30. Continued involvement of Member States in the functioning of the whole system should be ensured by means of a regular dialogue between the Commission and the representatives of Member States on the issues concerning the operation of the system and on its future development. _________________ 30 Directive (EU) 2017/1132 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 relating to certain aspects of company law (OJ L 169, 30.6.2017, p. 46).
Amendment 309 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 49
Recital 49
(49) For the purposes of greater transparency and accountability and to increase awareness with regard to their activities, FIUs should issue activity reports on an annual basis. These reports should at least provide statistical data in relation to the suspicious transaction reports received, the number of disseminations made to national competent authorities, the number of requests submitted to and received by other FIUs as well as, information on trends and typologies identified as well as requests submitted to and received from competent authorities, Europol and EPPO. This report, should be made public except for the elements which contain sensitive and classified information. At least once annually, the FIU should provide each obliged entities with feedback on the quality of suspicious transaction reports, their timeliness, the description of suspicion and any additional documents provided. Such feedback canshould be provided to individual obliged entities or groups of obliged entities, depending on the sector, and should aim to further improve the obliged entities’ ability to detect and identify suspicious transactions and activities and enhance the overall reporting mechanisms. In case of legal disputes involving obliged entities and relating to suspicious transaction reporting, the obliged parties may, in their defence in the context of the sanctioning procedure, provide evidence of the feedback received from the FIU concerning previous filing of reports characterised by the same elements of suspicion.
Amendment 320 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 57
Recital 57
(57) The Union has witnessed on occasions a lax approach to the supervision of the obliged entities' duties in terms of anti-money laundering and counter- terrorist financing duties. Therefore, it has become of utmost importance that competent national supervisors, as part of the integrated supervisory mechanism put in place by this Directive and Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for establishment of an Anti-Money Laundering Authority - COM/2021/421 final],(EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC] obtain clarity as to their respective rights and obligations.
Amendment 322 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 63
Recital 63
(63) Where an obliged entity operates establishments in another Member State, including through a network of agents, the supervisor of the home Member State should be responsible for supervising the obliged entity's application of group-wide AML/CFT policies and procedures. This could involve on-sitethe-spot visits in establishments based in another Member State. The supervisor of the home Member State should cooperate closely with the supervisor of the host Member State and should inform the latter of any issues that could affect their assessment of the establishment's compliance with the host AML/CFT rules.
Amendment 334 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 80
Recital 80
(80) To facilitate such cooperation in relation to credit institutions, AMLA, in consultation with the European Banking Authority,the EBA should issue guidelines specifying the main elements of such cooperation including how information should be exchanged.
Amendment 338 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 89
Recital 89
(89) Regulatory technical standards should ensure consistent harmonisation across the Union. As the body with highly specialised expertise in the field of AML/CFT, it is appropriate to entrust AMLthe EBA with the elaboration, for submission to the Commission, of draft regulatory technical standards which do not involve policy choices.
Amendment 352 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, Member States shall notify to the CommissionEBA their intention to apply of requirements of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation - COM/2021/420 final] to entities in additional sectors, accompanied by:
Amendment 353 #
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 counteringEuropean Banking Authority (EBA) [(EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the finaCouncingl of terrorism established by Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for establishment of an Anti-Money Laundering Authority - COM/2021/421 final] (AMLA),24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC] shall issue a detailed opinion regarding whether the measure envisaged:
Amendment 372 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. By [two years after the date of entry into force of this Directive], AMLthe EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards and submit them to the Commission for adoption. Those draft regulatory technical standards shall set out the criteria for determining the circumstances in which the appointment of a central contact point pursuant to paragraph 1 is appropriate, and the functions of the central contact points.
Amendment 391 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
To that end, the Commission shall, at the latest by [43 years after the date of transposition of this Directive], draw up a report identifying, analysing and evaluating those risks at Union level. Thereafter, the Commission shall update its report every fourtwo years. The Commission may update parts of the report more frequently, if appropriate.
Amendment 443 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) data measuring the sizeactivity and importance of the different sectors which fall within the scope of this Directive, including the number of natural persons and entities and the economic importance of each sector;
Amendment 481 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) a statement by the legal entity accompanied by a justification and supporting documents, that there is no beneficial owner or that the beneficial owner(s) could not be identified and verif; identified pursuant to Articles 42and 43 of the [AML Regulation]. These documents shall be available to obliged entitieds;
Amendment 510 #
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 14 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 registersas soon as practically possible but no later than 30 working days after detecting the discrepancy.
Amendment 515 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 7
Article 10 – paragraph 7
7. Member States shall ensure that the entity in charge of the central registers takes appropriate actions to cease the discrepancies, including amending the information included in the central registers where the entity is able to identify and verify the beneficial ownership information within 30 working days at the latest. A specific mention of the fact that there are discrepancies reported shall be included in the central registers and visible at least to competent authorities and obliged entities.
Amendment 522 #
2021/0250(COD)
8. In the case of corporate and other legal entities and, where the trustee is an obliged entity as listed in Article, point (3)(a), (b) or (c) of Regulation[please insert reference - proposal for Anti- Money Laundering Regulation - COM/2021/420 final], legal arrangements, Member States shall ensure that the entity in charge of the central beneficial ownership register is empowered to carry out checks, including on-site investigations, at the premises or registered office of the legal entity, in accordance with national law, or at the premises of the legal entities’ representatives in the Union in order to establish the current beneficial ownership of the entity and to verify that the information submitted to the central register is accurate, adequate and up-to- date. The right of the central register to verify such information shall not be restricted, obstructed or precluded in any manner and the central register shall be empowered to request information from other entities, including in other Member States and third countries, in particular through the establishment of cooperation agreements.
Amendment 763 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Member States shall ensure that FIUs provide obliged entities with feedback on the reports of suspected money laundering or terrorist financing in time and frequency adapted to the complexity of the entities. Such feedback shall cover at least the quality of the information provided, the timeliness of reporting, the description of the suspicion and the documentation provided at submission stage.
Amendment 769 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
In case of legal disputes involving obliged entities and relating to suspicious transaction reporting, the obliged parties may, in their defence in the context of the sanctioning procedure, provide evidence of the feedback received from the FIU concerning previous filing of reports characterised by the same elements of suspicion.
Amendment 838 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 33 – paragraph 5
Article 33 – paragraph 5
5. Where the supervisors of the home and host Member State disagree on the measures to be taken in relation to an obliged entity, they may refer the matter to AMLthe EBA and request its assistance in accordance with Articles 5 and 10 of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for establishment of an Anti- Money Laundering Authority - COM/2021/421 final]. AML. The EBA shall provide its advice on the matter of disagreement within one month.
Amendment 923 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 42 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 42 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall ensure that a decision imposing an administrative sanction or measure for breach of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation - COM/2021/420 final] against which there is no appeal shall be published by the supervisors on their official website immediately after the person sanctioned is informed of that decision. The publication shall include at least information on the type and nature of the breach and the identity of the persons responsible. Member States shall not be obliged to apply this subparagraph to decisions imposing measures that are of an investigatory nature.
Amendment 959 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 46 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 46 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. In order to facilitate and promote effective cooperation, and in particular the exchange of information, Member States shall communicate to the Commission and AMLEBA:
Amendment 962 #
2021/0250(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 46 – paragraph 3
Article 46 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that the information provided to the Commission and AMLEBA pursuant to paragraph 1 is updated as soon as a change takes place.
Amendment 200 #
Amendment 129 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) This new instrument is part of a comprehensive package aiming at strengthening the Union’s AML/CFT framework. Together, this instrument, Directive [please insert reference –- proposal for 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive - COM/2021/423 final], Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for a recast of Regulation (EU) 2015/847 - COM/2021/422 final] and the Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for establishment of an Anti- Money Laundering Authority - COM/2021/421 final] will form the legal framework governing the AML/CFT requirements to be met by obliged entities and underpinning the Union’s AML/CFT institutional framework, including the establishment of an Authority for anti- money laundering and countering the finrevising the powers of the European Banking Authority (EBA) [please insert reference - ] will form the legal framework governing the AML/CFT requirements to be met by obliged entities, in addition to a single regulatory and supervisory framework for the entire EU bancking of terrorism (‘AMLA’)sector.
Amendment 131 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) Currently, it is estimated that about 1.5% of the European Union's GDP is subject to money laundering and about 1% of the money is ultimately confiscated.1a _________________ 1a https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021 SC0190
Amendment 159 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) A consistent set of rules on internal systems and controls that applies to all obliged entities operating in the internal market will strengthen AML/CFT compliance and make supervision more effective. In order to ensure adequate mitigation of money laundering and terrorist financing risks, obliged entities should have in place an internal control framework consisting of risk–based policies, controls and procedures and clear division of responsibilities throughout the organisation. In line with the risk-based approach of this Regulation, those policies, controls and procedures should be proportionate to the nature and sizeactivity of the obliged entity and respond to the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing that the entity faces.
Amendment 171 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) The consistent implementation of group-wide AML/CFT policies and procedures is key to the robust and effective management of money laundering and terrorist financing risks within the group. To this end, group-wide policies, controls and procedures should be adopted and implemented by the parent undertaking. Obliged entities within the group should be required to exchange information when such sharing is relevant for preventing money laundering and terrorist financing. Information sharing should be subject to sufficient guarantees in terms of confidentiality, data protection and use of information. AMLThe EBA should have its powers extended to include the task of drawing up draft regulatory standards specifying the minimum requirements of group-wide procedures and policies, including minimum standards for information sharing within the group and the role and responsibilities of parent undertakings that are not themselves obliged entities.
Amendment 173 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) In addition to groups, other structures exist, such as networks or partnerships, in which obliged entities might share common ownership, management and compliance controls. To ensure a level playing field across the sectors whilst avoiding overburdening it, AMLthe EBA should identify those situations where similar group-wide policies should apply to those structures.
Amendment 175 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) There are circumstances where branches and subsidiaries of obliged entities are located in third countries where the minimum AML/CFT requirements, including data protection obligations, are less strict than the Union AML/CFT framework. In such situations, and in order to fully prevent the use of the Union financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing and to ensure the highest standard of protection for personal data of Union citizens, those branches and subsidiaries should comply with AML/CFT requirements laid down at Union level. Where the law of a third country does not permit compliance with those requirements, for example because of limitations to the group's ability to access, process or exchange information due to an insufficient level of data protection or banking secrecy law in the third country, obliged entities should take additional measures to ensure the branches and subsidiaries located in that country effectively handle the risks. AMLThe EBA should be tasked with developing draft technical standards specifying the type of such additional measures.
Amendment 179 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) Obliged entities should not be required to apply due diligence measures on customers carrying out occasional or linked transactions below a certain value, unless there is suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing. Whereas the EUR 10 000 threshold applies to most occasional transactions, obliged entities which operate in sectors or carry out transactions that present a higher risk of money laundering and terrorist financing should be required to apply customer due diligence for transactions with lower thresholds. To identify the sectors or transactions as well as the adequate thresholds for those sectors or transactions, AMLthe EBA should develop dedicated draft regulatory technical standards.
Amendment 185 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40
Recital 40
(40) To ensure the effectiveness of the AML/CFT framework, obliged entities should regularly review the information obtained from their customers, in accordance with the risk-based approach. Obliged entities should also set up a monitoring system to detect atypical transactions that might raise money laundering or terrorist financing suspicions. To ensure the effectiveness of the transaction monitoring, obliged entities’ monitoring activity should in principle cover all services and products offered to customers and all transactions which are carried out on behalf of the costumer or offered to the customer by the obliged entity. However, not all transactions need to be scrutinised individually. The intensity of the monitoring should respect the risk- based approach and be designed around precise and relevant criteria, taking account, in particular, of the characteristics of the customers and the risk level associated with them, the products and services offered, and the countries or geographical areas concerned. AMLThe EBA should develop guidelines to ensure that the intensity of the monitoring of business relationships and of transactions is adequate and proportionate to the level of risk.
Amendment 186 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
Recital 41
(41) In order to ensure consistent application of this Regulation, AMLthe EBA should have the task of drawing up draft regulatory technical standards on customer due diligence. Those regulatory technical standards should set out the minimum set of information to be obtained by obliged entities in order to enter into new business relationships with customers or assess ongoing ones, according to the level of risk associated with each customer. Furthermore, the draft regulatory technical standards should provide sufficient clarity to allow market players to develop secure, accessible and innovative means of verifying customers’ identity and performing customer due diligence, also remotely, while respecting the principle of technology neutrality. The Commission should be empowered to adopt those draft regulatory technical standards. Those specific tasks armust be in line with the role and responsibilities of AMLA as provided in Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for establishment of an Anti- Money Laundering Authority - COM/2021/421 finalspecified by the Regulation revising the powers of the EBA [please insert reference – These specific tasks should be included in Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010, defining the EBA's competences].
Amendment 187 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 45
Recital 45
(45) In low risk situations, obliged entities should be able to apply simplified customer due diligence measures. This does not equate to an exemption or absence of customer due diligence measures. It rather consists in a simplified or reduced set of scrutiny measures, which should however address all components of the standard customer due diligence procedure. In line with the risk-based approach, obliged entities should nevertheless be able to reduce the frequency or intensity of their customer or transaction scrutiny, or rely on adequate assumptions with regard to the purpose of the business relationship or use of simple products. The regulatory technical standards on customer due diligence should set out the specific simplified measures that obliged entities may implement in case of lower risk situations identified in the Supranational Risk Assessment of the Commission. When developing draft regulatory technical standards, AMLthe EBA should have due regard to preserving social and financial inclusion.
Amendment 193 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 50
Recital 50
(50) Third countries “subject to a call for action” by the relevant international standard-setter (the FATF) present significant strategic deficiencies of a persistent nature in their legal and institutional AML/CFT frameworks and their implementation which are likely to pose a high risk to the Union’s financial system. The persistent nature of the significant strategic deficiencies, reflective of the lack of commitment or continued failure by the third country to tackle them, signal a heightened level of threat emanating from those third countries, which requires an effective, consistent and harmonised mitigating response at Union level. Therefore, obliged entities should be required to apply the whole set of available enhanced due diligence measures to occasional transactions and business relationships involving those high-risk third countries to manage and mitigate the underlying risks. Furthermore, the high level of risk justifies the application of additional specific countermeasures, whether at the level of obliged entities or by the Member States. Such approach would avoid divergence in the determination of the relevant countermeasures, which would expose the entirety of Union’s financial system to risks. Given its technical expertise, AMLthe EBA can provide useful input to the Commission in identifying the appropriate countermeasures.
Amendment 194 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 51
Recital 51
(51) Compliance weaknesses in both the legal and institutional AML/CFT framework and its implementation of third countries which are subject to “increased monitoring” by the FATF are susceptible to be exploited by criminals. This is likely to represent a risk for the Union’s financial system, which needs to be managed and mitigated. The commitment of these third countries to address identified weaknesses, while not eliminating the risk, justifies a mitigating response, which is less severe than the one applicable to high-risk third countries. In these cases, Union’s obliged entities should apply enhanced due diligence measures to occasional transactions and business relationships when dealing with natural persons or legal entities established in those third countries that are tailored to the specific weaknesses identified in each third country. Such granular identification of the enhanced due diligence measures to be applied would, in line with the risk-based approach, also ensure that the measures are proportionate to the level of risk. To ensure such consistent and proportionate approach, the CommissionABE should be able to identify which specific enhanced due diligence measures are required in order to mitigate country- specific risks. Given AMLA’s technical expertise, it can provide useful input to the Commission to identify the appropriate enhanced due diligence measures.
Amendment 200 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 52
Recital 52
(52) Countries that are not publicly identified as subject to calls for actions or increased monitoring by international standard setters might still pose a threat to the integrity of the Union’s financial system. To mitigate those risks, it should be possible for the CommissionABE to take action by identifying, based on a clear set of criteria and with the support of AMLA, third countries posing a specific and serious threat to the Union’s financial system, which may be due to either compliance weaknesses or significant strategic deficiencies of a persistent nature in their AML/CFT regime, and the relevant mitigating measures. Those third countries should be identified by the CommissionEBA. According to the level of risk posed to the Union’s financial system, the CommissionEBA should require the application of either all enhanced due diligence measures and country-specific countermeasures, as it is the case for high-risk third countries, or country-specific enhanced customer due diligence, such as in the case of third countries with compliance weaknesses.
Amendment 203 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 54
Recital 54
(54) Potential external threats to the Union’s financial system do not only emanate from third countries, but can also emerge in relation to specific customer risk factors or products, services, transactions or delivery channels which are observed in relation to a specific geographical area outside the Union. There is therefore a need to identify money laundering and terrorist financing trends, risks and methods to which Union’s obliged entities may be exposed. AMLThe EBA is best placed to detect any emerging ML/TF typologies from outside the Union, to monitor their evolution with a view to providing guidance to the Union’s obliged entities on the need to apply enhanced due diligence measures aimed at mitigating such risks.
Amendment 204 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 55
Recital 55
(55) Relationships with individuals who hold or who have held important public functions, within the Union or internationally, and particularly individuals from countries where corruption is widespread, may expose the financial sector to significant reputational and legal risks. The international effort to combat corruption also justifies the need to pay particular attention to such persons and to apply appropriate enhanced customer due diligence measures with respect to persons who are or who have been entrusted with prominent public functions and with respect to senior figures in international organisations. Therefore, it is necessary to specify measures which obliged entities should apply with respect to transactions or business relationships with politically exposed persons. To facilitate the risk- based approach, AMLthe EBA should be tasked with issuing guidelines on assessing the level of risks associated with a particular category of politically exposed persons, their family members or persons known to be close associates.
Amendment 206 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 57
Recital 57
(57) When customers are no longer entrusted with a prominent public function, they can still pose a higher risk, for example because of the informal influence they could still exercise, or because their previous and current functions are linked. It is essential that obliged entities take into consideration those continuing risks and apply one or more enhanced due diligence measures until such time that the individuals are deemed to pose no further risk, and in any case for not less than 12 months following the time when they are no longer entrusted with a prominent public function. At the end of the 12- month period, an assessment will be made to determine if the person still poses a risk.
Amendment 208 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 59
Recital 59
(59) Close private and professional relationships can be abused for money laundering and terrorist financing purposes. For that reason, measures concerning politically exposed persons should also apply to their family members and persons known to be close associates. Properly identifying family members and persons known to be close associates may depend on the socio-economic and cultural structure of the country of the politically exposed person. Against this background, AMLthe EBA should have the task of issuing guidelines on the criteria to use to identify persons who should be considered as close associate.
Amendment 216 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 63
Recital 63
(63) In order for third party reliance and outsourcing relationships to function efficiently, further clarity is needed around the conditions according to which reliance takes place. AMLThe EBA 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 232 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 78
Recital 78
(78) Differences in suspicious transaction reporting obligations between Member States may exacerbate the difficulties in AML/CFT compliance experienced by obliged entities that have a cross-border presence or operations. Moreover, the structure and content of the suspicious transaction reports have an impact on the FIU’s capacity to carry out analysis and on the nature of that analysis, and also affects FIUs’ abilities to cooperate and to exchange information. In order to facilitate obliged entities’ compliance with their reporting obligations and allow for a more effective functioning of FIUs’ analytical activities and cooperation, AMLthe EBA should develop draft regulatory standards specifying a common template for the reporting of suspicious transactions to be used as a uniform basis throughout the Union.
Amendment 314 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 32
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 32
(32) ‘supervisor’ means the body entrusted with responsibilities aimed at ensuring compliance by obliged entities with the requirements of this Regulation, including the Authority for anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AMLA) when performing the tasks entrusted on it in Article 5(2) of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for establishment of an Anti- Money Laundering Authority - COM/2021/421 final]European Banking Authority (EBA) in accomplishing the tasks relating to anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism;
Amendment 316 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 35
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 35
(35) ‘targeted financial sanctions’ means both asset freezing and confiscation and prohibitions to make funds or other assets available, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of designated persons and entities pursuant to Council Decisions adopted on the basis of Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union and Council Regulations adopted on the basis of Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
Amendment 318 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 36 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 36 a (new)
(36a) ‘AML Compliance Entity’, means an entity or digital platform that fully complies with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and contributes to effective compliance with the objectives and obligations set out in this Regulation.
Amendment 382 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Amendment 384 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Amendment 386 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Amendment 388 #
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 pursuant to this Article.
Amendment 398 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Those policies, controls and procedures shall be proportionate to the nature and sizeactivity of the obliged entity.
Amendment 405 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4
Article 7 – paragraph 4
4. By [2 years after the entry into force of this Regulation], AMLthe EBA shall issue guidelines on the elements that obliged entities should take into account when deciding on the extent of their internal policies, controls and procedures.
Amendment 411 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Obliged entities shall take appropriate measures, proportionate to their nature and sizeactivity, to identify and assess the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing to which they are exposed, as well as the risks of non- implementation and evasion of proliferation financing- related targeted financial sanctions, taking into account:
Amendment 446 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 11 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Obliged entities shall have in place appropriate procedures for their employees, or persons in a comparable position, to report breaches of this Regulation internally through a specific, independent and anonymous channel, proportionate to the nature and sizeactivity of the obliged entity concerned.
Amendment 454 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. By [2two years after the date of entry into force of this Regulation] AMLDirective], the EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards and submit them to the Commission for adoption. Those draft regulatory technical standards shall specify the minimum requirements of group-wide policies, including minimum standards for information sharing within the group, the role and responsibilities of parent undertakings that are not themselves obliged entities with respect to ensuring group-wide compliance with AML/CFT requirements and the conditions under which the provisions of this Article apply to entities that are part of structures which share common ownership, management or compliance control, including networks or partnerships.
Amendment 458 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Article 14 – paragraph 3
3. By [2two years after the date of entry into force of this Regulation] AMLDirective], the EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards and submit them to the Commission for adoption. Those draft regulatory technical standards shall specify the type of additional measures referred to in paragraph 2, including the minimum action to be taken by obliged entities where the law of a third country does not permit the implementation of the measures required under Article 13 and the additional supervisory actions required in such cases.
Amendment 471 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
Article 15 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. By [2two years after the date of entry into force of this Regulation] AMLDirective], the EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards and submit them to the Commission for adoption. Those draft regulatory technical standards shall specify:
Amendment 474 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 15 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
When developing the draft regulatory technical standards referred to in the first sub-paragraph, AMLthe EBA shall take due account of the following:
Amendment 493 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3
Article 16 – paragraph 3
3. By [2 years after the date of application of this Regulation], AMLthe EBA shall issue guidelines on the risk variables and risk factors to be taken into account by obliged entities when entering into business relationships or carrying out occasional transactions.
Amendment 565 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 4
Article 21 – paragraph 4
4. By [2 years after the entry into force of this Regulation], AMLthe EBA shall issue guidelines on ongoing monitoring of a business relationship and on the monitoring of the transactions carried out in the context of such relationship.
Amendment 568 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. By [2two years after the date of entry into force of this Regulation] AMLDirective], the EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards and submit them to the Commission for adoption. Those draft regulatory technical standards shall specify:
Amendment 572 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3
Article 22 – paragraph 3
3. AMLThe EBA shall review regularly the regulatory technical standards and, if necessary, prepare and submit to the Commission the draft for updating those standards in order, inter alia, to take account of innovation and technological developments.
Amendment 619 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 3
Article 25 – paragraph 3
3. For the purposes of determining the level of threat referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission may request AMLA to adopt an opinion aimed atEBA may assessing the specific impact on the integrity of the Union’s financial system due to the level of threat posed by a third country.
Amendment 632 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1
Article 26 – paragraph 1
1. By [3 years from the date of entry into force of this Regulation], AMLthe EBA shall adopt guidelines defining the money laundering and terrorist financing trends, risks and methods involving any geographical area outside the Union to which obliged entities are exposed. AMLThe EBA shall take into account, in particular, the risk factors listed in Annex III. Where situations of higher risk are identified, the guidelines shall include enhanced due diligence measures that obliged entities shall consider applying to mitigate such risks.
Amendment 633 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2
Article 26 – paragraph 2
2. AMLThe EBA shall review the guidelines referred to in paragraph 1 at least every two years.
Amendment 636 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 3
Article 26 – paragraph 3
3. In issuing and reviewing the guidelines referred to in paragraph 1, AMLthe EBA shall take into account evaluations, assessments or reports of international organisations and standard setters with competence in the field of preventing money laundering and combating terrorist financing.
Amendment 643 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) apply any other relevant simplified due diligence measure identified by AMLthe EBA pursuant to Article 22.
Amendment 646 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The measures referred to in the first subparagraph shall be proportionate to the nature and sizeactivity of the business and to the specific elements of lower risk identified. However, obliged entities shall carry out sufficient monitoring of the transactions and business relationship to enable the detection of unusual or suspicious transactions.
Amendment 649 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 4
Article 27 – paragraph 4
4. Obliged entities shall verify on a regular basis that the conditions for the application of simplified due diligence continue to exist. The frequency of such verifications shall be commensurate to the nature and sizeactivity of the business and the risks posed by the specific relationship.
Amendment 653 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 3
Article 28 – paragraph 3
3. With the exception of the cases covered by Section 2 of this Chapter, when assessing the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing posed by a business relationship or occasional transaction, obliged entities shall take into account at least the factors of potential higher risk set out in Annex III and the guidelines adopted by AMLthe EBA pursuant to Article 26.
Amendment 656 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 4 – point c
Article 28 – paragraph 4 – point c
(c) obtain additional information on the source of funds, and source of wealth of the customer, the members of his family and of the beneficial owner(s);
Amendment 660 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
Article 28 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
Amendment 661 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
Article 28 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
Where the risks identified by the Member States pursuant to the first subparagraph are likely to affect the financial system of the Union, AMLthe EBA shall, upon a request from the Commission or of its own initiative, consider updating the guidelines adopted pursuant to Article 26.
Amendment 692 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 32 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. By [3 years from the date of entry into force of this Regulation], AMLthe EBA shall issue guidelines on the following matters:
Amendment 696 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1
Article 33 – paragraph 1
Amendment 699 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 3
Article 33 – paragraph 3
3. The CommissionEBA shall assemble, based on the lists provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, a single list of all prominent public functions for the purposes of Article 2, point (25). The Commission shall publish that single list shallEBA shall send that single list to the Commission for publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. AMLThe EBA shall make the list public on its website.
Amendment 700 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 2
Article 35 – paragraph 2
2. Obliged entities shall apply one or more of the measures referred to in Article 28(4) to mitigate the risks posed by the business relationship, until such time as that person is deemed to pose no further risk, but in any case for not less than 12 months following the time when the individual is no longer entrusted with a prominent public function. At the end of the 12-month period, an assessment shall be made to determine if the person still poses a risk.
Amendment 710 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 2
Article 38 – paragraph 2
2. When deciding to rely on other obliged entities situated in third countries, obliged entities shall take into consideration the geographical risk factors listed in Annexes II and III and any relevant information or guidance provided by the Commission, or by AMLthe EBA or other competent authorities.
Amendment 743 #
2021/0239(COD)
By [3 years after the entry into force of this Regulation], AMLthe EBA shall issue guidelines addressed to obliged entities on:
Amendment 801 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 44 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. For the purpose of this Regulation, beneficial ownership information shall be adequate, accurate, and current and sufficiently detailed and include the following:
Amendment 863 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3
Article 50 – paragraph 3
3. By [two years after entry into force of this Regulation], AMLthe EBA shall develop draft implementing technical standards and submit them to the Commission for adoption. Those draft implementing technical standards shall specify the format to be used for the reporting of suspicious transactions pursuant to paragraph 1.
Amendment 867 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 5
Article 50 – paragraph 5
5. AMLThe EBA shall issue and periodically update guidance on indicators of unusual or suspicious activity or behaviours.
Amendment 869 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Article 50 – paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. The EBA shall introduce a provision establishing an annual reporting mechanism on the use of beneficial ownership registers to combat money laundering and terrorist financing.
Amendment 870 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. By way of derogation from Article 50(1), Member States may allow obliged entities referred to in Article 3, point (3)(a), (b) and (d) to transmit the information referred to in Article 50(1) to a self- regulatory body designated by the Member State for the sole purpose of combating money laundering and the funding of terrorism.
Amendment 896 #
2021/0239(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 55 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) the obliged entities have procedures in place that allow the distinction, in the processing of such data, between allegations, investigations, proceedings and convictions, taking into account the fundamental right to a fair trial, the right of defence and the presumption of innocence.
Amendment 39 #
Amendment 40 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The Schengen area without border control at internal borders relies on the effective and efficient application by the Member States of the Schengen acquis. That acquis comprises measures in the area of external borders, compensatory measures for the absence of controls at internal borders and a strong monitoring framework, which together facilitate free movement andntrols at internal borders, which together ensures a high level of security, and justice and protection of fundamental rights, including the protection of personal data.
Amendment 42 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) In order to increase its effectiveness and efficiency, the Schengen evaluation and monitoring mechanism should be enhanced. The revised evaluation and monitoring mechanism should aim at maintaining a high level of mutual trust among Member States by guaranteeing that Member States apply the Schengen acquis effectively following the agreed common standards, fundamental principles and norms, thereby contributing to a well- functioning Schengen areaeffectively border controls.
Amendment 44 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) The evaluation and monitoring mechanism should achieve these goals through objective and impartial evaluations that are able to quickly identify deficiencies in the application of the Schengen acquis that could disrupt the correct functioning of the Schengen area, ensure that these deficiencies are swiftly addressed, and provide the basis for a dialogue on the functioning of the Schengen area as a whole. This requires close cooperation between the Member States and the Commission, a balanced distribution of shared responsibilities and maintaining the peer review nature of the system. It also requires a closer involvement of the European Parliament. Given the extent of the changes, Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013 should be repealed and replaced by a new Regulation.
Amendment 50 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) Evaluation and monitoring activities should be targeted, taking into account the results of previous evaluations and the results of national quality control mechanisms. They should be supported by reinforced cooperation with Union bodies, offices and agencies, their systematic involvement in Schengen evaluations and by improved risk analyses and information sharing. This cooperation and involvement concerns in particular the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (‘Frontex’), the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems (eu-LISA), the Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol), the European Agency for Fundamental Rights and the European Data Protection Supervisor. The cooperation should also become more reciprocal and the agencies should not only be contributors, but also benefit from being involved in the evaluation and monitoring mechanism.
Amendment 53 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Amendment 59 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
Amendment 67 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) Evaluation and monitoring activities should be carried out by teams consisting of Commission representatives and experts designated by Member States. These and Commission representatives and expert. These experts and representatives should have appropriate qualifications, including a solidven theoretical knowledge and practical experience. In order to ensure the participation of sufficient number of experienced experts in a faster and less burdensome way, a pool of experts should be established and maintained by the Commission in close cooperation with the Member States. The pool should be the primary source of experts for evaluation and monitoring activities.
Amendment 69 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) More flexibility should be provided as regards the size of the evaluation and monitoring teams in order to increase the efficiency and to reduce administrative burden. Therefore, the Commission should define and adapt the size of the teams depending on the needs and challenges related to each evaluation and monitoring activity. When setting up the teams, geographical balance and rotation should, to the extent possible, be ensured by the Commission and account should be taken of the capacity of national administrations and the need for a variety of profiles. The principle of shared responsibility, predictability and the commitment taken when nominating experts to the pool implies that the experts invited for specific evaluations and their national authorities should respond positively to invitations; turning the invitations down should be duly justified ononly be for serious professional or personal grounds only.
Amendment 73 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Evaluation reports should, as a rule, contain recommendations on how to remedy deficiencies identified (including fundamental rights violations) and be adopted in a single act by the Commission by means of implementing acts through the examination procedure in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/201136 . The consolidation of the report and recommendations within a single document and subject to a single adoption procedure reinforces the intrinsic connection between the evaluation findings and recommendations. In addition, tare adopted by the Commission and recommendations by the Council. The accelerated publication of the recommendations should enable Member States to address the deficiencies faster and more efficiently. At the same time, the use of the examination procedure should ensure Member State’s engagement in the decision-making process leading to the adoption of the recommendations. _________________ 36 OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13.
Amendment 75 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) Nevertheless, gGiven the crucial role of the Council in exerting peer-pressure and the need for political discussion, the Council should adopt recommendations in cases of political importance and general interest for the functioning of the Schengen area. Such cases should be considered to arise where an evaluation concludes that there exists a serious deficiency, in cases of thematic evaluations, or in cases where an evaluation take places for the purposes of verifying whether a Member State bound by the Schengen acquis and for which internal border controls have not been lifted fulfils the conditions to apply the Schengen acquis in full or, in the case of a Member State not bound by the Schengen acquis and that has opted in to apply parts of the Schengen acquis, to verify whether the Member State fulfils the conditions to apply the Schengen acquis in partcontinue to be able to adopt recommendations in all cases.
Amendment 81 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) The evaluation and monitoring mechanism should comprise a robust follow-up and monitoring component which should be ensured by the Commission, in close cooperation with the Council and the European Parliament, without creating a disproportionate burden for the actors involved. Evaluations should be followed up by action plans. While drawing up the action plans, the evaluated Member States should fully take into consideration the funding possibilities provided by the Union and make the best use of these resources. To speed up the process, the Commission should provide observations on the adequacy of the action plans for example in the form of a letter. In order to ensure a timely follow up, if the Commission services do not consider the action plan adequate, the Member State concerned should be required to submit a revised action plan within one month from the receipt of the observations. The frequency of the follow- up reporting by the Member State to the Commission and the Council on the implementation of the action plans should, as a rule, be six months.
Amendment 86 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) It is essential and desirable that the European Parliament and the Council regularly hold discussions at political level in order to raise awareness of the importance of the implementation of the Schengen acquis, hold Member States who persistently breach the common rules accountable, and increase pressure on them to remedy the deficiencies identified. The Commission should provide adequate input to facilitate these discussions including through the adoption of a comprehensive annual report covering the evaluations carried out during the previous year and state of implementation of recommendations, which would be part of the ‘State of Schengen’ report. The European Parliament is encouraged to adopt resolutions and the Council should adopt conclusions to increase pressure on Member States making insufficient progress. The ‘Schengen Forum’, as a unique stage to discuss Schengen at high level with representatives of the European Parliament, Member States and the Commission should provide a platform for informal discussions aiming at better implementation of the Schengen acquied, inter alia, at ensuring the existence and effectiveness of internal border controls.
Amendment 88 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) The evaluation and monitoring mechanism established by this Regulation should fulfil a complementary function of monitoring the effectiveness of the practical implementation of Union policies through peer review. The general power of the Commission to oversee the application of Union law under the control of the Court of Justice of the European Union through infringement procedures should not be affectedon internal border controls.
Amendment 91 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) In view of the particular role entrusted to the European Parliament and to the national parliaments under the last sentence of Article 70 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as underlined in Article 12, point (c), of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) as regards the national parliaments, the Council and the Commission should fully inform the European Parliament and the national Parliaments of the content and results of the evaluations. In addition, should the Commission submit a proposal to amend this Regulation, the Council would, in accordance with Article 19(7), point (h), of its Rules of Procedure39 , consult the European Parliament in order to take into consideration its opinion, to the fullest extent possible, before adopting a final text. _________________ 39 Council Decision 2009/937/EU of 1 December 2009 adopting the Council's Rules of Procedure (OJ L 325 11.12.2009, p. 35).
Amendment 93 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
Amendment 94 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
Amendment 96 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation establishes an evaluation and monitoring mechanism for the purpose of ensuring that Member States apply the Schengen acquis effectively, thereby contributing to a well-functioning area withouteffectively internal border controls.
Amendment 99 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) verifying the application of the Schengen acquis, i.e. the existence and effectiveness of border controls, in the Member States to which it applies in full as well as in Member States to which, in accordance with the relevant Protocols annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, the Schengen acquis applies in part;
Amendment 103 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) ‘first time evaluation’ means an evaluation to verify whether a Member State bound by the Schengen acquis and for which internal border controls have not been lifted fulfils the conditions to apply the Schengen acquis in full or, in the case of a Member State not bound by the Schengen acquis and that has opted in to apply parts of the Schengen acquis, to verify whether the Member State fulfils the conditions to apply the Schengen acquis in part;
Amendment 118 #
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 the annual and multiannual evaluation programmes, the drafting of questionnaires, the 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 123 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. The Commission shall be responsible for making the necessary travel arrangements to and from the visited Member State for the Commission representatives and Member State experts in the teams and, in collaboration with the latter, the necessary on-site visits.
Amendment 126 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 137 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) when it has grounds to consider that a Member State is seriously neglecting its obligations under the Schengen acquis including allegations of serious fundamental rights violations at the external borders.
Amendment 144 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Commission shall cooperate with relevant Union bodies, offices and agencies which are involved in the implementation of the Schengen acquis as well as with the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.
Amendment 159 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall 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 others well as 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 164 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Amendment 168 #
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 shallcan take into account information provided by third parties, including independent authorities, non- governmental organisations and international organisations.
Amendment 188 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
1. The Member State experts participating in evaluation and monitoring activities shall have appropriate qualifications, including a solid theoretical knowledge and practical experience in the areas covered by the evaluation and monitoring mechanism, along with sound knowledge of evaluation principles, procedures and techniques, and shall be able to communicate effectively in a common language.
Amendment 208 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
It may include visits to and meetings with national authorities and bodies, non- governmental and international organisations as well as other entities, agencies and bodies involved in, participating in or concerned by the implementation of the Schengen acquis while cooperating with the Member State subject to the evaluation or monitoring activity.
Amendment 215 #
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 may notify the Member State concerned at least 24 hours before such visit is to take place when the main purpose of the unannounced visit is a random verificationcheck ofn the implementation of the Schengen acquieffectiveness of internal border controls.
Amendment 227 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 5
Article 21 – paragraph 5
5. The evaluation report shall contain recommendations for remedial actions aimed at addressing the deficiencies and areas for improvement identified during the evaluation and give an indication of the priorities for implementing them. The evaluation report may set deadlines for the implementation ofIt is for the Council to adopt these recommendations. Where the evaluation identifies a serious deficiency, the specific provisions set out in Article 23 shall apply.
Amendment 230 #
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 twofour weeks of its receipt. A drafting meeting shall be held at the request of the evaluated Member State, no later than five working days from the receipt of the comments from the evaluated Member State. The comments of the evaluated Member State may be reflected in the draft evaluation report.
Amendment 234 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1
Article 22 – paragraph 1
1. Within two months of the adoption of the evaluation report, the evaluated Member State shall submit to the Commission and the Council an action plan to implement all thethe Council's recommendations included in the evaluation report.
Amendment 238 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 22 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The evaluated Member State shall reportpresents to the Commissionuncil and the Councilmmission on the implementation of its action plan every six months from the adoption of the evaluation report until the Commission considers the action plan is fully implemented. Depending on the nature of the deficiencies and the state of implementation of the recommendations, the Commission may require the evaluated Member State a different reporting frequency.
Amendment 239 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 22 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 243 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The evaluated Member State shall take immediate remedial actions including, where necessary, mobilising all available operational and financial means. The evaluated Member State shall inform without delay the Commission and the Member States about the immediate remedial actions taken or planned. In parallel, the Commission shall inform the respective Union bodies, offices and agencies referred to in Article 7 of the serious deficiency in view of their possible support to the evaluated Member State. The Commission shall also inform the Council and the European Parliamentto re-establish effective internal border controls.
Amendment 246 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 23 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
The evaluated Member State shall provide its comments on the draft evaluation report within fivefteen working days of its receipt.
Amendment 267 #
2021/0140(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 10
Article 23 – paragraph 10
10. If the serious deficiency is deemed to constitute a serious threat to public policy or internal security within the area without internal border controls, or a serious and systematic fundamental rights violation, the Commission, on its own initiative or at the request of the European Parliament or of a Member State, shall immediately inform thereof the European Parliament and the Council.
Amendment 312 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The purpose of this Regulation is to improve the functioning of the internal market by laying down a uniform legal framework in particular for the development, marketing and use of artificial intelligence in conformity with Union values. This Regulation pursues a number of overriding reasons of public interest, such as a high level of protection of health, safety and fundamental rights, and it ensures the free movement of AI- based goods and services cross-border, thus preventwhile giving Member States froma clear possibility of imposing restrictions on the development, marketing and use of AI systems, unless explic that could threaten or jeopardise the integritly authorised by this Regulationnd sovereignty of those countries and their people.
Amendment 317 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The purpose of this Regulation is to improve the functioning of the internal market by laying down a uniform legal framework in particular for the development, marketing and use of artificial intelligence in conformity with Union values. This Regulation pursues a number of overriding reasons of public interest, such as a high level of protection of health, safety and fundamental rights, and it ensures the free movement of AI- based goods and services cross-border, thus preventing Member States from imposing restrictions on the development, marketing and use of AI systems, unless explicitly authorised by this Regulation and without prejudice to stricter national legislation governing the protection of fundamental rights.
Amendment 318 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Artificial intelligence systems (AI systems) can be easily deployed in multiple sectors of the economy and society, including cross border, and circulate throughout the Union. Certain Member States have already explored the adoption of national rules to ensure that artificial intelligence is safe and is developed and used in compliance with fundamental rights obligations. Differing national rules may lead to fragmentation of the internal market and decrease legal certainty for operators that develop or use AI systems. A consistent and high level of protection throughout the Union should therefore be ensured, while divergences hampering the free circulation of AI systems and related products and services within the internal market should be prevented, by laying down uniform obligations for operators and guaranteeing the uniform protection of overriding reasons of public interest and of rights of persons throughout the internal market based on Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Nevertheless, respect for the specific legal - and especially constitutional - characteristics of the Member States should enable them to benefit from special derogations if they have a higher level of protection of safety and personal data at national level. To the extent that this Regulation contains specific rules on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data concerning restrictions of the use of AI systems for ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement, it is appropriate to base this Regulation, in as far as those specific rules are concerned, on Article 16 of the TFEU. In light of those specific rules and the recourse to Article 16 TFEU, it is appropriate to consult the European Data Protection Board.
Amendment 323 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Artificial intelligence systems (AI systems) can be easily deployed in multiple sectors of the economy and society, including cross border, and circulate throughout the Union. Certain Member States have already explored the adoption of national rules to ensure that artificial intelligence is safe and is developed and used in compliance with fundamental rights obligations. Differing national rules may lead to fragmentation of the internal market and decrease legal certainty for operators that develop or use AI systems. A minimum, consistent and high level of protection throughout the Union should therefore be ensured, while divergences hampering the free circulation of AI systems and related products and services within the internal market should be prevented, by laying down uniform obligations for operators and guaranteeing the uniform protection of overriding reasons of public interest and of rights of persons throughout the internal market based on Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). To the extent that this Regulation contains specific rules on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data concerning restrictions of the use of AI systems for ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement, it is appropriate to base this Regulation, in as far as those specific rules are concerned, on Article 16 of the TFEU. In light of those specific rules and the recourse to Article 16 TFEU, it is appropriate to consult the European Data Protection Board.
Amendment 324 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) At the same time, depending on the circumstances regarding its specific application and use, artificial intelligence may generate risks and cause harm to public interests and rights that are protected by Union law, and to those of Member States with a strong constitutional tradition, which would go beyond the protection of Union law. Such harm might be material or immaterial.
Amendment 328 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The notion of AI system should be clearly defined to ensure legal certainty, while providing the flexibility to accommodate future technological developments. The definition should be based on the key functional characteristics of the software, in particular the ability, for a given set of human-defined objectives, to generate outputs such as content, predictions, recommendations, or decisions which influence the environment with which the system interacts, be it in a physical or digital dimension. AI systems can be designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy and be used on a stand- alone basis or as a component of a product, irrespective of whether the system is physically integrated into the product (embedded) or serve the functionality of the product without being integrated therein (non-embedded). The definition of AI system should be complemented by a list of specific techniques and approaches used for its development, which should be kept up-to-date in the light of market and technological developments through the adoption of delegated acts by the Commissionordinary legislative procedure to amend that list.
Amendment 333 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) In light of their digital nature, certain AI systems should fall within the scope of this Regulation even when they are neither placed on the market, nor put into service, nor used in the Union. This is the case for example of an operator established in the Union that contracts certain services to an operator established outside the Union in relation to an activity to be performed by an AI system that would qualify as high-risk and whose effects impact natural persons located in the Union. In those circumstances, the AI system used by the operator outside the Union could process data lawfully collected in and transferred from the Union, and provide to the contracting operator in the Union the output of that AI system resulting from that processing, without that AI system being placed on the market, put into service or used in the Union. To prevent the circumvention of this Regulation and to ensure an effective protection of natural persons located in the Union, this Regulation should also apply to providers and users of AI systems that are established in a third country, to the extent the output produced by those systems is used in the Union. The data used must be stored solely in Europe. Nonetheless, to take into account existing arrangements and special needs for cooperation with foreign partners with whom information and evidence is exchanged, this Regulation should not apply to public authorities of a third country and international organisations when acting in the framework of international agreements concluded at national or European level for law enforcement and judicial cooperation with the Union or with its Member States. Such agreements have been concluded bilaterally between Member States and third countries or between the European Union, Europol and other EU agencies and third countries and international organisations.
Amendment 336 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) In order to ensure a consistent and high level of protection of public interests as regards health, safety and fundamental rights, common normative standards for all high-risk AI systems should be established. Those standards should be consistent with the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (the Charter) and should be non-discriminatory and in line with the Union’s international trade commitments. Moreover, every Member State with a different legal tradition should be able to give priority to ensuring maximum protection for its citizens, particularly on the basis of its constitution.
Amendment 342 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) Aside from the many beneficial uses of artificial intelligence, that technology can also be misused and provide novel and powerful tools for manipulative, exploitative and social control practices. Such practices are particularly harmful and should be prohibited because they contradict Union values of respect for human dignity, freedom, equality, democracy and the rule of law and Union fundamental rights, including the right to non-discrimination, data protection and privacy and the rights of the child. Particular attention must be paid to AI systems from third countries to ensure that they are not used as a Trojan horse for non-European interests or that they do not lower our level of protection of data and fundamental rights.
Amendment 361 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The notion of AI system should be clearly defined to ensure legal certainty, while providing the flexibility to accommodate future technological developments. The definition should be based on the key functional characteristics of the software, in particular the ability, for a given set of human-defined objectivesobjectives or parameters which have human control at their origin, to generate outputs such as content, predictions, recommendations, or decisions which influence the environment with which the system interacts, be it in a physical or digital dimension. AI systems can be designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy and be used on a stand- alone basis or as a component of a product, irrespective of whether the system is physically integrated into the product (embedded) or serve the functionality of the product without being integrated therein (non-embedded). The definition of AI system should be complemented by a list of specific techniques and approaches used for its development, which should be kept up-to–date in the light of market and technological developments through the adoption of delegated acts by the Commission to amend that list. These delegated acts should consist only of additions to the list of techniques used.
Amendment 362 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) High-risk AI systems should only be placed on the Union market or put into service if they comply with certain mandatory requirements. If they come from third countries, they should be monitored extremely closely by the European supervisory authorities and by independent bodies working in that field. Those requirements should ensure that high-risk AI systems available in the Union or whose output is otherwise used in the Union do not pose unacceptable risks to important Union public interests as recognised and protected by Union law. AI systems identified as high-risk should be limited to those that have a significant harmful impact on the health, safety and fundamental rights of persons in the Union and such limitation minimises any potential restriction to international trade, if any.
Amendment 372 #
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 pose, both types of remote biometric identification systems should be subject to specific requirements on logging capabilities and human oversight. If they come from third countries, these systems, particularly those that use facial recognition and gather private data, such as Clearview AI, must be monitored extremely closely by the European supervisory authority and independent bodies.
Amendment 374 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) As regards the management and operation of critical infrastructure, it is appropriate to classify as high-risk the 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, since their failure or malfunctioning may put at risk the life and health of persons at large scale and lead to appreciable disruptions in the ordinary conduct of social and economic activities. These systems must not be designed or manufactured in a third country and their components must be monitored extremely closely in order to prevent any extra-European control over the sensitive infrastructures of the Member States.
Amendment 381 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) For the purposes of this Regulation the notion of publicly accessible space should be understood as referring to any physical place that is accessible to the public, irrespective of whether the place in question is privately or publicly owned. Therefore, the notion does not cover places that are private in nature and normally not freely accessible for third parties, including law enforcement authorities, unless those parties have been specifically invited or authorised, such as homes, private clubs, offices, warehouses and factories. Online spaces are not covered either, as they are not physical spaces. However, the mere fact that certain conditions for accessing a particular space may apply, such as admission tickets or age restrictions, does not mean that the space is not publicly accessible within the meaning of this Regulation. Consequently, in addition to public spaces such as streets, relevant parts of government buildings and most transport infrastructure, spaces such as cinemas, theatres, shops and shopping centres are normally also publicly accessible. Whether a given space is accessible to the public should however be determined on a case-by-case basis by the competent judicial or administrative authority, having regard to the specificities of the individual situation at hand.
Amendment 384 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
Recital 38
(38) Actions by law enforcement authorities involving certain uses of AI systems are characterised by a significant degree of power imbalance and may lead to surveillance, arrest or deprivation of a natural person’s liberty as well as other adverse impacts on fundamental rights guaranteed in the Charter. In particular, if the AI system is not trained with high quality data, does not meet adequate requirements in terms of its accuracy or robustness, or is not properly designed and tested before being put on the market or otherwise put into service, it may single out people in a discriminatory or otherwise incorrect or unjust manner. Furthermore, the exercise of important procedural fundamental rights, such as the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial as well as the right of defence and the presumption of innocence, could be hampered, in particular, where such AI systems are not sufficiently transparent, explainable and documented. It is therefore appropriate to classify as high-risk a number of AI systems intended to be used in the law enforcement context where accuracy, reliability and transparency is particularly important to avoid adverse impacts, retain public trust and ensure accountability and effective redress. In view of the nature of the activities in question and the risks relating thereto, those high-risk AI systems should include in particular AI systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities for individual risk assessments, polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of natural person, to detect ‘deep fakes’, for the evaluation of the reliability of evidence in criminal proceedings, for predicting the occurrence or reoccurrence of an actual or potential criminal offence based on profiling of natural persons, or assessing personality traits and characteristics or past criminal behaviour of natural persons or groups, for profiling in the course of detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences, as well as for crime analytics regarding natural persons. AI systems specifically intended to be used for administrative proceedings by tax and customs authorities should not be considered high-risk AI systems used by law enforcement authorities for the purposes of prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences. None of these systems for sensitive use should be allowed to store outside the Union the data gathered, and any links to third countries should be particularly transparent.
Amendment 386 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) AI systems used in migration, asylum and border control management affect people who are often in particularly vulnerable position and who are dependent on the outcome of the actions of the competent public authorities. The accuracy, non-discriminatory nature and transparency of the AI systems used in those contexts are therefore particularly important to guarantee the respect of the fundamental rights of the affected persons, notably their rights to free movement, non- discrimination, protection of private life and personal data, international protection and good administration. It is therefore appropriate to classify as high-risk AI systems intended to be used by the competent public authorities charged with tasks in the fields of migration, asylum and border control management as polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of a natural person; for assessing certain risks posed by natural persons entering the territory of a Member State or applying for visa or asylum; for verifying the authenticity of the relevant documents of natural persons; for assisting competent public authorities for the examination of applications for asylum, visa and residence permits and associated complaints with regard to the objective to establish the eligibility of the natural persons applying for a status. Every Member State should have the right to exercise full control over the systems they choose and to store the data gathered on their territory. AI systems in the area of migration, asylum and border control management covered by this Regulation should comply with the relevant procedural requirements set by the Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council49, the Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council50 and other relevant legislation. _________________ 49 Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 60). 50 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 389 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 43
Recital 43
(43) Requirements should apply to high- risk AI systems as regards the quality of data sets used, technical documentation and record-keeping, transparency and the provision of information to users, human oversight, and robustness, accuracy and cybersecurity. The sovereignty of the Member States must be respected. The Member States must have control over the entire chain of these systems, particularly the data gathered that are not intended to be stored in a third country. Those requirements are necessary to effectively mitigate the risks for health, safety and fundamental rights, as applicable in the light of the intended purpose of the system, and no other less trade restrictive measures are reasonably available, thus avoiding unjustified restrictions to trade.
Amendment 394 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46
Recital 46
(46) Having information on how high- risk AI systems have been developed and how they perform throughout their lifecycle is essential to verify compliance with the requirements under this Regulation. This requires keeping records and the availability of a technical documentation, containing information which is necessary to assess the compliance of the AI system with the relevant requirements. Such information should include the general characteristics, capabilities and limitations of the system, algorithms, data, training, testing and validation processes used as well as documentation on the relevant risk management system. The technical documentation should be kept up to date. If they have been manufactured in third countries, all of these systems must be wholly controlled by the Member State using them, which must ensure continuous monitoring of the entire chain, including manufacture, repair and development.
Amendment 396 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 47
Recital 47
(47) To address the opacity that may make certain AI systems incomprehensible to or too complex for natural persons, a certain degree of transparency should be required for high-risk AI systems. Users should be able to interpret the system output and use it appropriately. High-risk AI systems should therefore be accompanied by relevant documentation and instructions of use and include concise and clear information, including in relation to possible risks to fundamental rights and discrimination, where appropriate. All instructions and graphics must be drawn up in the language of the Member State using them, in addition to the usual languages.
Amendment 398 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) This Regulation should also apply to Unionthe institutions, offices, bodibodies, offices and agencies when acting as a provider or user of an AI systemof the Union. AI systems exclusively developed or used for military purposes should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation where that use falls under the exclusive remit of the Common Foreign and Security Policy regulated under Title V of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU). This Regulation should be without prejudice to the provisions regarding the liability of intermediary service providers set out in Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [as amended by the Digital Services Act].
Amendment 403 #
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 404 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58
Recital 58
(58) Given the nature of AI systems and the risks to safety and fundamental rights possibly associated with their use, including as regard the need to ensure proper monitoring of the performance of an AI system in a real-life setting, it is appropriate to set specific responsibilities for users. Users should in particular use high-risk AI systems in accordance with the instructions of use, which must be drawn up in the user’s language in order to avoid any lack of understanding whatsoever, and certain other obligations should be provided for with regard to monitoring of the functioning of the AI systems and with regard to record- keeping, as appropriate.
Amendment 410 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) In order to ensure a consistent and high level of protection of public interests as regards health, safety and fundamental rights, minimum common normative standards for all high-risk AI systems should be established. Those standards should be consistent with the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (the Charter) and should be non- discriminatory and in line with the Union’s international trade commitments.
Amendment 412 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 68
Recital 68
(68) Under certain conditions, rapid availability of innovative technologies may be crucial for health and safety of persons and for society as a whole. It is thus appropriate that under exceptional reasons of public security or protection of life and health of natural persons and the protection of industrial and commercial property, Member States could authorise the placing on the market or putting into service of AI systems which have not undergone a conformity assessment. However, transparency regarding their design, use and possible dangers must be obligatory.
Amendment 412 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) In order to introduce a proportionate and effective set of binding rules for AI systems, a clearly defined risk- based approach should be followed. That approach should tailor the type and content of such rules to the intensity and scope of the risks that AI systems can generate. It is therefore necessary to prohibit certain artificial intelligence practices, to lay down requirements for high-risk AI systems and obligations for the relevant operators, and to lay down transparency obligations for certain AI systems. It is also necessary to establish the criteria and conditions which determinine the category to which an AI system belongs.
Amendment 416 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) Aside from the many beneficial uses of artificial intelligence, that technology can also be misused and provide novel and powerful tools for manipulative, exploitative and social control practices. Such practices are particularly harmful and should be prohibited because they contradict Union the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, equality, democracy and the rule of law, which are protected values under EU law, and Union fundamental rights, including the right to non-discrimination, data protection and privacy and the rights of the child.
Amendment 418 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 73
Recital 73
(73) In order to promote and protect innovation, it is important that the interests of small-scale providers and users of AI systems are taken into particular account. To this objective, Member States should develop initiatives, which are targeted at those operators, including on awareness raising and information communication. Moreover, the specific interests and needs of small-scale providers shall be taken into account when Notified Bodies set conformity assessment fees. Translation costs related to mandatory documentation and communication with authorities may constitute a significant cost for providers and other operators, notably those of a smaller scale. Member States should possibly ensure that one of the languages determined and accepted by them for relevant providers’ documentation and for communication with operators is one which is broadly understood by the largest possible number of cross-border usersIn addition to the usual languages, it is essential for all technical texts and instructions accompanying the system to be drawn up in the user’s language.
Amendment 426 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The placing on the market, putting into service or use of certain AI systems intended to distort human behaviour, whereby physical or psychological harms are likely to occur, should be forbidden. Such AI systems deploy subliminal components individuals cannot perceive or exploit vulnerabilities of children and people due to their age, physical or mental incapacities. They do so with the intention to materially distort the behaviour of a person and in a manner that causes or is likely to cause harm to that or another person. The intention may not be presumed if the distortion of human behaviour results from factors external to the AI system which are outside of the control of the provider or the userpeople such as children or people who are vulnerable due to their age, physical or mental incapacities, or other traits. Research for legitimate purposes in relation to such AI systems should not be stifled by the prohibition, if such research does not amount to use of the AI system in human- machine relations with uninformed or non-consenting third parties that exposes natural persons to harm and such research is carried out in accordance with recognised ethical standards for scientific research.
Amendment 432 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) AI systems providing social scoring of natural persons for general purpose by public authorities or on their behalf may lead to discriminatory outcomes and the exclusion of certain groupsare, by definition, discriminatory. They may violate the right to dignity and non- discrimination and the values of equality and justice. Such AI systems evaluate or classify the trustworthiness of natural persons based on their social behaviour in multiple contexts or known or predicted personal or personality characteristics. The social score obtained from such AI systems may leads to the detrimental or unfavourable treatment of natural persons or whole groups thereof in social contexts, which are unrelated to the context in which the data was originally generated or collected or to a detrimental treatment that is disproportionate or unjustified to the gravity of their social behaviour. Such AI systems should be therefore prohibited.
Amendment 455 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) The use of AI systems for ‘real- time’ remote biometric identification of natural persons in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement is considered particularly intrusive in the rights and freedoms of the concerned persons, to the extent that it may affects the private life of a large part of the population, evoke a feeling ofconstitutes constant surveillance and indirectly dissuades the exercise of the freedom of assembly and other fundamental rights. In addition, the immediacy of the impact and the limited opportunities for further checks or corrections in relation to the use of such systems operating in ‘real-time’ carry heightened risks for the rights and freedoms of the persons that are concerned by law enforcement activities.
Amendment 526 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) High-risk AI systems should only be placed on the Union market or put into service if they comply with certain mandatory requirements. Those requirements should ensure that high-risk AI systems available in the Union or whose output is otherwise used in the Union do not pose unacceptable risks to important Union public interests as recognised and protected by Union law. AI systems identified as high-risk should be limited to those that have a significant harmful impact on the health, safety and fundamental rights of persons in the Union, as well as the public order and national security of the Member States, and such limitation minimises any potential restriction to international trade, if any.
Amendment 536 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) The classification of an AI system as high-risk pursuant to this Regulation should not necessarily mean that the product whose safety component is the AI system, or the AI system itself as a product, is considered ‘high-risk’ under the criteria established in the relevant Union harmonisation legislation that applies to the product. This is notably the case for Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council47 and Regulation (EU) 2017/746 of the European Parliament and of the Council48, where a third-party conformity assessment is provided for medium-risk and high-risk products. However, the classification of an AI system as high risk for the sole purpose of this Regulation will apply to all products which use that AI system or which are themselves AI systems, irrespective of their classification under the sector-specific harmonisation legislation of the Union under which they are otherwise covered. _________________ 47 Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC (OJ L 117, 5.5.2017, p. 1). 48 Regulation (EU) 2017/746 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices and repealing Directive 98/79/EC and Commission Decision 2010/227/EU (OJ L 117, 5.5.2017, p. 176).
Amendment 555 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) As regards the management and operation of critical infrastructure, iIt is appropriate to classify as high- risk the AI systems intended to be used as safety components in the management and operation of critical infrastructure such as road traffic andor the supply of water, gas, heating and electricity, since their failure or malfunctioning may put at risk the life and health of persons at large scale and lead to appreciable disruptions in the ordinary conduct of social and economic activities.
Amendment 558 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) AI systems used in education or vocational training, notably for determining access or assigning persons to educational and vocational training institutions or to evaluate persons on tests as part of or as a precondition for their education should be considered high-risk, since they may determine the educational and professional course of a person’s life and therefore affect their ability to secure their livelihood. When improperly designed and used, such systems may violate the right to education and training as well as the right not to be discriminated against and perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination.
Amendment 562 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) AI systems used in employment, workers management and access to self- employment, notably for the recruitment and selection of persons, for making decisions on promotion and termination and for task allocation, monitoring or evaluation of persons in work-related contractual relationships, should also be classified as high-risk, in so far as such use does not correspond to practices prohibited by this Regulation, since those systems may appreciably impact future career prospects and livelihoods of these persons. Relevant work-related contractual relationships should involve employees and persons providing services through platforms as referred to in the Commission Work Programme 2021. Such persons should in principle not be considered users within the meaning of this Regulation. Throughout the recruitment process and in the evaluation, promotion, or retention of persons in work-related contractual relationships, such systems may perpetuate historical patterns oflead to discrimination, for example against women, certain age groups, persons with disabilities, or persons of certain racial or ethnic origins or sexual orientation. AI systems used to monitor the performance and behaviour of these persons may also impact their rights to data protection and privacy.
Amendment 624 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44
Recital 44
(44) High data quality is essential for the performance of many AI systems, especially when techniques involving the training of models are used, with a view to ensure that the high-risk AI system performs as intended and safely and it does not become the source of discrimination prohibited by Union law. High quality training, validation and testing data sets require the implementation of appropriate data governance and management practices. Training, validation and testing data sets should be sufficiently relevant, representative and free of errors and complete in view of the intended purpose of the system. They should also have the appropriate statistical properties, including as regards the persons or groups of persons on which the high-risk AI system is intended to be used. In particular, training, validation and testing data sets should take into account, to the extent required in the light of their intended purpose, the features, characteristics or elements that are particular to the specific geographical, behavioural or functional setting or context within which the AI system is intended to be used. In order to protect the right of others from the discrimination that might result from the bias in AI systems, the providers shouldbe able to process also special categories of personal data, as a matter of substantial public interest, in order to ensure the bias monitoring, detection and correction in relation to high-risk AI systems.
Amendment 632 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 45
Recital 45
(45) For the development of high-risk AI systems, certain actors, such as providers, notified bodies and other relevant entities, such as digital innovation hubs, testing experimentation facilities and researchers, should be able to access and use high quality datasets within their respective fields of activities which are related to this Regulation. European common data spaces established by the Commission, developed and operated by European actors and which do not transfer any data outside the territory or legal jurisdiction of the European Union, and the facilitation of data sharing between businesses and with government in the public interest will be instrumental to provide trustful, accountable and non- discriminatory access to high quality data for the training, validation and testing of AI systems. For example, in health, the European health data space will facilitate non- discriminatory access to health data and the training of artificial intelligence algorithms on those datasets, in a privacy- preserving, secure, timely, transparent and trustworthy manner, and with an appropriate institutional governance. Relevant competent authorities, including sectoral ones, providing or supporting the access to data may also support the provision of high-quality data for the training, validation and testing of AI systems.
Amendment 633 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The technical documentation of a high-risk AI system shall be drawn up before that system is placed on the market or put into service and shall be kept up-to date. It must be drawn up in the language of the system user, in addition to the usual languages allowing it to be read by as many people as possible.
Amendment 642 #
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 can actually oversee their functioning. For this purpose, 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, that it cannot make decisions without approval by the human operator, that it 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 646 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 49
Recital 49
(49) High-risk AI systems should perform consistently throughout their lifecycle and meet an appropriate level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity in accordance with the generally acknowledged state of the art. The level of accuracy and accuracy metrics should be communicated to the userdefined by standards or common technical specifications and communicated to the users. The European Commission should be able to decide on such standards or common technical specifications or to adopt existing ones developed by third parties such as suppliers, stakeholders or standardisation bodies.
Amendment 649 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. High-risk AI systems shall be accompanied by instructions for use in an appropriate digital format or otherwise that include concise, complete, correct and clear information that is relevant, accessible and comprehensible to users and, in particular, that is drawn up in the user’s language.
Amendment 654 #
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, also taking into account as appropriate the underlying ICT infrastructure.
Amendment 655 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 53
Recital 53
(53) It is appropriate that a specific natural or legal person, defined as the provider, takes the responsibility for the placing on the market or putting into service of a high-risk AI system, regardless of whether that natural or legal person is the person who designed or developed the system, without prejudice to the right of a provider to take action against the manufacturer of that system.
Amendment 664 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58
Recital 58
(58) Given the nature of AI systems and the risks to safety and fundamental rights possibly associated with their use, including as regard the need to ensure proper monitoring of the performance of an AI system in a real-life setting, it is appropriate to set specific responsibilities for users. Users should in particular use high-risk AI systems in accordance with the instructions of usefor the purpose for which they were intended and in accordance with the instructions of use, to that end high-risk AI systems should structurally limit, to the greatest extent possible, the technical possibility for a user to use these AI systems in another way, and certain other obligations should be provided for with regard to monitoring of the functioning of the AI systems and with regard to record- keeping, as appropriate.
Amendment 669 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 59
Recital 59
(59) It is appropriate to envisage that the user of the AI system should be the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body under whose authority the AI system is operated except where the use is made in the course of a personal non- professional activity.
Amendment 673 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 61
Recital 61
(61) Standardisation should play a key role to provide technical solutions to providers to ensure compliance with this Regulation. Compliance with harmonised standards as defined, in particular as regards the levels and metrics of accuracy and robustness for high-risk AI systems. The Commission should be able to adopt common technical specifications in areas where no harmonised standards exist or where they are insufficient. The Commission should also be able to adopt standards or common technical specifications developed by third parties such as suppliers, stakeholders or standardisation bodies. Compliance with the common technical specifications adopted by the Commission should be a means for suppliers to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this Regulation. Compliance with other harmonised standards set out in Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council54 should be a means for providers to demonstrate conformity with the requirements of this Regulation. However, the Commission could adopt common technical specifications in areas where no harmonised standards exist or where they are insufficientalso help to demonstrate suppliers’ compliance with the requirements of this Regulation, without having the same probative value as the common technical specifications adopted by the Commission. _________________ 54 Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on European standardisation, amending Council Directives 89/686/EEC and 93/15/EEC and Directives 94/9/EC, 94/25/EC, 95/16/EC, 97/23/EC, 98/34/EC, 2004/22/EC, 2007/23/EC, 2009/23/EC and 2009/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Decision 87/95/EEC and Decision No 1673/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 316, 14.11.2012, p. 12).
Amendment 680 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 63
Recital 63
(63) It is appropriate that, in order to minimise the burden on operators and avoid any possible duplication, for high- risk AI systems related to products which are covered by existing Union harmonisation legislation following the New Legislative Framework approach, the compliance of those AI systems with the requirements of this Regulation should be assessed as part of the conformity assessment already foreseen under that legislation. The applicability of the requirements of this Regulation should thus not affect the specific logic, methodology or general structure of conformity assessment under the relevant specific New Legislative Framework legislation. This approach is fully reflected in the interplay between this Regulation and the [Machinery Regulation]. While safety risks of AI systems ensuring safety functions in machinery are addressed by the requirements of this Regulation, certain specific requirements in the [Machinery Regulation] will ensure the safe integration of the AI system into the overall machinery, so as not to compromise the safety of the machinery as a whole. The [Machinery Regulation] applies the same definition of AI system as this Regulation. However, should this Regulation and another legislative act of the European Union both cover the same product or component of a product and provide diverging definitions or impose different safety requirements, the applicable text shall be the one with the definition or safety requirements offering the best protection for people, Member States, society and fundamental rights.
Amendment 682 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 64
Recital 64
(64) Given the more extensive experience of professional pre-market certifiers in the field of product safety and the different nature of risks involved, it is appropriate to limit, at least in an initial phase of application of this Regulation, the scope of application of third-party conformity assessment for high-risk AI systems other than those related to products. Therefore, the conformity assessment of such systems should be carried out as a general rule by the provider under its own responsibility, with the only exception of AI systems intended to be used for the remote biometric identification of persons, for which the involvement of a notified body in the conformity assessment should be foreseen, to the extent theyallow them to carry out a conformity assessment for AI systems, including high-risk AI systems, as qualified bodies, to the extent that these systems are not prohibited.
Amendment 692 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 66
Recital 66
(66) In line with the commonly established notion of substantial modification for products regulated by Union harmonisation legislation, it is appropriate that an AI system undergoes a new conformity assessment whenever a change occurs which may affect the compliance of the system with this Regulation or when the intended purpose of the system changes. In addition, as regards AI systems which continue to ‘learn’ after being placed on the market or put into service (i.e. they automatically adapt how functions are carried out), it is necessary to provide rules establishing that changes to the algorithm and its performance that constitute substantial modifications are subject to new conformity assessments, including in cases where the substantial modifications have been pre-determined by the provider and assessed at the moment of the initial conformity assessment should not constitute a substantial modification.
Amendment 696 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. Providers of high-risk AI systems shall draw up the technical documentation referred to in Article 11 in accordance with Annex IV. One of the languages used must always by the end user’s language in order to prevent any misunderstandings.
Amendment 715 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 70
Recital 70
(70) Certain AI systems intended to interact with natural persons or to generate content may pose specific risks of impersonation or deception irrespective of whether they qualify as high-risk or not. In certain circumstances, the use of these systems should therefore be subject to specific transparency obligations without prejudice to the requirements and obligations for high-risk AI systems. In particular, natural persons should be notified that they are interacting with an AI system, unless this is obvious from the circumstances and the context of use. Moreover, natural persons should be notified when they are exposed to an emotion recognition system or a biometric categorisation system. Such information and notifications should be provided in accessible formats for persons with disabilities. Further, users, who use an AI systems used to generate or manipulate image, audio or video content that appreciably resembles existing persons, places or events and would falsely appear to a person to be authentic, should disclosesystematically contain an indication on the content generated that the content has been artificially created or manipulated by labelling the artificial intelligence output accordingly and disclosing its artificial origi, and users who use such AI systems or reuse the content generated should not be allowed to remove or conceal that indication.
Amendment 731 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 73
Recital 73
(73) In order to promote and protect innovation, it is important that the interests of small-scale providers and users of AI systems are taken into particular account. To this objective, Member States should develop initiatives, which are targeted at those operators, including on awareness raising and information communication. Moreover, the specific interests and needs of small-scale providers shall be taken into account when Notified Bodies set conformity assessment fees. Translation costs related to mandatory documentation and communication with authorities may constitute a significant cost for providers and other operators, notably those of a smaller scale. Member States should possibly ensure that one of the languages determined and accepted by them for relevant providers’ documentation and for communication with operators is one which is broadly understood by the largest possible number of cross-border users.
Amendment 747 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 78
Recital 78
(78) In order to ensure that providers of high-risk AI systems can take into account the experience on the use of high-risk AI systems for improving their systems and the design and development process or can take any possible corrective action in a timely manner, all providers should have a post-market monitoring system in place. In view of the sensitive nature of high-risk AI systems, this post-market monitoring system should not be able to automatically send data or error reports to the supplier via the AI system. This system is also key to ensure that the possible risks emerging from AI systems which continue to ‘learn’ after being placed on the market or put into service can be more efficiently and timely addressed. In this context, providers should also be required to have a system in place to report to the relevant authorities any serious incidents or any breaches to national and Union law protecting fundamental rights resulting from the use of their AI systems.
Amendment 769 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 85
Recital 85
(85) In order to ensure that the regulatory framework can be adapted where necessary, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission to amend the techniques and approaches referred to in Annex I to define AI systems, the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex II, the high-risk AI systems listed in Annex III, the provisions regarding technical documentation listed in Annex IV, the content of the EU declaration of conformity in Annex V, the provisions regarding the conformity assessment procedures in Annex VI and VII and the provisions establishing the high-risk AI systems to which the conformity assessment procedure based on assessment of the quality management system and assessment of the technical documentation should apply. As the purpose of delegating that power is to allow this Regulation to be adapted to technical advancements, the Commission should only be able to adopt such delegated acts to include non- restrictive additions or clarifications in the lists in those Annexes, whereas deletions, restrictive clarifications or amendments to the definitions of the items in those Annexes should only result from the adoption of amending regulations. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making58. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. _________________ 58 OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1.
Amendment 785 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point a
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) harmonised minimum rules for the development of human-centric AI in the Union through the placing on the market, the putting into service and the use of artificial intelligence systems (‘AI systems’) in the Union;
Amendment 915 #
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 is developed with one or more of the techniques and approaches listed in Annex I and can, for a given set of human-defined objectivesobjectives or parameters subject to human command, generate outputs such as content, predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing the environments they interact with;
Amendment 922 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)
(1a) ‘human-centric AI’ means an approach which strives to ensure that human values are central to the development, deployment, use and monitoring of AI systems, by ensuring respect for fundamental rights, including those set out in the Treaties of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, all of which are united by reference to a common foundation rooted in respect for human dignity, in which every human being enjoys a unique and inalienable moral status, which also entails consideration of the natural environment and of other living beings that are part of the human ecosystem, as well as a sustainable approach enabling the flourishing of future generations;
Amendment 941 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 4
(4) ‘user’ 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 996 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 18 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 18 a (new)
(18a) ‘lifecycle of AI’ means the process of developing, deploying and using an AI system, including the research, design, data supply, training, limited-scale deployment, implementation and withdrawal stages;
Amendment 1006 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 23
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 23
(23) ‘substantial modification’ means a change, including a change based on ‘learning’, to the AI system following its placing on the market or putting into service which affects the compliance of the AI system with the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2 of this Regulation or results in a modification to the intended purpose for which the AI system has been assessed;
Amendment 1011 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 25
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 25
(25) ‘post-market monitoring’ means all activities carried out by providers of AI systems to proactively collect and review experience gained from the use of AI systems they place on the market or put into service for the purpose of identifying any need to immediately apply any necessary corrective or preventive actions, whereby such activities may not consist in the AI system automatically sending data or error reports to the provider;
Amendment 1013 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 28 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 28 a (new)
(28a) ‘sandbox’, in connection with the development of AI systems, means an isolated operating and experimental environment enabling certain actions to be carried out using an AI system while protecting the user from any harm resulting from computer bias, damage or compromise;
Amendment 1034 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 34
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 34
(34) ‘emotion recognition system’ means an AI system for the purpose of identifying or inferring emotions or intentions of natural persons on the basis of their biometric dataor behavioural data or by means of biological or brain implants;
Amendment 1060 #
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, after a unique process, of identifying natural persons at a distance through the comparison of a person’s biometric data with the biometric data contained in a reference database, and without prior knowledge of the user of the AI system whether the person will be present and can be identified ;
Amendment 1066 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 38
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 38
(38) ‘‘post’ remote biometric identification system’ means a remote biometric identification system other than a ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification system, regardless of whether the acquired data is hosted in a separate system prior to the comparison and identification;
Amendment 1070 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 40 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 40 – introductory part
(40) ‘law enforcement authority’ means: any public authority competent for the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security;
Amendment 1071 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 40 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 40 – point a
Amendment 1082 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 – introductory part
(44) ‘serious incident’ means any incident or malfunctioning that directly or indirectly leads, might have led or might lead to any of the following:
Amendment 1087 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 – point a
(a) the death of a person or serious damage to a person’s health or wealth, to property or the environment,
Amendment 1093 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 – point b
(b) a serious and irreversible disruption of the management and operation of critical infrastructure.,
Amendment 1094 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 – point b a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 – point b a (new)
(ba) a breach of obligations under national law or Union law intended to protect fundamental rights.
Amendment 1113 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 b (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 b (new)
(44b) ‘auditability’ means the ability of an AI system to undergo an assessment of the system’s algorithms, data and design processes;
Amendment 1115 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 c (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 c (new)
(44c) ‘reproducibility’ means the ability of an AI system to exhibit the same behaviour when an experiment is repeated under the same conditions;
Amendment 1139 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 73 to amend the list of techniques and approaches listed in Annex I, in order to update that list to market and technological developments by means of additions or non-restrictive precisions on the basis of characteristics that are similar to the techniques and approaches listed therein.
Amendment 1142 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
The techniques and approaches listed in Annex I may only be amended by an amending regulation if the amendment concerns a withdrawal, a restrictive precision or a change in the definition of those techniques and approaches.
Amendment 1161 #
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 that causes or is likely to cause that person or another person physical or psychological harm;
Amendment 1179 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system that exploits any of the vulnerabilities of a person or a specific group of persons due to their, such as age, or physical or mental disability, in order to materially distort the behaviour of a person pertaining to that group in a manner that causes or is likely to cause that person or another person physical or psychological harm;
Amendment 1188 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – introductory part
(c) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of AI systems by public authorities or on their behalf for the evaluation or classification of the trustworthiness of natural persons over a certain period of time based on their social behaviour or known or predicted personal or personality characteristics, with the social score leading to either or both of the following:;
Amendment 1198 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – point i
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – point i
Amendment 1210 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – point ii
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – point ii
Amendment 1224 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system that takes decisions to dispatch or set priorities for dispatching emergency response services on which the lives of those rescued depend;
Amendment 1228 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c d (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c d (new)
(c d) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system that performs genomic, physiological, psychological or behavioural analyses of a natural person for the purpose of profiling that natural person;
Amendment 1229 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c e (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c e (new)
(c e) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system that may affect the cognitive integrity or personality of a natural person, with or without the support of physical implants;
Amendment 1378 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
The competent judicial or administrative authority shall only grant the authorisation where it is satisfied, based on objective evidence or clear indications presented to it, that the use of the ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification system at issue is necessary for and proportionate to achieving one of the objectives specified in paragraph 1, point (d), as identified in the request. In deciding on the request, the competent judicial or administrative authority shall take into account the elements referred to in paragraph 2. It shall grant the authorisation for a limited period and scope. Any renewal or amendment of the authorisation shall be subject to the submission of a new request to the competent judicial or administrative authority.
Amendment 1465 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 73 to update the list set out in Annex III by adding fields of high-risk AI systems where both of the following conditions are fulfilled:they present a risk of harm to health and safety or a risk of a negative impact on fundamental rights which, taking into account its severity and likelihood of occurrence, is equivalent to or higher than the risk of harm or negative impact of high-risk AI systems already listed in Annex III.
Amendment 1471 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 1477 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 1487 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. When assessing an AI system for the purposes of paragraph 1 whether an AI system poses a risk of harm to the health 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 1546 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. When assessing an AI system for the purposes of paragraph 1, the Commission shall consult, where appropriate, national and European authorities and bodies, representatives of the groups concerned by that system, industry professionals, independent experts and civil society organisations. The Commission shall organise public consultations in this regard.
Amendment 1551 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 b (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. The Commission shall publish a detailed report on the assessment referred to in paragraph 2.
Amendment 1552 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 c (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 2 c (new)
Amendment 1589 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
(aa) identification of the risks, damage and harm actually caused by the high-risk AI system in the past, whether these are the result of use of the high-risk AI system for its intended purpose or of another use;
Amendment 1599 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
(ca) sandbox experimentation on the functioning of the AI systems;
Amendment 1604 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 3
3. The risk management measures referred to in paragraph 2, point (d) shall give due consideration to the effects and possible interactions resulting from the combined application of the requirements set out in this Chapter 2. They shall take into account the generally acknowledged state of the art, including as reflected in the common technical specifications adopted by the Commission or in relevant harmonised standards or common specifications.
Amendment 1608 #
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 any residual risk associated with each hazard, as well as the overall residual risk of the high-risk AI systems is judged acceptable, provided that the high- risk AI system is used in accordance with its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse. Those residual risks shall be communicated to the user., is:
Amendment 1636 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point a (new)
(a) technically and structurally minimised by the high-risk AI system;
Amendment 1637 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point b (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point b (new)
(b) deemed acceptable, provided that the high-risk AI system is used for its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse.
Amendment 1638 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Those residual risks shall be communicated to the user.
Amendment 1646 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 6
Article 9 – paragraph 6
6. Testing procedures shall be suitable to achieve the intended purpose of the AI system and do not need to go beyond what is necessary to achieve that purpose.
Amendment 1649 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 (new)
They shall test:
Amendment 1650 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – point a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – point a (new)
(a) the ability of the high-risk AI system to generate an accurate and robust result;
Amendment 1651 #
2021/0106(COD)
(b) the trustworthiness of the high- risk AI system and its ability to actually generate a result such as that expected in accordance with its intended purpose;
Amendment 1652 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – point c (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – point c (new)
(c) the structural and technical capacity of the high-risk AI system to ensure it cannot be used for purposes other than its intended purpose.
Amendment 1654 #
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 thresholds that are preliminarily defined according to common standards or technical specifications and appropriate to the intended purpose of the high-risk AI system.
Amendment 1687 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) the relevant design choices, including the extent to which the functioning of the algorithms can be audited and reproduced;
Amendment 1734 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Amendment 1741 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. The dissemination of data by an AI system to other AI systems, whether or not they are of the same origin and whether or not they are installed on the same medium, shall be checked by the provider and may be retracted if necessary.
Amendment 1763 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Article 11 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 73 to amenddd to Annex IV where necessary to ensure that, in the light of technical progress, the technical documentation provides all the necessary information to assess the compliance of the system with the requirements set out in this Chapter.
Amendment 1765 #
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 isare operating. Those logging capabilities shall conform to recognised standards or common specifications. Where possible, these capabilities shall be local ones and the logs shall be stored on the medium employed by the user of the AI system.
Amendment 1800 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point b – point ii
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point b – point ii
(ii) the level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity referred to in Article 15 against which the high-risk AI system has been tested and validated before being placed on the market and which can be expected, and any known and foreseeable circumstances that may have an impact on that expected level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity;
Amendment 1815 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. Human oversight shall aim at preventing or minimising the risks to health, safety or fundamental rights that may emerge when a high-risk AI system is used in accordance with its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse, in particular when such risksprovided that those risks, if they persist notwithstanding the application of other requirements set out in this Chapter, do not result in a requirement for the high-risk AI system to be recalled or withdrawn.
Amendment 1864 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
It shall be possible for the user, the provider, the national competent authority or authorities and the Commission, as appropriate, to audit and reproduce the functioning of the high-risk AI systems.
Amendment 1892 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) ensure that the high-risk AI system undergoes the relevant conformity assessment procedure, prior to its placing on the market or putting into service, and ensure it is periodically reviewed;
Amendment 1898 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point g
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) take the necessary corrective actions, if the high-risk AI system is not in conformity with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, before the high- risk AI system concerned is placed on the market, made available on the market or put into service, or before a high-risk AI system that has been withdrawn or recalled is placed on the market, made available on the market or put into service once again;
Amendment 1951 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Article 19 – paragraph 1
1. Providers of high-risk AI systems shall ensure that their systems undergo the relevant conformity assessment procedure in accordance with Article 43, prior to their placingbefore they are placed on the market, made available on the market or putting into service. Where the compliance of the AI systems with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title has been demonstrated following that conformity assessment, the providers shall draw up an EU declaration of conformity in accordance with Article 48 and affix the CE marking of conformity in accordance with Article 49.
Amendment 1961 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1
Article 21 – paragraph 1
Providers of high-risk AI systems which consider or have reason to consider that a high-risk AI system which they have placed on the market or put into service is not in conformity with this Regulation shall immediately take the necessary corrective actions to bring that system into conformitywithdraw or recall the system, as appropriate, tso withdraw it or to recall it, as appropriateas to bring it into conformity. They shall inform the distributors of the high-risk AI system in question and, where applicable, the authorised representative and importers accordingly.
Amendment 1983 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 25 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. As of the time they are appointed, authorised representatives must be able to correspond, exchange technical information and carry out the duties required of them under this Regulation with the national authorities and in the official languages of all the Member States.
Amendment 1985 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 25 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) keep a copy of the EU declaration of conformity and the technical documentation at the disposal of the national competent authorities and national authoritiescarry out or commission the conformity assessment referred to in Article 63(7)43;
Amendment 1987 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 25 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) provide a national competent authority, upon a reasoned request, with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of a high-risk AI system wikeep a copy of the EU declaration of conformity and the the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, including access to the logs automatically generated by the high-risk AI system to the extent such logs are under the control of the provider by virtue of a contractual arrangement with the user or otherwise by lawechnical documentation at the disposal of the national competent authorities and national authorities referred to in Article 63(7);
Amendment 1990 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 25 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) cooperate withprovide a national competent national authoritiesy, upon a reasoned request, on any action the latter takes in relation to the high-risk AI system.with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of a high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, including access to the logs automatically generated by the high-risk AI system to the extent such logs are under the control of the provider by virtue of a contractual arrangement with the user or otherwise by law;
Amendment 1994 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
Article 25 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
(ca) cooperate with competent national authorities, upon a reasoned request, on any action the latter takes in relation to the high-risk AI system.
Amendment 1997 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the appropriate conformity assessment procedure has been carried out by the provider of that AI system following its import and prior to its deployment;
Amendment 2007 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 5
Article 26 – paragraph 5
5. Importers shall provide national competent authorities, upon a reasoned request, with all necessary information and documentation to demonstrate the conformity of a high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title in a language which can be easily understood byn official language of that national competent authority, including access to the logs automatically generated by the high-risk AI system to the extent such logs are under the control of the provider by virtue of a contractual arrangement with the user or otherwise by law. They shall also cooperate with those authorities on any action national competent authority takes in relation to that system.
Amendment 2016 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 4
Article 27 – paragraph 4
4. A distributor that considers or has reason to consider that a high-risk AI system which it has made available on the market is not in conformity with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title shall take the corrective actions necessary to bring that systemto withdraw or recall that system in order to bring it into conformity with those requirements, to withdraw it or recall it or shall ensure that the provider, the importer or any relevant operator, as appropriate, takes those corrective actions. Where the high- risk AI system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 65(1), the distributor shall immediately inform the national competent authorities of the Member States in which it has made the product available to that effect, giving details, in particular, of the non-compliance and of any corrective actions taken.
Amendment 2029 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) they have placed on the market or put into service a high-risk AI system which they have substantially modified by their own means;
Amendment 2091 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 8
Article 30 – paragraph 8
8. Notifying authorities shall make sure that conformity assessments are carried out in a proportionate manner, avoiding unnecessary burdens for providers and that notified bodies perform their activities taking due account of the size of an undertaking, the sector in which it operates, its structure and the degree of complexity of and risk posed by the AI system in question.
Amendment 2099 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 4
Article 32 – paragraph 4
4. The conformity assessment body concerned may begin to perform the activities of a notified body only where no objections are raised by the Commission or the other Member States within one month of a notification.
Amendment 2106 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 7
Article 33 – paragraph 7
7. Notified bodies shall have procedures for the performance of activities which take due account of the size of an undertaking, the sector in which it operates, its structure, and the degree of complexity of and risk posed by the AI system in question.
Amendment 2108 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 3
Article 34 – paragraph 3
3. Activities may be subcontracted or carried out by a subsidiary only with the agreement of the provider and the notifying authority.
Amendment 2114 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 4
Article 37 – paragraph 4
4. Where the Commission ascertains that a notified body does not meet or no longer meets the requirements laid down in Article 33, it shall adopt a reasoned decision requesting the notifying Member State to take the necessary corrective measures, including withdrawal of notification if necessary. That implementing acrequest shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 74(2).
Amendment 2117 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39
Article 39
Amendment 2123 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1
Article 40 – paragraph 1
High-risk AI systems which arshall be in conformity with harmonised standards or parts thereof the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union shall be presumed to be in conformity with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, to the extent those standards cover those requirements.
Amendment 2145 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 3
Article 41 – paragraph 3
Amendment 2147 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 4
Article 41 – paragraph 4
Amendment 2158 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. For high-risk AI systems listed in point 1 of Annex III, where, in demonstrating the compliance of a high- risk AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, the provider has applied harmonised standards referred to in Article 40, or, where applicable, common specifications referred to in Article 41, the provider shall follow one of the following procedures:the conformity assessment procedure based on assessment of the quality management system and assessment of the technical documentation, with the involvement of a notified body, referred to in Annex VII.
Amendment 2162 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 2167 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 2184 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 2
Article 43 – paragraph 2
2. For high-risk AI systems referred to in points 2 to 8 of Annex III, providers shall follow the conformity assessment procedure based on internal control as referred to in Annex VI, which does not provide forassessment of the quality management system and assessment of the technical documentation, with the involvement of a notified body, referred to in Annex VII. For high-risk AI systems referred to in point 5(b) of Annex III, placed on the market or put into service by credit institutions regulated by Directive 2013/36/EU, the conformity assessment shall be carried out as part of the procedure referred to in Articles 97 to101 of that Directive.
Amendment 2187 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 43 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. High-risk AI systems shall periodically be subject to a conformity assessment review procedure.
Amendment 2195 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 43 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
For high-risk AI systems that continue to learn after being placed on the market or put into service, changes to the high-risk AI system and its performance tshatll constitute a substantial modification, including if they have been pre-determined by the provider at the moment of the initial conformity assessment and are part of the information contained in the technical documentation referred to in point 2(f) of Annex IV, shall not constitute a substantial modification.
Amendment 2202 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 5
Article 43 – paragraph 5
5. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 73 for the purpose of updating Annexes VI and Annex VII in order to introduce elements of the conformity assessment procedures that become necessary in light of technical progress.
Amendment 2203 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 6
Article 43 – paragraph 6
Amendment 2209 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 1
Article 44 – paragraph 1
1. Certificates issued by notified bodies in accordance with Annex VII shall be drawn-up in anthe official Union language determined byof the Member State in which the notified body is established or in an official Union language otherwise acceptable to the notified body.
Amendment 2211 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 46 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Each notified body shall inform the other notified bodies and the notifying authority of:
Amendment 2231 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 1
Article 49 – paragraph 1
1. The CE marking shall be affixed visibly, legibly and indelibly for high-risk AI systems before they are placed on the market, made available on the market or put into service. Where that is not possible or not warranted on account of the nature of the high-risk AI system, it shall be affixed to the packaging or to the accompanying documentation, as appropriate.
Amendment 2354 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Article 54 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) natural persons whose personal data are used for the development and testing of certain innovative AI systems in the sandbox shall be informed of the collection and use of their data and shall have given their consent thereto;
Amendment 2433 #
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 and the national data protection bodies. Other national authorities may be invited to the meetings, where the issues discussed are of relevance for them.
Amendment 2446 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 2
Article 57 – paragraph 2
2. The Board shall adopt its rules of procedure by a simpletwo-thirds majority of its members, following the consent of the Commission. The rules of procedure shall also contain the operational aspects related to the execution of the Board’s tasks as listed in Article 58. The Board may establish sub-groups as appropriate for the purpose of examining specific questions.
Amendment 2452 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 3
Article 57 – paragraph 3
3. The Board shall be chaired by the Commission. The Commissionnational supervisory authority of the Member State holding the Presidency of the Council of the European Union. The latter 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 2567 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 3
Article 59 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall inform the Commission of their designation or designations and, where applicable, the reasons for designating more than one authority.
Amendment 2579 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 5
Article 59 – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall report to the Commission on an annual basis on the status of the financial and human resources of the national competent authorities with an assessment of their adequacy. The Commission shall transmit that information to the Board for discussion and possible recommendations.
Amendment 2645 #
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 or collected through other sources, not including the automated transmission of data, 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 2647 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 3
Article 61 – paragraph 3
3. The post-market monitoring system shall be based on a post-market monitoring plan. The post-market monitoring plan shall be part of the technical documentation referred to in Annex IV. The Commission shall adopt an implementing act laying down detailed provisions establishing a template for the post-market monitoring plan and the list of elements to be included in the plan. These provisions shall not provide for the automated and systematic transmission of data.
Amendment 2659 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 62 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 62 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Such notification shall be made immediately after the provider has established a causal link between the AI system and the incident or malfunctioning or the reasonable likelihood of such a link, and, in any event, not later than 15 day72 hours after the providers becomes aware of the serious incident or of the malfunctioning.
Amendment 2718 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 65 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Where, in the course of that evaluation, the market surveillance authority finds that the AI system does not comply with the requirements and obligations laid down in this Regulation, it shall without delay require the relevant operator to take all appropriate corrective actions to bring the AI system into compliancwithin a reasonable period, commensurate with the nature of the risk, and which it may prescribe, to withdraw the AI system from the market, or to recall it within a reasonable period, commensurate with the nature of the risk, as it may prescribto bring it into compliance.
Amendment 2732 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 7
Article 65 – paragraph 7
7. The market surveillance authorities of the Member States other than the market surveillance authority of the Member State initiating the procedure shall without delay inform the Commission and the other Member States of any measures adopted and of any additional information at their disposal relating to the non-compliance of the AI system concerned, and, in the event of disagreement with the notified national measure, of their objections.
Amendment 2734 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 8
Article 65 – paragraph 8
Amendment 2738 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 66
Article 66
Amendment 2757 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 67 – paragraph 4
Article 67 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall without delay enter into consultation with the Member States and the relevant operator and shall evaluate the national measures taken. On the basis of the results of that evaluation, the Commission shall decide whether the measure is justified or not and, where necessary, propose appropriate measures.
Amendment 2767 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 2
Article 68 – paragraph 2
2. Where the non-compliance referred to in paragraph 1 persists for longer than one week following receipt of the relevant notice, the Member State concerned shall take all appropriate measures to restrict or prohibit the high- risk AI system being made available on the market or ensure that it is recalled or withdrawn from the market. , imposing, where necessary, the penalties laid down in national law.
Amendment 2789 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 69 – paragraph 2
Article 69 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission and the Board shall encourage and facilitate the drawing up of codes of conduct intended to foster the voluntary application to AI systems of requirements related for example to environmental sustainability, accessibility for persons with a disability, and stakeholders’ participation in the design and development of the AI systems and diversity of development teams on the basis of clear objectives and key performance indicators to measure the achievement of those objectives.
Amendment 2814 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 1
Article 71 – paragraph 1
Amendment 2834 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 71 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The following infringements shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 31 000 000 000 EUR or, if the offender is a company, up to 610 % of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher:
Amendment 2897 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 72 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The following infringements shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 530 000 000 EUR:
Amendment 2907 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 3
Article 72 – paragraph 3
3. The non-compliance of the AI system with any requirements or obligations under this Regulation, other than those laid down in Articles 5 and 10, shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 250 000 000 EUR.
Amendment 2944 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 83 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 83 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. This Regulation shall not apply to the AI systems which are components of the large-scale IT systems established by the legal acts listed in Annex IX that have been placed on the market or put into service before [12 months after the date of application of this Regulation referred to in Article 85(2)], unless the replacement or amendment of those legal acts leads to a significant change in the design or intended purpose of the AI system or AI systems concerned.
Amendment 2958 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 83 – paragraph 2
Article 83 – paragraph 2
2. This Regulation shall apply to the high-risk AI systems, other than the ones referred to in paragraph 1, that have been placed on the market or put into service before [date of application of this Regulation referred to in Article 85(2)], only if, from that date, those systems are subject to significant changes in their design or intended purpose.
Amendment 3026 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point c a (new)
Annex I – point c a (new)
(c a) Approaches based on neural network imitation and neuro-robotic networks;
Amendment 3027 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point c b (new)
Annex I – point c b (new)
(c b) Machine learning tasks on graphs for repetition tasks or pattern recognition;
Amendment 3028 #
2021/0106(COD)
(c c) Natural language programming techniques, including emotion detection and recognition systems, using interactions between human language and computer language;
Amendment 3029 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point c d (new)
Annex I – point c d (new)
(c d) Artificial vision for pattern recognition, including graphical analysis or digital signature identification;
Amendment 3030 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point c e (new)
Annex I – point c e (new)
(c e) Interactive systems related to mechatronics, robotics and automation systems.
Amendment 3036 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – Part A – point 12 a (new)
Annex II – Part A – point 12 a (new)
12a. [REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC]
Amendment 3037 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – Part A – point 12 b (new)
Annex II – Part A – point 12 b (new)
12b. [REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector (Digital Markets Act)].
Amendment 3061 #
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 systems intended to be used for the ‘real-time’ and ‘post’ remote biometric identification of natural persons, within the strict limits of the exemption from the general prohibition on their use laid down in Article 5;
Amendment 3070 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a a (new)
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a a (new)
(a a) AI systems intended to be used by autonomous devices, drones or vehicles to transport or collect natural persons;
Amendment 3141 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point c
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point c
(c) AI systems intended to be used, without taking any decisions on the matter, to dispatch, or to establish priority in the dispatching of emergency first response services, including by firefighters and medical aid.
Amendment 3148 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point a
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point a
Amendment 3156 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b
Amendment 3173 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point e
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point e
Amendment 3180 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point f
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point f
Amendment 3228 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 8
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 8
Amendment 3283 #
2021/0106(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex VI
Annex VI
Amendment 37 #
2020/2262(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Stresses that the Commission should only propose EU legislation if there is a clear legal basis and only if the proposal comes within its remit; points out that, in future, the Commission should refrain from issuing non-binding recommendations and communications in the absence of an appropriate legal basis;
Amendment 60 #
2020/2262(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses that national parliaments should be involved as early as possible in the legislative process, preferably immediately after publication of the roadmap and during the consultation phase; considers that there should also be greater focus on subsidiarity before a new legal act is tabled and that, in particular, the consultation phase should be used to proactively gather the views of national parliaments and to register their concerns, since that might avoid use of the 'yellow card' and avoid problems during the negotiation phase;
Amendment 100 #
2020/2262(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Points out that to date the 'yellow card' procedure has been triggered only three times; stresses that the thresholds under the current legal framework are too high; proposes therefore that the threshold for a 'yellow card' be reduced from one third to a quarter and that the threshold for an 'orange card' be reduced from a simple majority to one third;
Amendment 19 #
2020/2255(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 39
Citation 39
Amendment 20 #
2020/2255(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 44
Citation 44
Amendment 56 #
2020/2255(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that, in order to face demographic challenges, the Union needsMember States should mobilise theird-country worker citizens of all skill levels to increase its economic competitiveness and itswith regard to China, India and the US and should not keep on telling the fairy tale of global influence as the champion of democracy, inclusion, human rights, free trade in goods and services and the rule of law, and as the leader in the fight against climate change;
Amendment 68 #
2020/2255(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Requests that the Commission submit, by 31 January 2022respect their competence, on the basis of Article 79(2), in particular points (a) and (b5), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a proposal for an act that would serve as a package of proposals to facilitate and promote entry into and mobility within the Union for legally migratingwhich states that Member States are to "determine volumes of admission of third- country nationals applying for work and to reduce bureaucracy and promote equal treatment, following the recommendations set out in the Annex heretocoming from third countries to their territory in order to seek work, whether employed or self- employed";
Amendment 95 #
2020/2255(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WelcomOpposes Directive (EU) 2021/...15 , butand considers it insufficient due to the fact that the labour markets of the Union are also in need of low- and medium- skilled workers; calls, therefore, on the Commission to include in its proposal an admission scheme for low- and medium- skilled third-country workers, including the creation of a framework for the validation and recognition of their skills and qualifications, based on objective and uniform criterias expansion in this proposal to include low- and medium- skilled workers, harmful to the labour markets of the Union; _________________ 15EUT number of 2016/0176 COD to be inserted.
Amendment 119 #
2020/2255(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Notes that many Member States which have received large numbers of migrants, especially since 2015, have experienced increases in crime, higher social costs, lack of social integration and not the optimistic view of integrated productive new Union citizens;
Amendment 160 #
2020/2255(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 16 #
2020/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to carefully review the policies they enacted during the COVID-19 crisis and to define new mechanisms and protocols for any future emergency spending in order to increase the level of transparency of public spending;
Amendment 29 #
2020/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the criticalNotes the role of civil society organisations in fighting corruption; emphasises that the success of any emergency response greatly depends on the active participation of all actors in societyaccuracy of transparency processes; believes that the current COVID- 19 crisis has highlighted the importance of maintaining a robust system of citizen participation in public decision-making;
Amendment 39 #
2020/2222(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Member States to follow the recommendations of the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) and welcomes the possibility of the EU joining GRECO as a full member.
Amendment 3 #
2020/2221(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Stresses that organised crime is involved in increasingly sophisticated fraudulent activities, such as cybercrime, which deprive the legal economy of considerable resources, particularly at difficult times like the present; points out that cybercrime costs the EU Member States EUR 265 billion per year1a and has a devastating impact on each EU Member State. _________________ 1a https://www.thehaguesecuritydelta.com/pa rtners/partner/137-europol
Amendment 7 #
2020/2221(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Points out that there are at least 20 million cases of petty corruption in the Union public sector and that, clearly, this spills over into the Member State public authorities responsible for managing EU funds and other financial interests;
Amendment 8 #
2020/2221(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Highlights that organised criminal groups take advantage of the different laws in individual Member States, and that the development of a harmonised anti-fraud approach at EU level is complicated by differing definitions of organised crime; reiterates therefore its previous calls for the revision of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008, and the need to establish a common definition of organised crime, which should also take into account the use of violence, corruption or intimidation by criminal groups to obtain control of economic activities or public procurement, or to influence democratic processese importance of cooperation among the different judicial systems in the Member States in making the fight against organised crime more effective;
Amendment 17 #
2020/2221(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 29 #
2020/2221(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that fraud prevention and the fight against fraud by organised crime should be a priority focus of managing, certifying and audit authorities, as well as being the subject of specialised financial investigations; believes that the fight against organised criminal groups also requires enhanced rules and measures regarding the freezing and confiscation of assets; calls on the Member States to build upon their administrative, judicial and police cooperation in order to trace criminal assets across the EU, so they can be seized and confiscated;
Amendment 6 #
2020/2217(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission communication entitled ‘A European strategy for data’; stresses that the creation of a single European data space is key to ensuring the EU’s global competitiveness, digital sovereignty and economic prosperity of the EU and its Member States;
Amendment 6 #
2020/2217(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission communication entitled ‘A European strategy for data’; stresses that the creation of a single European data space is key to ensuring the EU’s global competitiveness, digital sovereignty and economic prosperity of the EU and its Member States;
Amendment 14 #
2020/2217(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the EU approach to digitisation should be human-centred, value-oriented and based on the concept of the social market economy; underlines that choosing a thirdsuch a humanist path to digitisation should not mean that the EU becomes protectionistinward-looking; stresses, therefore, that every non-EU player should still be welcome to operate in the single European data space as long as they meet the EU’s ethical, technological, privacy and security standards;
Amendment 14 #
2020/2217(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the EU approach to digitisation should be human-centred, value-oriented and based on the concept of the social market economy; underlines that choosing a thirdsuch a humanist path to digitisation should not mean that the EU becomes protectionistinward-looking; stresses, therefore, that every non-EU player should still be welcome to operate in the single European data space as long as they meet the EU’s ethical, technological, privacy and security standards;
Amendment 48 #
2020/2217(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 48 #
2020/2217(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 91 #
2020/2217(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses that the implementation of the European Data Strategy must strike a balance between promoting the wider use and sharing of data and protecting intellectual property rights (IPR), privacy and trade secrets, with due regard for privacy;
Amendment 91 #
2020/2217(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses that the implementation of the European Data Strategy must strike a balance between promoting the wider use and sharing of data and protecting intellectual property rights (IPR), privacy and trade secrets, with due regard for privacy;
Amendment 103 #
2020/2217(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Commission to assess to what extent the application of foreign jurisdictions’ legislation, such as the US CLOUD Act, might leads to legal uncertainty and disadvantages for Union residents and businesses and whether anyto propose the remedial action is needed in this regard.
Amendment 103 #
2020/2217(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Commission to assess to what extent the application of foreign jurisdictions’ legislation, such as the US CLOUD Act, might leads to legal uncertainty and disadvantages for Union residents and businesses and whether anyto propose the remedial action is needed in this regard.
Amendment 9 #
2020/2196(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 10
Citation 10
Amendment 32 #
2020/2196(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. ConsiderNotes that in the very concept of Schengen cooperation, that of ensuring the absence of controls at internal borders, has been further challenged by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been added to the grounds invoked since 2015 for the persistent retention of internal border controls by some Member States; reiterates its condemnation of the maintenance of internal border checks and its view that many of the prolongations are not in line with the rules pertaining to their extension, necessity or proportionality, and arebeginning of the pandemic, rather than recommending the reintroduction of internal border checks by Member States, the Commission has deplored such measures of, and sought to delay restrictions at the external borders of the Schengen area until there were already thousands of confirmed cases on EU therefore unlawfulritory;
Amendment 40 #
2020/2196(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes that at the beginning of 2020, just before the pandemic emergency, illegal immigration flows were increasing considerably compared to the same period last year, thereby significantly increasing the health risk within the EU; whereas despite the commonly agreed decision to completely close the external borders of the Schengen area, some Member States have scaled back their efforts to tackle illegal immigration, even carrying out mass regularisations; According to Europol, a ‘loosening of travel and movement restrictions is likely to result in an increasing movement of irregular migrants’, thereby putting the management of the EU’s external borders under pressure;
Amendment 49 #
2020/2196(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Deplores the fact that internal border controlRecalls that Member States are continuing to be introduced by some Member States as a unilateral response to new challenges, before they have given proper consideration to the common European interest in maintaining Schengen as an area without internal border controls; reiterates its call on the Commission to exercise appropriate scrutiny over the application of the Schengen acquis, including through the use of infringement procedures, and underlines the urgent need to enhance mutual trust and cooperation among the Schengen states and appropriate governance for the Schengen areatain sovereignty over border management; recognises, at the same time, that urgent measures are needed to resume national, European and international travel in order to revive the tourism industry;
Amendment 72 #
2020/2196(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 89 #
2020/2196(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Deeply regrets the fact that there have been persistent and serious reports about violence and pushbacks at the external border, as well as the lack of adequate monitoring mechanisms to ensure respect for fundamental rights and the rule of law at the external borders; considers that the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) must be given an enhanced operational role with regard to the monitoring of respect for fundamental rights at the external borderReiterates that an efficient external border management system is closely linked to strict external border control and swift return procedures for illegal third country nationals; Stresses the need for external borders to be managed rigorously as any weaknesses may result in the loss of control over basic public safety management, including health threats;
Amendment 149 #
2020/2196(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Considers that the Commission and the Council have seriously neglected their obligations following the detection of serious deficiencies in the UK’s use of the Schengen Information System during the 2017 evaluation; reminds all actors of its request to immediately disconnectUK, like any non-Schengen country, had no direct access to the Schengen Information System, but limited access; it lost this latter with Brexit, creating risks for all parties because the UK, as expressed in the letters to the Commission and to the Council Presidency of 15 June 2020; recalls its position that ‘as a thirdlso provided a lot of relevant information to its partners; it is therefore in the interest of all parties to country, the UK cannot have access to SIS’inue to cooperate;
Amendment 10 #
2020/2172(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that a number of projects had to be deprioritised in the revised Annual Work Programme for 2019 due to budgetary constraints and that due to the Commission’s request to reduce the staffing levels for Contract Agents (CAs) Europol deferred the recruitment of all CA vacancies in 2019, emphasises that while these reductions should satisfy the principle of financial prudence in spending taxpayer's money, they should not hamper Europol's operations aimed at ensuring the safety of Union citizens;
Amendment 19 #
2020/2172(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Regrets to note again the Court’s finding that there were weaknesses in contract management and ex ante controls linked that the Europol irregularly prolonged the duration of a framework contract for the provision of business travel services by signing an amendment after the contract had expired; notes that this resulted in irregular payment of EUR 32 531 in 2019., emphasises that such irregularities should not happen in the future;
Amendment 3 #
2020/2158(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Deplores the fact that Eurojust was faced with a decrease in its budget from EUR 47 to 44 million (-6.38%) and a slight increase in staff from 238 to 239 (+0.4%) despite a 17% increase in workload compared to 2018; reminds that the workload is expected to increase further due to the new mandate which entered into force in 20191 ; further recalls that the number of coordination centres held in 2019 increased from 17 to 20 (+19%), demonstrating the popularity and utility of this operational tool; stresses the essential role that Eurojust plays in the Union security chain andin fighting serious organised cross-border crime and, therefore, maintains that its budget should match its tasks and priorities in order to enable it to fulfil its mandate; _________________ 1Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), and replacing and repealing Council Decision 2002/187/JHA https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018 R1727
Amendment 7 #
2020/2152(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the fact that the Court of Auditors (‘the Court’) has declared the transactions underlying the annual accounts of the Agency for the financial year 2019 to be legal and regular in all material respects and that its financial position on 31 December 2019 is fairly presented; deploreaccepts the fact that the budget of the Agency of EUR 30 million decreased in 2019 to EUR 29 million and notes the slight staff increase from 110 to 114 in 2019;
Amendment 6 #
2020/2133(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that within the EU institutions different legislative measures aimed at preventing conflicts of interest contain varying definitions of the term ‘conflict of interest’; believes therefore that the term should be understood to mean a conflict between the public duty and private interests of a public official or a public decision-maker, in which the public official or public decision-maker has private- capacity interests which could improperly influence the performance of their official duties and responsibilities; notes, however, that a definition of this kind has an evolving nature and that full transparency does not necessarily guarantee the absence of any conflict of interest, nor does it guarantee public trust;
Amendment 44 #
2020/2133(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that for proper expertise to be acquired, the future ethics body should be given broad investigative powers and have a permanent, independent and collegiate structure, and that its composition could be based either on specific institutional positions, such as that of the President of the Court of Justice, or on the nomination of experts by each EU institution;
Amendment 70 #
2020/2133(INI)
8a. Stresses, in particular, that this body should examine possible conflicts of interest of Commissioners throughout, and at the end of, their term of office;
Amendment 8 #
2020/2132(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that the Commission’s right of legislative initiative, as set out in the Treaties, has been neither constructive nor productive in recent years, with a decrease in the Commission’s output over the past decade and Commission Presidents not assuming their political responsibilities; strongly recommends therefore that the Committee on Constitutional Affairs further exploit Parliament’s powers assigned by the Treaties and consider a Treaty revision to give Parliament a direct right of legislative initiativeand that the Commission has no democratic legitimacy to exercise such a political role; strongly recommends therefore that the Committee on Constitutional Affairs consider a Treaty revision to remove from the Commission its right of legislative initiative and transfer it to the Council and Parliament;
Amendment 11 #
2020/2132(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the European Council has a de-facto right of initiative within the area of freedom, security and justice in accordance with Article 68 TFEU, which does not reflect a level playing field between Parliament and Council; underlines moreover the early influence by the Member States via their participation in numerous Commission advisory bodies;
Amendment 12 #
2020/2132(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that the Council and Parliament should have an enhanced direct right of legislative initiative, as it directly represents the European people and not just national interests, which need to be counter-balanced; deplores therefore that this possibility has beenthe former because it represents the States and the latter because it is the regsularly deferred to a future Treaty revisiont of universal suffrage;
Amendment 19 #
2020/2132(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Deeply regrets that only one-third of Parliament’s legislative and non- legislative initiative procedures can be considered successful and that most legislative initiative (INL) reports adopted since 2011 did not result in a positive reply from the Commission1; regrets also that, to date, the three-month deadline for the Commission to react to a parliamentary resolution, as laid down in paragraph 16 of the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission (‘2010 FA’)2, and the one-year deadline for the Commission to come forward with a legislative proposal in response to a legislative initiative report have consistently not been respected; concludes from this that the current system is in need of fundamental change; _________________ 1Study ‘The European Parliament’s right of initiative’, Andreas Maurer, University of Innsbruck, Jean Monnet Chair for European Integration Studies and Michael C. Wolf, University of Innsbruck, July 2020, pages 55 and 57. 2 OJ L 304, 20.11.2010, p. 47.
Amendment 21 #
2020/2132(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 28 #
2020/2132(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 30 #
2020/2132(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 48 #
2020/2073(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas it is necessary to prevent all live broadcasts from becoming subject to payment, and thus to call on the Member States to maintain or introduce free live broadcasts of major sporting events, in particular national team matches, so as to allow free access to all individuals regardless of their financial resources;
Amendment 127 #
2020/2073(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Calls on the Member States to maintain or introduce free live broadcasts of major sporting events, in particular national team matches, so as to allow free access to all individuals regardless of their financial resources; calls on the Commission to support their efforts in this respect;
Amendment 8 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 10
Citation 10
Amendment 13 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11
Citation 11
Amendment 14 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 12
Citation 12
Amendment 15 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 13
Citation 13
Amendment 16 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 14
Citation 14
Amendment 17 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 15
Citation 15
Amendment 18 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 16
Citation 16
Amendment 19 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 17
Citation 17
Amendment 20 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 18
Citation 18
Amendment 21 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 19
Citation 19
Amendment 22 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 20
Citation 20
Amendment 23 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 21
Citation 21
Amendment 25 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 22
Citation 22
Amendment 27 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 23
Citation 23
Amendment 30 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 24
Citation 24
Amendment 34 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 25
Citation 25
Amendment 35 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 26
Citation 26
Amendment 39 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 27
Citation 27
Amendment 40 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 28
Citation 28
Amendment 41 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 29
Citation 29
Amendment 47 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30
Citation 30
Amendment 48 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 31
Citation 31
Amendment 49 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 34
Citation 34
Amendment 55 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU); whereas those values are values which are common to the Member States and to which all Member States have freely subscribed;
Amendment 64 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 81 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas breaches of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU may weaken the cohesion of the EuropeaUnion project, the rights of all Union citizens and mutual trust among the Member States;
Amendment 85 #
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 Plahas shown a tendency to instrumentalise the principle of the rule of law in an obviously politically driven fashion;
Amendment 90 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas a regulation on the protection of the Union’s budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States, once adopted, would become an indispensable tool in saf would raise serious concerns about the political use of such tools towards Member States which are not aligned with the Commission's political vision, particularly reguarding the rule of law within the Unionmigration strategies;
Amendment 94 #
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 local authorities;
Amendment 103 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas many so-called civil society organisations allegedly dedicated to the protection and promotion of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are actually ultimately pursuing political goals and therefore should not be considered as legitimate and independent stakeholders and should not be eligible for Union funds; whereas the activities of those organisations can often be described as foreign political interference;
Amendment 107 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas Parliament, the Commission and the Council share political responsibility for upholding Union values, within the limits of the powers conferred on them by the Treaties; whereas an interinstitutional agreement based on Article 295 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) would ensure the necessary arrangements to facilitate the cooperation of the three institutions in that regard; whereas, pursuant to Article 295 TFEU, any of the three institutions may propose such an agreement;
Amendment 112 #
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 reinforcingrecalls that democracy, and 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 worldre core components of the European civilization; stresses that these concepts are protean and can have different yet legitimate acceptations;
Amendment 119 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. regrets the growing and concerning use of the procedure provided for in Article 7 TEU for political and ideological purposes;
Amendment 122 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. warns that the Union isMember States are facing an unprecedented and escalating crisis of its founding values,migration crisis which threatens itsthe long- term survival as a democratic peace project; is gravely concerned by the rise and entrenchment of autocratic and illiberal tendencies, further compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic and economic recession, as well as corruption and state capture, in several Member States; underlines the dangers of this trend for the cohesion of the Union’s legal order, the functioning of its single market, the effectiveness of its common policies and its international credibilityof their identities, traditions and common civilization;
Amendment 141 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. recognises that the Union remains structurally ill-equipped to tackle democratic and rule of law backsliding in the Member States; regrets the inability of the Council to make meaningful progress in enforcing Union values in ongoing Article 7 TEU procedures; notes with concern the disjointed nature of the Union’s toolkit in that fieldalready interferes with national policies on the alleged ground of democratic and rule of law backsliding in the Member States; believes that the Council is adequately enforcing Union values in ongoing Article 7 TEU procedures and insists that open procedures should be concluded shortly;
Amendment 151 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. welcomestakes note of the Commission’s work on the Annual Rule of Law Report; notes, however, that it fails to encompass the areas of democracy and fundamental rights; reiterates the need for a comprehensive monitoring mechanism enshrined in a legal act binding Parliament, the Council and the Commission to a transparent and regularised process, with clearly defined responsibilities, so that the protection and promotion of Union values becomes a permanent and visible part of the Union agendareiterates that a monitoring mechanism enshrined in a legal act binding Parliament, the Council and the Commission would be disproportionate and undemocratic as rule of law cannot be evaluated with quantitative indicators;
Amendment 156 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. proposesrejects the proposal for the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (the ‘Mechanism’), building on Parliament’s 2016 proposal and the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report, to be governed by an interinstitutional agreement between Parliament, the Council and the Commission, consisting of an Annual Monitoring Cycle on Union values, covering all aspects of Article 2 TEU, and applying equally, objectively and fairly to all Member States;
Amendment 160 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 175 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 185 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 197 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. reaffirms the limited role of Parliament, in accordance with Article 7 TEU, in monitoring compliance with Union values; reiterates the call for Parliament to be present in Article 7 hearings when it is Parliament that initiated the procedure; believes that the Mechanism, underpinned by an interinstitutional agreement, will provide the necessary framework for better coordination;
Amendment 203 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 211 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 219 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. invites the Commission and the Council to enter without delay intodecline any request for negotiations with Parliament on an interinstitutional agreement in accordance with Article 295 TFEU; considers the proposal set out in the Annex hereto to constitute an appropriate basis for such negotiations;
Amendment 220 #
Amendment 22 #
2020/2041(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that the issue of migration must be prioritised, particularly in view of the latest figures published by FRONTEX2a which show a very slight drop in numbers of arrivals despite this being during a serious health crisis, leading logically to an expectation that migration flows will increase or even explode in the future; reiterates that in a context in which more than half of all asylum applications in the EU are rejected in a final court decision3; takes the view, therefore, that we must, we must therefore focus on making returns more effective by signing readmission agreements and issuing consular laissez- passers; _________________ 2ahttps://frontex.europa.eu/media- centre/news-release/situation-at-eu- external-borders-in-may-detections- rebound-from-record-lows-M5smNj 3 Source: EUROSTAT
Amendment 36 #
2020/2041(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Amendment 46 #
2020/2041(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Calls on the EU and the Member States to take account of these demographic facts in policies in order to prepare for the unavoidable future migration crisis;
Amendment 73 #
2020/2041(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Calls for the idea of mandatory solidarity in receiving and allocating migrants among Member States, due to figure in the next pact on migration and asylum, to be dropped and for the ban on the principle of mass regularisation by Member States to be included therein;
Amendment 79 #
2020/2041(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Calls on the EU and the Member States to make aid granted to African countries conditional upon agreements on the effective readmission of all illegal immigrants present in the EU who are eligible for return;
Amendment 83 #
2020/2041(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for the security, European identity and interests of the European continent and its citizens to be taken into account.
Amendment 86 #
2020/2041(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls for cooperation between the EU, the Member States and the African States to be developed even more and for a massive increase in resources for controlling the external and internal borders to stop the movement of populations towards Europe;
Amendment 37 #
2020/2027(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas in some cases, corporate board members are aware of activities with a high risk of causingbeing found liable for environmental damage, but put profit above responsible behaviourattribute a higher value to board unity compared to the risk of being found liable for the environmental damage;
Amendment 47 #
2020/2027(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. ObserBelieves that the discretionary powers set out in the ELD and the weak mechanisms for securing compliance and effective governance at national, regional and local level have led to implementation deficiencies, considerable variability between Member States in the number of, in accordance with internationally recognized legal principles, every company is liable under the national, regional and local law to which it causes, and an uneven playing field for operators; is therefore of the opinion that additional efforts are required to ensure regulatory standardisation in the EU and increased public confidence in the effectiveness of EU laws damage under the laws of the respective country; believes that regulatory diversity is a strength that deserves to be celebrated;
Amendment 50 #
2020/2027(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. RegretNotes that in many Member States, the budgets of environmental inspectorates have stagnated or decreased due to the financial crisis and that even large, well-resourced authorities can find it difficult to independently develop knowledge of the best ways to ensure compliance; is thus of the opinion that stronger support at EU level is needed, for example through accessible information portals, commonly used networks (EU networks for practitioners), best practice information and guidance, additional training programmes, training materials and guidance on skills, as this could increase the pressure on ‘black sheep’ companies and benefit companies that respect the law; respects the sovereignty of the member states in setting their national budgetary priorities;
Amendment 56 #
2020/2027(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Takes the view that one of the various cauStresses of the insufficient harmonisation of the ELD is the failure to provide for the application of a standard administrative procedure for notifying competent authorities of imminent threats of or actual environmental damage; regrets theprinciple that applies to all companies to behave correctly, to refpore that there is no obligation to publish such notifications or information about how cases are dealt with; notes that some Member States have identified this limitationt as transparently as possible on their activities in their national legislation and have consequently set up databases for notifications, incidents and cases; points out, however, that the practice varies greatly from Member State to Member State and is rather limid countries and to comply with the laws of the respective country in which they operated;
Amendment 65 #
2020/2027(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 145 #
2020/2027(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Is of the opinion that in cases of extremely widespread pollution, not just environmental liability instruments, but a multitude of instruments, including administrative measures, financial penalties and in some cases criminal prosecution, should be applied to remedy the problemnvites the Member States to examine the extent to which fines can be used as an additional means alongside criminal sanctions to prevent criminal offenses in the area of environmental pollution; notes that such measures apply not only to companies from EU Member States, but also to companies from third countries operating in one or more EU Member States;
Amendment 161 #
2020/2027(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on the Commission to come forward with a proposal for environmental inspections at the EU level without further delay, as proposed by the Environmental Compliance and Governance Forum in action nine of its work programme, but is of the opinion that a recommendation to establish minimum criteria forhanced cooperation between member states in the field of environmental inspections is not enough;
Amendment 6 #
2020/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas associations and NPOs are fundamental toinvolved in representing the interests of citizens and civil society;
Amendment 11 #
2020/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 16 #
2020/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
Amendment 22 #
2020/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas associations and NPOs play a key role incontribute to supporting individuals to actively participate in the democratic life;
Amendment 30 #
2020/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
Amendment 36 #
2020/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 39 #
2020/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 50 #
2020/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 58 #
2020/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 73 #
2020/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Is alwarmed bye of the hincreasing hindrancesdrances, particularly of an administrative nature, faced by associations and NPOs across the Union deriving from national laws, regulations or administrative practices or policies,
Amendment 76 #
2020/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 85 #
2020/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Maintains that regulation will only benefit European civil society if NPOs canNPOs must be able to make use of adequate and easily accessible funding both at national and at European level; points out that public financing of NPOs, is important since they have less access to income from profit- making activities; points out that the own funds requirement should be limited and non-monetary contributions of NPOs counted as such.
Amendment 93 #
2020/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Recognises that different approaches exist in legislation at national level and legal traditions to defining or recognising various member-based and non-member-based associations and NPOs, as well as to defining, recognising, and granting a public benefit status; underlines that, despite such significant differences, there is a common understanding of the need for European minimum standards and for providing NPOs the possibility to acquire legal personalityit is useful to have European minimum standards;
Amendment 94 #
2020/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 101 #
2020/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Requests the Commission to submit, on the basis of Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a proposal for a Directive on common measures for NPOs in the EU, creating a level playing field for associations and NPOs by establishing minimum standards, following the recommendations set out in this motion, and Annex I heretor NPOs in the EU;
Amendment 103 #
2020/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 105 #
Amendment 412 #
2020/2026(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex – Part II – Article 21 – paragraph 1
Annex – Part II – Article 21 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall remove any obstacles that affect the ability of non- profit organisations established, registered or operating in their territory to solicit, receive, dispose of or donate any resources, including financial, in-kind and material, or solicit or receive human resources, from or to any source including domestic, foreign or international entities, be it public bodies, private individuals or private bodies.
Amendment 6 #
2020/2017(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines that artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies are acan be tools to serve the people, provided they are properly regulated, and that algorithmic systems can enable access to information, including listings of different kinds of cultural objects; notes the risks of intellectual property rights (IPR) infringement when blending AI and different technologies with a multiplicity of sources (documents, photos, films);
Amendment 19 #
2020/2017(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that AI could redefine research by studying patterns in interest in the acquisition and movement of objects across borders; notes, furthermore, that predictive analytics can also play an important role in fine-tuning data analysis;
Amendment 30 #
2020/2017(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that AI-improved image recognition software could vastly enhance the ability of educational facilities and relevant actors to provide and develop modern and innovative schooling methods while ensuring quality sources and respecting the protection of IPRs, provided that this does not serve as a pretext for doing away with schooling methods based on human intervention by a teacher who is physically present;
Amendment 6 #
2020/2016(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the right to fair trial is a fundamental right which also applies to enforcement of the lawmust be upheld in all circumstances, in particular in the context of the use of AI;
Amendment 21 #
2020/2016(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies willmay contribute to the reducing of crime rates, through the use of statistical data analytics in crime analysis and prevention, and the operation of criminal justice systems;
Amendment 23 #
2020/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the right to a fair trial is a fundamental right which must be upheld in all circumstances, including in the context of the use of AI;
Amendment 25 #
2020/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas, through the use of statistical data analytics in crime analysis and prevention, technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies may contribute to the reducing of crime rates;
Amendment 65 #
2020/2016(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Emphasises the need to draw up strict rules to govern the use of facial recognition technologies in connection with criminal matters; suggests that a recommendation be issued banning their use temporarily pending the drafting of those rules;
Amendment 74 #
2020/2016(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers it necessary to clarify whether law enforcement decisions can be delegated to AIWarns against the temptation to delegate to AI the power to take decisions under the criminal law, and stresses the need to develop codes of conduct for the design and use of AI to help law enforcers and judicial authorities; refers to the ongoing work in the Committee on Legal Affairs.
Amendment 108 #
2020/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Emphasises the need to draw up strict rules to govern the use of facial recognition technologies in connection with criminal matters; suggests that a recommendation be issued banning their use temporarily pending the drafting of those rules;
Amendment 199 #
2020/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 201 #
2020/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Warns against the temptation to delegate to AI the power to take decisions under criminal law, and stresses the need to develop codes of conduct for the design and use of AI to help law enforcers and judicial authorities;
Amendment 203 #
2020/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17b. refers to the ongoing work in the Committee on Legal Affairs
Amendment 5 #
2020/2014(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 23 a (new)
Citation 23 a (new)
- having regard to Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation1a, ____________________ 1a OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.
Amendment 6 #
2020/2014(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 23 b (new)
Citation 23 b (new)
- having regard to the directives on equal treatment of men and women with regard to employment and access to goods and services,
Amendment 7 #
2020/2014(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 23 c (new)
Citation 23 c (new)
- having regard to various consumer protection rules such as the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Directive 2005/29/EC) and the Consumer Rights Directive (Directive 2011/83/EC),
Amendment 8 #
2020/2014(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 23 d (new)
Citation 23 d (new)
- having regard to Directive 2009/48/EC on the safety of toys,
Amendment 9 #
2020/2014(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 23 e (new)
Citation 23 e (new)
- having regard to European Council Decision 2017/745 on medical devices amending Directive 2001/83/EC and applicable from 26 May 2020,
Amendment 43 #
2020/2014(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the challenge related to the introduction of AI-systems into society and the economy is one of the most important questions on the current political agenda; whereas technologies based on A I could improve our lives in almost every sector, from the personal sphere (e.g. personalised education, fitness programs, credit provision and court orders) to global challenges (e.g. climate change, hunger and starvation);
Amendment 89 #
2020/2014(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers it appropriate to define the deployer as the person who decides on the use of the AI-system, who exercises control over the risk and who benefits from its operation; considers that exercising control means any action of the deployer that affects the manner of the operation from start to finish or that changes specific functions or processes within the AI- system; takes the view that those tasked with deployment should monitor the good intentions of the developers throughout the value chain in order to ensure the protection of consumers through trustworthy AI;
Amendment 112 #
2020/2014(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Recommends that all high-risk AI- systems be listed in an Annex to the proposed Regulation; recognises that, given the rapid technological change and the required technical expertise, it should be up to the Commission to review that Annex every six months and if necessary, amend it through a delegated act; believes that the Commission should closely cooperate with a newly formed standing committee similar to the existing Standing Committee on Precursors or the Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles, which include national experts of the Member States and stakeholders; considers that the balanced membership of the ‘High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence’ could serve as an example for the formation of the group of stakeholders, with the addition of ethics experts and anthropologists, sociologists and mental- health specialists;
Amendment 157 #
2020/2014(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – paragraph 1 – indent 6
Annex I – part A – paragraph 1 – indent 6
- Citizens need to be entitled to the same level of protection and rights, no matter if the harm is caused by an AI- system or not, or if it takes place physically or virtually. , or if it is material or non- material. As set out in the Commission Communication of 19 February 2020 on the safety and liability implications of AI and robotics, ‘explicit obligations for producers, among others, of humanoid AI to explicitly take into account the non- material damage that their products could cause to users, in particular vulnerable users such as elderly people in care settings’ should be taken into account in this EU legislation.
Amendment 164 #
2020/2014(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 1
Annex I – part B – recital 1
(1) The concept of ‘liability’ plays an important double role in our daily life: on the one hand, it ensures that a person who has suffered harm or damage is entitled to claim compensation from the party proven to be liable for that harm or damage, and on the other hand, it provides the economic incentives for persons to avoid causing harm or damage, whether material or non- material, in the first place. Any liability framework should strive to strike a balance between efficiently protecting potential victims of damage and at the same time, providing enough leeway to make the development of new technologies, products or services possible.
Amendment 170 #
2020/2014(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 3
Annex I – part B – recital 3
(3) The rise of Artificial intelligence (AI) however presents a significant challenge for the existing liability frameworks. Using AI-systems in our daily life will lead to situations in which their opacity (“black box” element) makes it extremely expensive or even impossible to identify who was in control of the risk of using the AI-system in question or which code or input has caused the harmful operation. This difficulty is even compounded by the connectivity between an AI-system and other AI-systems and non-AI-systems, by its dependency on external data, by its vulnerability to cybersecurity breaches as well as by the increasing autonomy of AI-systems triggered by machine-learning and deep- learning capabilities. Besides these complex features and potential vulnerabilities, AI-systems could also be used to cause severe harm, such as compromising our human dignity, our values and freedoms by tracking individuals against their will, by introducing Social Credit Systems or by constructing lethal autonomous weapon systems, or to take biased decisions in matters of health insurance, credit provision, court orders or recruitment or employment decisions.
Amendment 248 #
2020/2014(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 20
Annex I – part B – recital 20
(20) Despite missing historical claim data for reasons such as updating algorithms or anonymising data, there are already insurance products that are developed area-by-area and cover- by-cover as technology develops. Many insurers specialise in certain market segments (e.g. SMEs) or in providing cover for certain product types (e.g. electrical goods), which means that there will usually be an insurance product available for the insured. If a new type of insurance is needed, the insurance market will develop and offer a fitting solution and thus, will close the insurance gap. In exceptional cases, in which the compensation significantly exceeds the maximum amounts set out in this Regulation, Member States should be encouraged to set up a special compensation fund for a limited period of time that addresses the specific needs of those cases.
Amendment 31 #
2020/2012(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas such questions should be addressed through a comprehensive and future-proof legal framework reflecting the Union’s principles and values as enshrined in the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights that would bring legal certainty to businesses and citizenall citizens and businesses alike;
Amendment 55 #
2020/2012(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas each Member State should establish a national supervisory authoritysystem responsible for ensuring, assessing and monitoring compliance, and for enabling discussion and exchange of points of view in close cooperation with the concerned stakeholders and the civil society;
Amendment 58 #
2020/2012(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
Amendment 115 #
2020/2012(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Affirms that possible bias in and discrimination by software, algorithms and data should be addressed by setting rules for the processes through which they are designed and used, as this approach would have the potential to turn software, algorithms and data into a considerable counterbalance to bias and discrimination, and a positive force for social change;
Amendment 125 #
2020/2012(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Emphasises that socially responsible artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies should safeguard and promote fundamental values of our society such as democracy, freedom of expression and political pluralism, diverse and independent media and objective and freely available information, health and economic prosperity, equality of opportunity, workers’ and social rights, quality education, cultural and linguistic diversity, gender balance, digital literacy, innovation and creativity;
Amendment 187 #
2020/2012(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Notes the added value of having national supervisory authoritiesystems in each Member State responsible for ensuring, assessing and monitoring compliance with ethical principles for the development, deployment and use of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies;
Amendment 192 #
2020/2012(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Indicates that such authoritienational supervisory systems should liaise not only among themselves but also with the European Commission and other relevant institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union in order to guarantee coherent cross-border action;
Amendment 198 #
2020/2012(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls for such authoritienational supervisory systems to be tasked with promoting regular exchanges with civil society and innovation within the Union by providing assistance to concerned stakeholders, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises or start-ups;
Amendment 206 #
2020/2012(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 211 #
2020/2012(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 225 #
2020/2012(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 238 #
2020/2012(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Suggests that the European Agency for Artificial Intelligence develops common criteriae creation of a European certificate of compliance and an application process relating to the granting of a European certificate of ethical compliance following a request by any developer, deployer or user seeking to certify the positive assessment of compliance carried out by the respective national supervisory authoritysystem;
Amendment 251 #
2020/2012(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
Amendment 262 #
2020/2012(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Concludes, following the above reflections on aspects related to the ethical dimension of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, that the ethical dimension should be framed as a series of principles resulting in a legal framework at Union level supervised by national competent authoritiesystems, coordinated and enhanced by a European Agency for Artificial Intelligenceby the European Commission and duly respected and certified within the internal market;
Amendment 272 #
2020/2012(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
Amendment 100 #
2020/0345(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15 a (new)
Recital 15 a (new)
(15 a) Member States should supervise their authorised e-CODEX access points and provide for enhanced monitoring when operated by private entities. Member States should ensure that adequate data security measures are put in place, especially in the case of the operation of such access points by private entities.
Amendment 14 #
2020/0289(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) In its Communication to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 11 December 2019, entitled ‘The European Green Deal’ the Commission committed itself to consider revising Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 to improve access to environmental information for natural persons and non-governmental organisations as well as to administrative and judicial review at Union level for citizens and environmental non- governmental organisations who have concerns about the compatibility with environmental law of decisions with effects on the environment. The Commission also committed to take action to improve their access to justice before national courts in all Member States; to this end, it issued a Communication on ‘Improving access to justice in environmental matters in the EU and its Member States’.
Amendment 17 #
2020/0289(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Taking into account the provisions of Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention, as well as concerns, such as limiting appeals against administrative acts to individuals only or not granting the right of judicial review to persons or entities such as regions and municipalities, expressed by the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee62, Union law should be brought into compliance with the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on access to justice in environmental matters in a way that is compatible with the fundamental principles of Union law and with its system of judicial review, while maintaining transparency in individual cases and disclosing information on matters concerning non-governmental organisations. _________________ 62See findings of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee in case ACCC/C/2008/32 at https://www.unece.org/env/pp/compliance/ Compliancecommittee/32TableEC.html.
Amendment 24 #
2020/0289(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) The limitation of the internal review provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 to administrative acts of individual scope is the main obstaclemay present certain difficulties for environmental non- governmental organisations seeking to have recourse to internal review under Article 10 of that Regulation also as regards administrative acts that have a wider scope. It is therefore necessary to broaden tThe scope of the internal review procedure laid down in that Regulation should therefore be broadened to include non-legislative acts of a general scope and to ensure that information acquired by non-governmental organisations is forwarded to a European institution competent to guarantee the transparency of procedures and information.
Amendment 43 #
2020/0289(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) According to the case law of the CJEU63, environmental non-governmental organisations requesting an internal review of an administrative act are required to put forward facts or legal arguments of sufficient substance to give rise to serious doubts when stating the grounds for their request of review. and to submit them to a European institution competent to implement this regulation and to ensure transparency. Furthermore, if national law contains the obligation to exhaust administrative review procedures before recourse can be given to judicial review, this obligation should be fulfilled. _________________ 63Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 September 2019 in Case C-82/17 P, TestBioTech v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2019:719, at para 69.
Amendment 49 #
2020/0289(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter), in particular the right to good administration (Article 41) and the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (Article 47). This Regulation contributes to the effectiveness of the Union’s and its Member States’ system of administrative and judicial review, and as a result, strengthens the application of Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter and thereby contributes to the rule of law, enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).
Amendment 153 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
(1a) However, it must be noted that there are no effective external borders, which are a prerequisite to the establishment and proper functioning of the Schengen area, and that migrant routes are used by terrorists.
Amendment 159 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The rules governing border control of persons crossing the external borders of the Member States of the Union are laid down in Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Schengen Borders Code)21 as adopted under Article 77(2)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). To further develop the Union’s policy with a view to carrying out checks on persons and efficiently monitoring the crossing of external borders referred to in the first paragraph of Article 77 TFEU, additional measures should address situations where third-country nationals manage to avoid, whether purposely or not, border checks at the external borders, or where third-country nationals are disembarked following search and rescue operations as well as where third-country nationals request international protection at a border crossing point without fulfilling entry conditions. The present regulation complements and specifies Regulation (EU) 2016/399 with regard to those three sets of situations. _________________ 21 Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), OJ L 77, 23.3.2016, p.1.
Amendment 164 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) It is essential to ensure that in those three sets of situations, the third country nationals are screened, in order to facilitate a proper identification and to allow for them being referred efficientlyefficiently and promptly refer them to the relevant procedures which, depending on the circumstances, can be procedures for international protection or procedures respecting Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (the “Return Directive”)22 . The screening should seamlessly complement the checks carried out at the external border or compensate for the fact that those checks have been circumvented by the third country nationals when crossing the external border. _________________ 22 Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98.
Amendment 170 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Border control is in the interest not only of the Member States at whose external borders it is carried out but of all Member States which have abolished internal border control. Border control should help toprimarily combat illegal migration and trafficking of human beings and to prevent any threat to the Member States’ internal security, public policy, public health and international relations. As such, measures taken at the external borders are important elements of a comprehensive approach to migration, allowing to address the challenge of mixed flows of migrants and persons seeking international protectionensuring safety of the Member States.
Amendment 176 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) In accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, border control consists of border checks carried out at the border crossing points and border surveillance, which is carried out between the border crossing points, in order to prevent third-country nationals from illegally circumventing border checks. In accordance with Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 a person who has crossed a border in an unauthorised manner and who has no right to stay on the territory of the Member State concerned shall be apprehended and made subject to procedures respecting Directive 2008/115/EC. In accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, border control should be carried out without prejudice to the rights of refugees and persons requesting international protection, in particular as regards non- refoulement.
Amendment 184 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Border guards are often confronted with third-country nationals who are requesting international protection without travel documents or any other documents supporting their claims, both following apprehension during border surveillance and during checks at the border crossing points. Moreover, at some border sections the border guards are confronted with large numbers of arrivals at the same time. In such circumstances, it is particularly difficult to ensure that all relevant databases are consulted and to immediately determine the appropriate asylum or return procedure.
Amendment 191 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) In order to ensure a swift and efficient handling of third-country nationals who try to avoid border checks or who request international protection at a border crossing point without fulfilling the entry conditions or who are disembarked following a search and rescue operation, it is necessary to provide a stronger framework for cooperation between the different national authorities responsible for border control, the protection of public health, the examination of the need for international protection and the application of return procedures.
Amendment 194 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) In particular, the sScreening should help to ensure that the third-country nationals concerned are referred to the appropriate procedures at the earliest stage possible and that the procedures are continued without interruption and delay. At the same timeIn particular, the screening should help to counter the practice whereby some applicants for international protection abscond after having been authorised to enter the territory of a Member State based on their request for international protection, in order to pursue such requests in another Member State or not at all.
Amendment 198 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) With regard to those persons who apply for international protection, the screening shouldmay be followed by an examination of the need for international protection. It shouldmay allow to collect and share with the authorities competent for that examination any information that is relevant for the latter to identify the appropriate procedure for the examination of the application, thusif that would allow for speeding up that examination. The screening should also ensure that persons with special needs are identified at an early stage, so that any special reception and procedural needs are fully taken into account in the determination of and the pursuit of the applicable procedure.
Amendment 202 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) The obligations stemming from this Regulation should be without prejudice to the provisions concerning responsibility for examining an application for international protection regulated in Regulation (EU) No XX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management Regulation] if it is not hampering the security of the external borders.
Amendment 204 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) This Regulation should apply to third-country nationals and stateless persons who are apprehended in connection with the unauthorised or illegal crossings of the external border of a Member State by land, sea or air, except third country nationals for whom the Member State is not required to take the biometric data pursuant to Article 14(1) and (3) of the Eurodac Regulation for reasons other than their age, as well as to persons who have been disembarked following search and rescue operations, regardless of whether they apply or not for international protection. This Regulation should also apply to those who seek international protection at the border crossing points or in transit zones without fulfilling the entry conditions
Amendment 211 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) The screening should always be conducted at or in proximity to the external border, before the persons concerned are authorised to enter the territory. The Member States should apply measures pursuant to national law to prevent the persons concerned from entering the territory during the screening. In individual cases, wWhere required, this may include detention, subject to the national law regulating that matter.
Amendment 215 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12 a (new)
Recital 12 a (new)
(12a) Third-country nationals wanting to come to the European Union could also be screened in the Member States' representations abroad.
Amendment 221 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) Wherever it becomes clear beyond any doubt during the screening that a third- country national subject to it fulfils the conditions of Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, the screening should end and the third-country national concerned should be authorised to enter the territory, without prejudice to the application of penalties as referred to in Article 5(3) of that regulation.
Amendment 233 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
Amendment 240 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) In accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, the fulfilment of entry conditions and the authorisation of entry are expressed in an entry stamp in a travel document. The absence of such entry stamp or the absence of a travel document mayshould therefore be considered as an indication that the holder does not fulfil the entry conditions. With the start of the operation of the Entry/Exit System leading to substitution of the stamps with an entry in the electronic system, that presumption will become even more reliable. Member States should therefore apply the screening to third-country nationals who are already within the territory and who are unable to prove that they fulfilled the conditions of entry into the territory of the Member States. The screening of such third-country nationals is clearly necessary in order to compensate for the fact that they presumably managed to evade entry checks upon arrival in the Schengen area and therefore could have not been either refused entry or referred to the appropriate procedure following screening. Applying the screening could also help in ascertaining, through the consultation of the databases referred to in this Regulation, that the persons concerned do not pose a threat to internal security. By the end of the screening within the territory, the third- country nationals concerned should be subject to a return procedure or, where they apply for international protection, to the appropriate asylum procedure. Submitting the same third-country national to repeated screenings should be avoided to the utmost extent possible.
Amendment 246 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) The screening should be completed as soon as possible, and should not exceed 5 days where it is conducted at the external border and 3 days where it is conducted within the territory of a Member State. Any extension of the 5 days’ time limit should be reserved forIn exceptional situations at, the external borders, where the capacities of the Member State to handle screenings are exceeded for reasons beyond its control such as crisis situations referred to in Article 1 of Regulation XXX/XXX [crisis proposal]limit can be extended if it is necessary for the proper conducting of the screening procedure.
Amendment 251 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) The Member States should determine appropriate locations for the screening at or in close proximity to the external border taking into account geography and existing infrastructures, ensuring that apprehended third-country nationals as well as those who present themselves at a border crossing point can be swiftly submitted to the screening. In any case, the persons under the screening procedure shall not be deemed to be on the territory of a Member State. The tasks related to the screening may be carried out in hotspot areas as referred to in point (23) of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council23 . _________________ 23 Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard, OJ L 295, 14.11.2019, p. 1.
Amendment 257 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
Amendment 263 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
Amendment 264 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
Amendment 275 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23 a (new)
Recital 23 a (new)
(23a) Member States should be authorised to prevent non-governmental organisations from participating in the screening procedure for illegal migrants trying to enter the European Union.
Amendment 277 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) By the end of the screening, the authorities responsible for the screening should fill in a de-briefing form. The form should be transmitted to the authorities examining applications for international protection or to the authorities competent for return – depending on whom the individual is referred to. In the former case, the authorities responsible for the screening should also indicate any elements which may seem to be relevant for determining whether the competent authorities should submit the application of the third-country national concerned to an accelerated examination procedure or to the border procedure.
Amendment 287 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) A preliminary health examination should be carried out on all persons submitted to the screening at the external borders with a view to identifying persons in need of immediate care or requiring other measures to be taken, for instance isolation on public health grounds. The specific needs of minors and vulnerable persons should be taken into account. If it is clear from the circumstances that such examination is not needed, in particular because the overall condition of the person appears to be very good, the examination should not take place and the person concerned should be informed of that fact. The preliminary health examination should be carried out by the health authorities of the Member State concerned. With regard to third-country nationals apprehended within the territory, the preliminary medical examination should be carried out where it is deemed necessary at first sightThe preliminary health examination should be carried out by the health authorities of the Member State concerned.
Amendment 294 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
Amendment 302 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) Since third-country nationals subject to the screening may not carry or disclose the necessary identity and travel documents required for the legal crossing of the external border, an identification procedure should be provided for as part of the screening.
Amendment 305 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) The Common Identity Repository (“CIR”) was established by Regulation (EU) 2019/817 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Interoperability Regulation)25 to facilitate and assist in the correct identification of persons registered in the Entry/Exit System (“EES”), the Visa Information System (“VIS”), the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (“ETIAS”), Eurodac and in the European Criminal Records Information System for third country nationals (“ECRIS-TCN”), including of unknown persons who are unable to identify themselves. For that purpose, the CIR contains only the identity, travel document and biometric data recorded in EES, VIS, ETIAS, Eurodac and ECRIS-TCN, logically separated. Only the personal data strictly necessary to perform an accurate identity check is stored in the CIR. The personal data recorded in the CIR is kept for noas longer than strictly as it is necessary for the purposes of the underlying systems and should automatically be deleted where the data are deleted from the underlying systems. Consultation of the CIR enables a reliable and exhaustive identification of persons, by making it possible to consult all identity data present in the EES, VIS, ETIAS, Eurodac and ECRIS-TCN in one go, in a fast and reliable manner, while ensuring a maximum protection of the data and avoiding unnecessary processing or duplication of data. _________________ 25 Regulation (EU) 2019/817 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on establishing a framework for interoperability between EU information systems in the field of borders and visa and amending Regulations (EC) No 767/2008, (EU) 2016/399, (EU) 2017/2226, (EU) 2018/1240, (EU) 2018/1726 and (EU) 2018/1861 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Decisions 2004/512/EC and 2008/633/JHA, OJ L 135, 22.5.2019, p. 27.
Amendment 313 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) Given that many persons submitted to the screening may not carry or disclose any travel documents, the authorities conducting the screening should have access to any other relevant documents held by the persons concerned in cases where the biometric data of such persons are not usable or yield no result in the CIR. The authorities should also be allowed to use data from those documents, other than biometric data, to carry out checks against the relevant databases.
Amendment 315 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) The identification of persons during border checks at the border crossing point and any consultation of the databases in the context of border surveillance or police checks in the external border area by the authorities who referred the person concerned to the screening should be considered as part of the screening and should not be repeated, unless there are special circumstances justifying such repetition.
Amendment 324 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) The screening should alsoprimarily assess whether the entry of the third- country nationals into the Union could pose a threat to internal security or to public policy.
Amendment 336 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
Recital 41
(41) Where justified for the purpose of the security check, the screening could also include verification of objects in the possession of third-country nationals, in accordance with national law. Any measures applied in this context should be proportionate and should respect the human dignity of the persons subject to the screening. The authorities involved should ensure that the fundamental rights of the individuals concerned are respected, including the right to protection of personal data and freedom of expression.
Amendment 359 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
This Regulation establishes the screening at the external borders of the Member States of all third-country nationals who have crossed the external border illegally in an unauthorised manner, of those who have applied for international protection during border checks without fulfilling entry conditions, as well as those disembarked after a search and rescue operation, before they are referred to the appropriate procedure.
Amendment 361 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article premier – paragraph 1 a (new)
The purpose of this regulation should be to prevent Europe from being flooded with migrants.
Amendment 371 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 3
Article 1 – paragraph 3
The object of the screening shall be the identification of all third-country nationals subject to it and the verification against relevant databases that the persons subject to it do not pose a threat to internal security. The screening shall also entailinclude health checks, to identify persons posing a threat to public health, and where appropriate, to identify persons vulnerable and in the need of health care as well the ones posing a threat to public health. Those checks shall contribute to referring such persons to the appropriate procedure.
Amendment 379 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 4
Article premier – paragraph 4
Amendment 408 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) are disembarked in the territory of a Member State following a search and rescue operationby NGOs.
Amendment 428 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. During the screening, the persons referred to in Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2 shall notin no circumstances be authorised to enter the territory of a Member State.
Amendment 450 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. In the cases referred to in Article 3, the screening shall be conducted at locations situated at or in proximity to the external borders. However, in any case the persons under the screening procedure shall not be deemed to be on the territory of a Member State.
Amendment 463 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. In the cases referred to in Article 3, the screening shall be carried out without delay and shall in any case be completed within 5 days from the apprehension in the external border area, the disembarkation in the territory of the Member State concerned or the presentation at the border crossing point. In exceptional circumstancesituations, wthere a disproportionate number of third-country nationals needs to be subject to the screening at the same time, making it impossible in practice to conclude the screening within that time- limit, the period of 5 days may be extended by a maximum of an additional 5 days limit can be extended, if it is necessary for the proper conducting of the screening procedure.
Amendment 471 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shallmay notify the Commission without delay about the exceptional circumstances referred to in paragraph 3. They shall also inform the Commission as soon as the reasons for extending the screening period have ceased to exist.
Amendment 476 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 5
Article 6 – paragraph 5
5. The screening referred to in Article 5 shall be carried out without delay and in any case shall be completed within 3 days from apprehension. This limit can be extended, if the screening procedure requires it.
Amendment 483 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 6 – point c
Article 6 – paragraph 6 – point c
(c) registration of bone data in the event of any doubt over whether an illegal immigrant is in fact a minor and biometric data in the appropriate databases as referred to in Article 14(6), to the extent it has not occurred yet;
Amendment 505 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7
Article 7
Amendment 511 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Amendment 513 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. EachA Member State shall establish an independent monitoring mechanismbe free to establish a monitoring mechanism outside of their screening procedure at borders.
Amendment 554 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 557 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
The Fundamental Rights Agency shall issue general guidance for Member States on the setting up of such mechanism and its independent func, being in favour of mass immigration ing. Furthermore, Member States may request the Fundamental Rights Agency to support them in developing their national monitoring mechanism, including the safeguards for independence of such mechanisms, as well as the monitoring methodology and appropriate training schemto Europe, shall refrain from giving any advice to Member States.
Amendment 566 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 571 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Member States may invite relevant national, international andprevent non- governmental organisations and bodies tofrom participateing in the monitoring of the screening procedure for migrants seeking to enter the European Union.
Amendment 608 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) the applicable rules on the conditions of entry for third-country nationals in accordance with Regulation (No) 2016/399 [Schengen Border Code], as well as on other conditions of entry, stay and residence of the Member State concerned, to the extent this information has not been given already;
Amendment 611 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point e
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point e
Amendment 614 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3
Article 8 – paragraph 3
3. The information provided during the screening shall be given in a language which the third-country national understands or is reasonably supposed to understand. The information shall be given in writing and, in exceptional circumstances, where necessary, orally using interpretation services. It shall be provided in an appropriate manner taking into account the age and the gender of the person.
Amendment 622 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4
Article 8 – paragraph 4
Amendment 627 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4
Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. Member States may authorise relevant and competent national, international and non-governmental organisations and bodies to provide third country nationals with information under this article during the screening according to the provisions established by national law.
Amendment 634 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. Third-country nationals submitted to the screening referred to in Article 3 shall be always subject to a preliminary medical examination with a view to identifying any needs for immediate care or isolation on public health grounds, unless, based on the circumstances concerning the general state of the individual third-country nationals concerned and the grounds for directing them to the screening, the relevant competent authorities are satisfied that no preliminary medical screening is necessary. In that case, they shall inform those persons accordingly.
Amendment 638 #
2020/0278(COD)
2. Where relevant, it shall be checked whether persons referred to in paragraph 1 are in a vulnerable situation, victims of torture or have special reception or procedural needs within the meaning of Article 20 of the [recast] Reception Conditions Directive.
Amendment 644 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 3
3. Where there are indications of vulnerabilities or special reception or procedural needs, the third-country national concerned shallmay receive timely and adequate support in view of their physical and mental health. In the case of minors, support shall be given by personnel trained and qualified to deal with minors, and in cooperation with child protection authorities.
Amendment 664 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) biometric data, including DNA testing for age;
Amendment 666 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) bone testing in the event of any doubt over a migrant's minor status.
Amendment 670 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
2. For the purpose of the identification referred to in paragraph 1, the competent authorities shall query any relevant national databases as well as the common identity repository (CIR) referred to in Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2019/817. The biometric and bone testing data of a third-country national taken live during the screening, as well as the identity data and, where available, travel document data shall be used to that end.
Amendment 760 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 84 #
2020/0277(COD)
Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set outRejects the Commission's proposal;
Amendment 88 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
Amendment 95 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) TIn situations of crisis, the Union, in constituting an area of freedom, security and justice, should ensure the absence of internal border controls for persons and frame a common policy on asylum, immigration and external border control, based on solidarity between Member States, which is fair towards third-country nationalnot stand in the way of internal border controls for persons.
Amendment 98 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
(1a) The European Union should ensure that there are internal border controls for persons and strengthen the external borders while respecting the sovereignty of the Member States.
Amendment 104 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) The comprehensive approach should bring together policies in the areas of asylum, migration management, returns, external border protection and partnership with relevant third countries, recognising that the effectiveness of the overall approach depends on all components being jointly addressed and in an integrated manner. The comprehensive approach should ensure that the Union has at its disposal specific rules to effectively manage migration including the triggering of a compulsory solidarity mechanism and that all the necessary measures are put in place to prevent crisis to happen.
Amendment 115 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Notwithstanding tThe putting in place of the necessary preventive measures, it cannot be can excluded that a situation of crisis or force majeure in the field of migration and asylum arises due to circumstances beyond the control of the Union and its Member States.
Amendment 119 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
Amendment 121 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) This Regulation should contribute to and complete the comprehensive approach by setting out the specific procedures and mechanisms in the field of international protection and return that should apply in the exceptional circumstances of a situation of crisis. It should ensure, in particular, the effective application of the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility and the adaptation of the relevant rules on asylum and return procedures, so that the Member States and the Union have the necessary tools at their disposal including sufficient time to carry out those procedures.
Amendment 128 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5 a (new)
Recital 5 a (new)
(5a) This Regulation should help to stem or stop mass influxes of migrants and facilitate their return.
Amendment 133 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) A mass influxlarge number of persons trying to crossing the border irregularly and within a short period of time may lead to a situation of crisis in a particular Member State. That may also have consequences for the functioning of the asylum and migration system, not only in that Member State but in the Union as a whole, due to unauthorised movements and the lack of capacity in the Member State of first entry to process the applications for international protection of such third- country nationals and must be prevented. It is necessary to lay down specific rules and mechanisms that should enable effective action to address such situationssupport in defence of the border of said Member State.
Amendment 142 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
Amendment 154 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
Amendment 161 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
Amendment 164 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) In order to quickly help alleviate the pressure faced by a Member State in a situation of crisis, the scope of relocation should include all categoriesimmediate assistance in border protection should be given, thus avoiding the need for relocation of applicants for international protection, including persons granted immediate protection, as well as beneficiaries of international protection and irregular migrants. Furthermore, a Member State that provides return sponsorship should transfer the illegally staying third-country national from the benefitting Member State if the person concerned does not return or is not removed within four months, instead of eight months as provided for by Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management]This will avoid creating a pull factor for uncontrolled mass immigration.
Amendment 181 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) In situations of crisis, Member States might need a wider set of measures in order to manage a mass influx of third- country nationals in an orderly fashion and contain unauthorised movements. Such measures should include the application of an asylum crisis management procedure and a return crisis management procedureorganise an efficient border protection and prevent the entering of a large number of third-country nationals in unauthorised movements.
Amendment 187 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12 a (new)
Recital 12 a (new)
(12a) In order to alleviate pressure on the Member States with external borders, the Union will support effective border protection against illegal migration. An illegal migrant is any third-country national who enters the territory of the Member States without prior approval in the form of a visa or residence permit or who enters a Member State by force, or a person who enters a Member State and does not apply for protection at the first opportunity. A person who wishes to apply for international protection, must do so in a peaceful manner and at the first possible opportunity (at a border post, disembarkation point, or asylum processing facility). Should the third- country national enter a Member State by force or travel through a Member State without applying for protection, any application that is lodged will be denied, the person will be considered as an illegal migrant, and will be detained and returned to his or her country of origin.
Amendment 192 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12 b (new)
Recital 12 b (new)
(12b) In order to alleviate pressure on the Member States with external borders, the Union will financially support the building of a physical barrier on those external borders. Physical barriers will help to manage a mass influx of third- country nationals and contain unauthorised movements.
Amendment 217 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) In order to allow Member States to deal with large numbers of applications for international protection in situations of crisis, a longer time limitmore resources should be setapplied for registering the applications for international protection made during such situations of crisis. Such an extension should be without prejudice to the rights of asylum applicants guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Amendment 219 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
Amendment 231 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15 a (new)
Recital 15 a (new)
(15a) In a situation of crisis, in view of the possible strain on the asylum system, Member States should prevent entry in their territory of applicants trying to enter from a neighbouring safe third country. The Union can be called upon to support such prevention of entry.
Amendment 236 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) In a situation of crisis, in view of the possible strain on the asylum system, Member States should have the possibility not to authorise the entry in their territory of applicants subject to a border procedure for a longer period of time than the ones set in Article 41 (11) and (13) of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedures Regulation]. However, tThe procedures should be completed as soon as possible and in any event the periods of time should only be prolonged by an additional period not exceeding eight weeks; if those procedures cannot be completed by the expiry of that prolonged period, applicants should be authorised to enter the territory of a Member State for the purpose of completing the procedure for international protectionthoroughly and expeditiously.
Amendment 253 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
Amendment 261 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
Amendment 272 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) In order to provide Member States with additional time needed to deal with the situation of crisis and at the same time ensure an effective and as quick as possible access to the relevant procedures and rights, the Commission should authorise the application of the asylum crisis management procedure and the return crisis management procedure for a period of six months, which could be extended up to a period not exceeding one year. After the expiry of the relevant period, the extended deadlines provided for in the asylum and return crisis management procedures should not be applied to new applications for international protections long as needed.
Amendment 279 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) For the same reasons, the Commission should authorise the application ofMember States can apply derogatory rules as regards the registration deadline for a period not exceeding four weeks, which should be renewable upon a new reasoned request submitted by the Member State concerned. The total period of application should nonetheless not exceed twelve weeks.
Amendment 296 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) In a crisis situation, Member States should have the possibility to suspend the examination of applications for international protection made by displaced persons from third countries who are unable to return to their country of origin, where they would face a high degree of risk of being subject to indiscriminate violence, in exceptional situations of armed conflict. In such a case, immediate protection status should be granted to those persons. Member States should resume the examination of their application one year at the latest from its suspensio. Member States should organise the return to a safe country in the region of origin.
Amendment 303 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
Amendment 322 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) In order to carry out a proper assessment of applications for international protection submitted by beneficiaries of immediate protection, the asylum procedures should resume at the latest after one year from the suspension of such proceduresnot be suspended.
Amendment 355 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) In such situations of force majeure, the Member State concerned shouldmay notify the Commission and, where applicable, the other Member States, of its intention to apply the respective derogations from those time limits, as well as the precise reasons for their intended application, as well as the period of time during which they will be applied.
Amendment 365 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) Where a Member State is no longer facing a situation of force majeure, it should, as soon as possible,may notify the Commission, and where applicable, the other Member States, of the cessation of the situation. The time limits derogating from Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management] should not be applied to new applications for international protection made or for third- country nationals or stateless persons found to be illegally staying after the date of that notification. Upon such notification, the time limits laid down in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedures Regulation] should start to apply.
Amendment 366 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
Amendment 379 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 390 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) The examination procedure should be used for the adoption of solidarity measures in situations of crisis for authorising the application of derogatory procedural rules, and for triggering the granting of immediate protection status.
Amendment 397 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular respect for human dignity, the right to life, the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the right to asylum and the protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extraditioncluding the right to safety of European citizens. The Regulation should be implemented in compliance with the Charter and general principles of Union law as well as international law, including refugee protection, human rights obligation and the prohibition of refoulement.
Amendment 417 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) an exceptional situation of mass influx, where a large number of third-country nationals or stateless persons arrivinges irregularly in a Member State or disembarked on its territory following search and rescue operationsat the external border of a Member State and requests to enter, being of such a scale, in proportion to the population and GDP of the Member State concerned, and nature, that it renders the Member State’s asylum, reception or return system non-functional and can have serious consequences for the functioning the Common European Asylum System or the Common Framework as set out in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management], or
Amendment 430 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. This Regulation does not apply when either the Commission or the Council has taken a decision that finds that a third country is engaging in hybrid warfare against the Union by employing migration as a weapon in order to destabilise a Member State or the Union.
Amendment 439 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2
Article 2
Amendment 484 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Where a Member State considers that it is facing a crisis situation as referred to in Article 1(2), that Member State shall submit a reasoned request to the Commission for the purpose ofmay applying the rules laid down in Articles 4, 5 or 6 as necessary.
Amendment 488 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Amendment 492 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Amendment 497 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission may authorise the application of the rules laid down in Articles 4 and 5 for six months. That period may be extended for a period not exceeding one yearmay take as long as needed.
Amendment 499 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5
Article 3 – paragraph 5
Amendment 505 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 7
Article 3 – paragraph 7
Amendment 509 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 8
Article 3 – paragraph 8
Amendment 530 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4
Article 4
Asylum crisis management procedure 1. In a crisis situation as referred to in Article 1(2), and in accordance with the procedures laid down in Article 3, Member States may, as regards applications made within the period during which this Article is applied, derogate from Article 41 of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedures Regulation] as follows: (a) By way of derogation from Article 41(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedures Regulation], Member States may in a border procedure take decisions on the merits of an application in cases where 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 granting international protection by the determining authority is, according to the latest available yearly Union-wide average Eurostat data, 75% or lower, in addition to the cases referred to in Article 40(1) of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedures Regulation]; (b) By way of derogation from Article 41(11) and (13) of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedures Regulation], the maximum duration of the border procedure for the examination of applications set out in that Article may be prolonged by an additional period of maximum eight weeks. Following this period, the applicant shall be authorised to enter the Member State’s territory for the completion of the procedure for international protection.rticle 4 deleted
Amendment 549 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) By way of derogation from Article 41a(2) of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedures Regulation], the maximum period during which third- country nationals or stateless persons shall be kept at the locations referred to in that Article may be prolonged by an additional period of maximum eight weekto secure swift and proper returns;
Amendment 559 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) In addition to the cases provided for by Article 6(2) of Directive XXX [recast Return Directive], Member States shall establish that a risk of absconding is presumed in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, when the criterion referred to in Article 6(1), point (f) of Directive XXX [recast Return Directive] is fulfilled or when the applicant, third- country national or stateless person concerned is manifestly and persistently not fulfilling the obligation to cooperate established by Article 7 of that Directive.
Amendment 609 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10
Article 10
Amendment 611 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – title
Article 10 – title
10 Granting of immediateThe need for enhanced border protection status.
Amendment 618 #
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 orihave travelled through multiple safe countries or left protection facilities in the own region. 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. Such status shall be without prejudice to their ongoing application for international protection in the relevantprotect their borders and ensure no such illegal applicant enters the Member State.
Amendment 627 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Amendment 631 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Amendment 636 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4
Article 10 – paragraph 4
Amendment 670 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Amendment 678 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2
Article 11 – paragraph 2
Amendment 685 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Amendment 691 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12
Article 12
Amendment 22 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the twofoldprimary objective of the directive is effective return in line with fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality; whereas in its recommendation on making returns more effective,; welcomes the Commission's focuses on the rate of returns as the primary indicator of the directive’s effectiveness;
Amendment 32 #
2019/2208(INI)
Da. whereas, according to IOM data, around 81,000 African migrants returned to their home nation with the aid of the UN’s International Organization for Migration (IOM) and that such Joint initiative which costed the European Union €357 million was to be considered largely a failure1a; _________________ 1a https://www.euronews.com/2020/06/19/pa ying-for-migrants-to-go-back-home-how- the-eu-s-voluntary-return-scheme-is- failing-the-de
Amendment 45 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Reiterates the importance of an evidence-based approach to guide coherent policy-making and well-informed public discourse and calls on the Commission to encourage and support Member States to collect and publish qualitative and quantitative data on the implementation of the directive;
Amendment 57 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. StExpresses thaconcerns about the Commission’s statement that the return rate decreased from 46 % in 2016 to 37 % in 2017 may not present the full picture, as people who received a return decision were not necessarily returned within the same year, some Member States issue more than one return decision to one person, or to people whose whereabouts are unknown, and return decisions are not withdrawnas the effective return of third- country nationals who do not have a right to stay ifn the return does not take place owing to difficulties in cooperation with third countries or for humanitarian reasonsUnion is an essential component of an effective asylum policy;
Amendment 64 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses the importance of improving the effective implementation of the directive; highlights that such effectiveness should not only be measured in quantitative terms by referring to the return rate, but also in qualitative terms, such as the sustainability of returns and fundamental rights;
Amendment 86 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the importance of ensuring compliance with return decisions and recalls the key principle enshrined in the directive that voluntary returns should be prioritised over forced returnsat voluntary returns should be proposed as a way to avoid unnecessary retention or detention period;
Amendment 96 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Highlights that under Article 7 of the directive, a return decision shall provide for an appropriate period for voluntary departure, which Member States have to extend where necessary, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case; stresses that a relatively short period for voluntary departure may hinder or altogether prevent voluntary departure;
Amendment 115 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that a broad definition of the risk of absconding may lead tohelp Member States frequently refraining from granting a period for voluntary departureto manage returns more efficiently; recalls that lifting the voluntary departure period also leads to the imposition of an entry ban, which may further undermine voluntary departure;
Amendment 124 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that return and entry-ban decisions on removal should be individualised, clearly justified with reasons in law and in fact, issued in writing, and complete with information about available remediesshould be swift and effective;
Amendment 133 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Highlights that the directive allows for the temporary suspension of the enforcement of a removal, pending a decision relating to return; underlines the importance of such suspensive effect in cases where there is a risk of refoulement; notes that in most countries, appeal against return is not automatically suspensive, which may diminish protection and increase administrative burdens;
Amendment 141 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 160 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes with concernWelcomes the widespread automatic imposition of entry bans, which in some Member States are enforced alongside voluntary departure; stresses that this approach risks reducing incentives to comply with a return decision;
Amendment 169 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses that although the threat of imposition of an entry ban may serve ais an incentive to leave a country within the time period of voluntary departure, once imposed, entry bans actually reduce the incentive to comply with a return decision and may increase the risk of absconding;
Amendment 175 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 185 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 191 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 203 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. NoteRecalls that the directive establishes that returnees may lawfully be detained where other less coercive measures cannot be applied; expresses regret that despite the obligation to apply detention as a measure of last resort, in practice, very few viable alternatives to detention are developed and applied by Member States; calls on Member States, as a matter of urgency, to offer viable community-based alternatives to detention;
Amendment 216 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes that a significant number of alleged children are still detained in the European Union as part of return procedures, which constitutes a direct violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has clarified that children should never be detained for immigration purposes, and detention can never be justified as in a child’s best interests; stresses that there should be mandatory procedures to detect adults pretending to be children, such as bone age assessments or dental age assessments, in order to be able to put more focus on real children’s best interest;
Amendment 226 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on Member States to ensure the proper implementation of the directive in all its aspects; calls on the Commission to continue monitoring this implementation and take action in the event of non- compliance;
Amendment 228 #
2019/2208(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 4 #
2019/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3
Citation 3
— having regard to the purposes set out in Article 1 of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention), which entered into force on 1 August 2014,
Amendment 32 #
2019/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 22
Citation 22
— having regard to the statement of 24 March 2020 by the President of the Council of Europe’s Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO), Marceline Naudi, entitled ‘For many women and children, the home is not a safe place’, on the need to uphold the standards of the Istanbul Convention in times of a pandemic, , in times of a pandemic, to comply in particular with Articles 16 on prevention and treatment programmes, 20 to 22 on support for victims, 23 on shelters and 31 on visitation rights and safety, of the Convention,
Amendment 40 #
2019/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas gender equality between women and men is a fundamental value and an objective of the EU underlined in Articles 2 and 3 TFEU; whereas gender-based violence is an extreme form of discrimination against women and one of the biggest obstacles to achieving gender equalitythis objective;
Amendment 43 #
2019/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas gender equality between men and women is a fundamental value and an objective of the EU; whereas gender-based violenceviolence based on a person's sex is an extreme form of discrimination against women and one of the biggest obstacles to achieving gender equality of the sexes;
Amendment 52 #
2019/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, in spite of numerous instances of formal recognition and progress having been made on gender equality of the sexes, women and men do not enjoy the same rights in practice and social, economic and cultural inequalities persist;
Amendment 90 #
2019/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Amendment 96 #
2019/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas, in order to address the issue of the eradication of gender-based violenceviolence based on a person's sex, it is necessary to rely on consistent and comparable administrative data, based on a robust and coordinated framework of data collection; whereas the current available data collected by the Member States’ law enforcement and justice authorities fail to reflect the full extent of intimate partner violence, as most Member States neither collect gendersex- segregated comparable data on gender- based violenceviolence based on a person's sex nor do they recognise intimate partner violence as a specific offence;
Amendment 112 #
2019/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the right of every child to maintain contact with both parents, implied in Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 9 of the CRC, may be restricadapted byin the best interests of the child;
Amendment 131 #
2019/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas the Istanbul Convention requires the Parties to adopt legislative or otherlegislative measures are necessary measures to ensure that incidents of domestic violence are taken into account when determining custody and visitation rights in relation to children, and that the exercise of any visitation or custody rights does not jeopardise the rights and safety of the victim or their children;
Amendment 147 #
2019/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N a (new)
Recital N a (new)
Na. whereas children who are victims of or witnesses to intimate partner violence have more health problems (stunting, allergies, ENT and dermatological problems, headaches, stomach aches, sleeping and eating disorders, etc.), adjustment disorders (school phobia, hyperactivity, irritability, learning difficulties) and problems with concentration and behaviour;
Amendment 148 #
2019/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N b (new)
Recital N b (new)
Nb. whereas various studies show, on the one hand, that children who have lived in a violent family environment are heavily overrepresented among offenders and, on the other hand, that transgenerational repetition of violence is frequently observed;
Amendment 191 #
2019/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that, in principle, shared custody and unsupervised visits are desirable in order to ensure that parents enjoy equal rights and responsibilities, as well as to safeguard the best interests of the child; underlines, however, that intimate partner violence is clearly incompatible withcan justify the withdrawal of shared custody and care, owing to its severe consequences for women and children, including the risk of extreme acts of femicide and infanticide; stresses that when establishing the arrangements for custody allocation and visitation rights, the protection of women and children from violence and the best interests of the child must be paramount and should take precedence over other criteria; stresses, therefore, that awarding exclusive custody to the non-violent partner, most frequently the mother, often represents the best alternative in order to prevent further violence and secondary victimisation of the victims;
Amendment 213 #
2019/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Strongly recommends that Member States establish specialised courts and judicial offices, as well as appropriate laws, training, procedures and guidelines for all professionals dealing with the victims, including raising awareness of gender-based violenceviolence based on a person's sex, in order to avoid discrepancies between judicial decisions and discrimination or secondary victimisation during judicial, medical and police proceedings, ensuring that children and women are duly heard and their protection is given priority; emphasises the need to strengthen dedicated judicial offices and child and female victim- friendly justice, limiting the excessive discretionary powers of practitioners and establishing checks on child custody procedures by qualified professional figures;
Amendment 247 #
2019/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide quality, gendersex- segregated and comparable EU-wide data on the prevalence, causes, consequences and management of intimate partner violence and custody rights, making full use of the capacity and expertise of the EIGE;
Amendment 263 #
2019/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Expresses its concern about the fact that discriminatory gender bias often leads to a lack of trust indifficulties faced by women, in particular concalernting presumed false allegations ofthe authorities, without risk, to child abuse and ofor domestic violence;
Amendment 266 #
2019/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Expresses its concern about the fact that discriminatory gendersex bias often leads to a lack of trust in women, in particular concerning presumed false allegations of child abuse and of domestic violence;
Amendment 298 #
2019/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Strongly recommends that Member States put in place systematic procedures for monitoring, including psychological monitoring, of children who are victims of and witnesses to domestic violence, in order to respond to the troubles this causes in their lives and to prevent them from repeating such violence as adults;
Amendment 159 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) It is recognised that it is legitimate for Member States to return illegally staying third-country nationals, provided that fair and efficient asylum systems are in place which fully respect the principle of non-refoulement.
Amendment 172 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) To reinforce the effectiveness of the return procedure, clear responsibilities for third-country nationals should be established, and in particular the obligation to cooperate with the authorities at all stages of the return procedure, including by providing the information and elements that are necessary in order to assess their individual situation. The determination of their real age, through bone or dental tests, is vital in order to verify the truth of their statements on this subject, making it possible to assess their good faith, and to protect genuine unaccompanied minors by distinguishing between them and those making false claims. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that third-country nationals are informed of the consequences of not complying with those obligations, in relation to the determination of the risk of absconding, the granting of a period for voluntary departure and the possibility to impose detention, and to the access to programmes providing logistical, financial and other material or in-kind assistance.
Amendment 204 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The deadline for lodging an appeal against decisions related to return should provide enough time to ensure access to an effective remedy, while taking into account that long deadlines can have a detrimental effect on return procedures. To avoid possible misuse of rights and procedures, a maximum period not exceeding fivthree days should be granted to appeal against a return decision. This provision should only apply following a decision rejecting an application for international protection which became final, including after a possible judicial review.
Amendment 210 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) The appeal against a return decision that is based on a decision rejecting an application for international protection which was already subject to an effective judicial remedy should take place before a single level of jurisdiction only, since the third-county national concerned would have already had his or her individual situation examined and decided upon by a judicial authority in the context of the asylum procedure.(Does not affect English version.)
Amendment 213 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
Amendment 247 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) When an illegally staying third- country national is detected during exit checks at the external borders, it may be appropriateis necessary to impose an entry ban in order to prevent future re-entry and therefore to reduce the risks of illegal immigration. When justified, following an individual assessment and in application of the principle of proportionality, aAn entry ban mayshall be imposed by the competent authority without issuing a return decision in order to avoid postponing the departure of the third- country national concerned.
Amendment 251 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) The use of detention for the purpose of removal should be subject to the principle of proportionality with regard to the means used and objectives pursued. Detention is justifHowever, in viedw only to prepare the return or carry out the removal process and if the application of less coercive measures would not be sufficientf the illegal situation of the individuals concerned by return, detention must always remain an instrument available to Member States.
Amendment 261 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) Detention should be imposed, following an individual assessment of each case, where there is a risk of absconding, where the third-country national does not cooperate with all the stages in the removal process, avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process, or when the third country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security.
Amendment 266 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) Given that maximum detention periods in some Member States are not sufficient to ensure the implementation of return, a maximum period of detention between three and six months, which may be prolonged, should be established in order to provide for sufficient time to complete the return procedures successfully, without prejudice to the established safeguards ensuring that detention is only applied when necessary and proportionate and for as long as removal arrangements are in progress.
Amendment 315 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38
Recital 38
(38) Establishing return management systems in Member States contributes to the efficiency of the return process. Each national system should provide timely information on the identity and legal situation of the third country national that are relevant for monitoring and following up on individual cases. To operate efficiently and in order to significantly reduce the administrative burden, such national return systems should be linked to the Schengen Information System, to Eurodac and to all the databases used to identify third country nationals, to facilitate and speed up the entering of return-related information, as well as to the central system established by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation].
Amendment 329 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 44
Recital 44
(44) Application of this Directive is without prejudice to the obligations resulting from the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as amended by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967.
Amendment 334 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 46
Recital 46
(46) The purpose of an effective implementation of the return of third- country nationals who do not fulfil or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence in the Member States, in accordance with this Directive, is an essential component of the comprehensive efforts to tackle irregular migration, based on the principle of deterrence, and represents an important reason of substantial public interest.
Amendment 339 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 47
Recital 47
(47) Member States' return authorities need to process personal data to ensure the proper implementation of return procedures and the successful enforcement of return decisions. The third countries of return are often not the subject of adequacy decisions adopted by the Commission under Article 45 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council18, or under Article 36 of Directive (EU) 2016/68019, and have often not concluded or do not intend to conclude a readmission agreement with the Union or otherwise provide for appropriate safeguards within the meaning of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or within the meaning of the national provisions transposing Article 37 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. Despite the extensive efforts of the Union in cooperating with the main countries of origin of illegally staying third-country nationals subject to an obligation to return, it is not always possible to ensure such third countries systematically fulfil the obligation established by international law to readmit their own nationals. Policies involving diplomatic and economic pressure should be applied in order to encourage them to do so. Readmission agreements, concluded or being negotiated by the Union or the Member States and providing for appropriate safeguards for the transfer of data to third countries pursuant to Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or pursuant to the national provisions transposing Article 36 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, cover a limited number of such third countries. In the situation where such agreements do not exist, personal data should be transferred by Member States' competent authorities for the purposes of implementing the return operations of the Union, in line with the conditions laid down in Article 49(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or in the national provisions transposing Article 38 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. _________________ 18Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 1 p. 1. 19 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89).
Amendment 380 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point b
Amendment 382 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – title
Article 5 – title
5 Non-refoulement, bBest interests of the child, family life and state of health
Amendment 386 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 391 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The objective criteria referred to in point 7 of Article 3 shall include at least the following criteria and any other criterion deemed useful by Member States:
Amendment 448 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the duty to provide all the elements that are necessary for establishing or verifying identity, including age through bone or dental tests;
Amendment 475 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. The elements referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 shall include the third- country nationals’ statements and documentation in their possession regarding the identity, nationality or nationalities, age and means of verifying the declared age through a bone or dental test, country or countries and place or places of previous residence, travel routes and travel documentation, and any other element that Member States may deem useful.
Amendment 562 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 589 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. Member States mayshall impose an entry ban, which does not accompany a return decision, to a third-country national who has been illegally staying in the territory of the Member States and whose illegal stay is detected in connection with border checks carried out at exit in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, where justified on the basis of the specific circumstances of the individual case and taking into account the principle of proportionality.
Amendment 658 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Member States shall grant a period not exceeding fivthree days to lodge an appeal against a return decision when such a decision is the consequence of a final decision rejecting an application for international protection taken in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation].
Amendment 685 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 690 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 3
Article 18 – paragraph 3
Amendment 693 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 5
Article 18 – paragraph 5
5. Detention shall be maintained for as long a period as the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful removal. Each Member State shall set a maximum period of detention of not less than three months and not more than six monthstheir choosing.
Amendment 697 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 6
Article 18 – paragraph 6
Amendment 748 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 750 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2
Article 22 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 751 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
Article 22 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
Detention shall be for as short a period as possible, which shall in no case excemaintained four months. It may be maintained onlyat least as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence.
Amendment 12 #
2017/0035(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
(1a) The procedure for adopting implementing acts shall be subject to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Implementing acts are complementary legislative acts and should be transmitted to Member States, through the Council, in order to monitor compliance with these principles.
Amendment 21 #
2017/0035(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) While the Commission is empowered to decide in such cases, due to the particular sensitivity of the issues at stake, Member States should also fully assume their responsibility in the decision- making process. This, however, is not the case when Member States are not able to reach a qualified majority, due to, amongst others, a significant number of abstentions or intentional non-appearances at the moment of the vote. Therefore, given the politically sensitive nature of the act which led to the blocking, the matter should be referred back to the Council for a final decision.
Amendment 26 #
2017/0035(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
Amendment 29 #
2017/0035(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to ask the CouncilWhere no opinion could be delivered at the level of the appeal committee, the Commission should be required to refer the matter to the Council for a final decision. Having regard to the right of scrutiny provided for in Article 11 of Regulation EU No 182/2011, the European Parliament may be asked to indicate its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of an opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commissiondecision taken by the Council should be binding on the Commission. The Council should also take account of anythe position expressed by the CouncilEuropean Parliament within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicatefor reasons of urgency, it should be possible to provide for a shorter deadline in the referral.
Amendment 37 #
2017/0035(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) TA transparency on the votes of Member State representatives at the appeal committee levelt process for appointing the Member State representatives should be increasestablished and the individual Member State representatives' votesir work should be made public.
Amendment 45 #
2017/0035(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 5 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 46 #
2017/0035(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 48 #
2017/0035(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a a (new)
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
(aa) in paragraph 3, the second subparagraph is deleted.
Amendment 50 #
2017/0035(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 3a
Article 6 – paragraph 3a
3a. Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee, the Commission mayshall refer the matter to the Council for an opinion indicating final decision. In accordance with its right of scrutiny as provided for in Article 11 of this Regulation, the European Parliament may also be asked to give its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commissionuncil shall take account of any position expressed by the CouncilEuropean Parliament within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadlinefor reasons of urgency, a shorter deadline may be provided for in the referral.
Amendment 220 #
2016/0062R(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for a constructive dialogue with the Council and Member States in cooperation with the Council of Europe to address Member States’ reservations, objections and concerns and clon the European institutions to respect the competences of the Member States and the principles of subsidiarifty misleading interpretations of the Istanbul Convention in order to make progress in this areaand proportionality enshrined in the Treaties;