BETA

2034 Amendments of Bettina VOLLATH

Amendment 17 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 22 a (new)
— having regard to the 2019 Poznan Declaration on Roma Integration within the EU Enlargement Process;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 27 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas BiH citizens aspire towards Euro-Atlantic integration for sustainable peace, democracy and prosperity; whereas the European Parliament has continuously supported BiH path into the EU;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 33 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas BiH’s progress on its EU accession path depends on the implementation of the 14 key priorities in the Commission’s opinion on BiH’s EU membership application, and; whereas EU assistance should address the persistent lack of progress in that regard with BiH counterparts;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 43 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas the Office of the High Representative (OHR) and EUFOR Althea are integral in preserving peace, security and stability, in BiH and the Western Balkans region;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 44 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
D a. whereas the High Representative used the Bonn Powers to suspend Republika Srpska Law on Immovable Property;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 48 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E
E. whereas all BiH citizens should enjoy equal rights and obligations throughout BiH territory regardless of their ethnic background; whereas the country has committed to international obligations to end systematic ethnicity and residence-based discrimination and ensure citizens’ equality before the law and has so far failed to do so;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 70 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Urges BiH todecision-makers to show commitment to the European project by advanceing on the 14 key priorities, notably by restoring the independence of the judiciary, strengthening the rule of law, intensifying the fight against corruption and organised crime, securing media freedom and an enabling environment for civil society, and protecting vulnerable groups;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 72 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Reiterates its clear support for BiH’s democratic transformconsolidation through European integration, based on unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity, grounded in the principles of equality and non- discrimination of all citizens and constituent peoples as enshrined in the constitutionpeople living in BiH following the ECHR decisions in the Seidic-Fince group of cases;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 85 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Calls on all UNSC Members to ensure the renewal and continuity of the mandate of the OHR, as a crucial anchor of BiH stability;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 97 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Regrets the impasse in negotiations on electoral law reform in BiH and the lack of political will to overcome it; calls on all actors to promptly reach a balancnegotiate in good will and promptly reach a democratic human rights based agreement, to fulfil the constitutional duty of democratic governance and to ensure the transparency and integrity of the electoral process;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 107 #

2021/2245(INI)

6. Strongly denounces the disregard for international and national norms and obligations, all hate rhetoric and disruptive action, including withdrawal from institutions, particularly by the leadership of the Republika Srpska entity, which destabilises the country, undermines its statehood in violation of the Dayton Peace Agreement and systematically hampers decisions on key laws and reforms; reject which are essential to advance towards EU integration; condemns all attempts to form parallel parastatal institutions, which undermine state institutions, constitutional and legal order, judicial independence and sovereignty; calls for a full, non-selective and unconditional return to all state institutions;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 119 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Calls for the EU and the international community to use all available tools, including targeted sanctions, against destabilising actors in the country, notably Milorad Dodik in the country; welcomes the set of sanctions already adopted in this respect; calls on all EU Member States to ensure similar targeted sanctions can be adopted by the Council;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 134 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines that the EU future of BiH depends on sustainable peace and genuine dealing with the past and reconciliation, warranting its democratic, inclusive and multi-ethnic character; urges BiH to expedite effective and impartial prosecution of war crimes under the revised national war crimes processing strategy; calls on all regional political leaders to set up the relevant commission (RECOM);
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 140 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Encourages authorities to intensify cooperation and data sharing on missing persons and to ensure redress for the families of civilian victims, and the safe and sustainable return of refugees and internally displaced people, the full respect of their rights and the return of their property, as well as reconstruction assistance, job creation and social measures and education rights on the regional and national level;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 144 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Welcomes the amendments to the BiH Criminal Code outlawing the glorification of war criminals and the denial of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes; deplores any attempt not to implement this decision; strongly condemns all forms of historical revisionism, denial, or minimisation or glorification of war crimes including non- compliance with decisions of international and domestic tribunals; calls for implementation of the amendments and effective investigations and prosecution of genocide denial;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 152 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Urges BiH’s political actors to make progress on reforms that are needed to bring the country closer to the EU; calls for an inclusion of civil society organisations in the process, during the transition and beyond; denounces all attempts to stall these reforms, thus endangering access to EU funding under IPA III, which must be based on strictboth incentives and strict rule of law conditionality and depends on the cooperation of different authorities;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 167 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. SRecalls on respecting the democratic principle of holding regular elections, in accordance with the Electoral Law; stresses the importance of holding elections this year as planned;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 171 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Supports transparent and inclusive constitutional and electoral reforms to ensure equality and non-discrimination of all citizens, enhance accountability and transform BiH into a fully functional and inclusive state by immediately implementing rulings, opinions and recommendations of competent courts and international bodies; supports transatlantic facilitation efforts to this endregrets that US and EU facilitation efforts to this end took place with ethno-nationalist leaders outside of parliamentary structures; highlights the importance of the BiH Parliament as the legitimate arena for the ongoing negotiations on electoral reform, as a legitimate and supported BiH Parliament constitutes avital sign of a functioning democratic state;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 200 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3 a (new)
Green agenda and connectivity
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 207 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Recalls the need for laws on gas and electricity, renewables, energy efficiency and climate, and to step up environmental and nature protection and ambition towards a green transition; calls on the Green Agenda for the Western Balkans to fully support BiH in this respect;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 213 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Urges BiH authorities to opt out from new coal generation facilities financed by China that are contrary to the EU directives on state aid and the country's commitments resulting from the Green Agenda;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 223 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Calls for urgent action to tackle widespread selective justice, state capture, nepotism, cronyism, high-level corruption and criminal infiltration; reiterates the urgent need for judicial reform across BiH to improve the professionalism and integrity of the judiciary; notably calls for strengthening of the monitoring of performances of judiciary actors and the improvement of corruption monitoring mechanisms;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 227 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Reiterates the need to investigate political and administrative links to organised crime and to effectively prosecute high-profile corruption cases;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 229 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Recalls the need to update laws and align with the EU on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism, and to establish an asset recovery office; financing of political parties, and protection of whistleblowers;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 235 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Underlines the poor cooperation of BiH’s law enforcement agencies and their failure to effectively collaborate with Europol, Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office; welcomes bilateral efforts supported by Europol and Eurojust aimed at dismantling people smuggltrafficking networks;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 243 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Deplores the continuing failure to safeguard media freedom and pluralism; insists on eliminating political interference and protecting journalists from intimidation with systematic judicial follow-upthe safety of journalists with systematic and efficient prosecution; calls on the authorities to take immediate and effective investigative steps in a timely manner; calls on the authorities to assign a special layer of protection to journalists in the criminal codes;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 251 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Deplores threats from the authorities against civil society; condemns growing restrictions on freedom of expression in theand freedom of assembly in BiH, notably in Republika Srpska entity;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 255 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22 a. Stresses the need to ensure the participation of citizens in the democratic life of the country through effective, meaningful and inclusive involvement of civil society organisations in the EU integration process; calls on authorities to ensure an enabling environment for civil society upholding international standards; calls on the authorities to develop and implement a strategic framework of cooperation with civil society and to guarantee an inclusive policy dialogue;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 260 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Calls on the Commission to refocus IPA III support to in-country democratic forces, institutions and procedures and to civil society organisations;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 262 #
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 265 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Stresses the need to safeguard the rights of minorities and inclusion of vulnerable populations; calls for stronger country-wide human rights and anti- discrimination strategies and the implementation of an independent body to deal with human rights violations and issues; urges the prevention and proactive prosecution of hate crimes, hate speech and disinformation as well as gender-based and sexual violence;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 268 #

2021/2245(INI)

24 a. Calls for the amendment of the criminal codes in the Federation of BiH and Brčko District to expand provisions on incitement to hatred and violence so that they include sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics as protected grounds;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 271 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 b (new)
24 b. Is concerned by the level of gender-based violence, for which the institutional response needs to be improved and at abuses against women rights defenders; expects Bosnia and Herzegovina to accelerate the prosecution of crimes of sexual violence and provide reparation to women victims of war crimes; underlines the importance to provide reparation, access to specialised support services, legal aid and safe accommodation to women survivors of war crimes;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 272 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 c (new)
24 c. Recalls the need for specific earmarked funding on gender equality in all EU external financial instruments, and for reduced administrative constraints to allow access to funding for local and small civil society organisations (CSOs) and especially women civil society organisations (WCSOs);
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 275 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 d (new)
24 d. Calls for the need to introduce legislation to protect LGBTI+ and for the prosecution of violence and hate crimes against them, as well as for promotimg their social inclusion and adopt a relevant action plan;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 277 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 e (new)
24 e. Calls for the adoption of the Action Plan for Equality of LGBTI Persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina 2021- 2023, which has been stalled since 2020;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 279 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 f (new)
24 f. Welcomes the conclusion of the Intersectoral Working Group on same-sex rights and partnership, which officially recommended a law on same-sex partnership to be drafted; calls on the government to bring this to the government session without delay;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 282 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 g (new)
24 g. Welcomes the fact that the Government of the Canton of Sarajevo covered the security costs of the 2021Sarajevo Pride; calls for the amendment and harmonization of laws regulating freedom of assembly to come in line with international and EU standards;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 287 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 h (new)
24 h. Stresses the need to duly prevent discrimination of Roma and other ethnic minorities, to improve access to healthcare, education, labour market and to develop and implement strategies on social inclusion;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 290 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 i (new)
24 i. Demands BiH to develop and adopt a new action plan on child protection;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 292 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 j (new)
24 j. Stresses that the strengthening of the welfare state in BiH is an important condition for social cohesion;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 298 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
25. Reiterates its call to urgently end segregation and discrimination in education, including by implementing court rulings to end the discriminatory illegal practice of ‘two schools under one roof; stresses the need to invest more in the education sector – from pre-school to higher education in order to achieve better and equal opportunities for all including vulnerable groups;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 300 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25 a. Welcomes the continued participation of BiH thanks to IPA support to the Erasmus+, Creative Europe and Europe for Citizens Programmes; stresses that educational and cultural exchanges and joint projects are an essential part of bringing the citizens of BiH and of the EU closer;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 303 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 b (new)
25 b. Urges BiH authorities to address the increasing youth unemployment rate, and to concentrate resources and leverage to ensure a future for BiH young people in their country:
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 304 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 c (new)
25 c. Calls on the authorities to foster the social dialogue among social partners on all socio-economic matters and to strengthen the role of trade unions bargaining for collective agreements;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 307 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
26. Deplores the failure of authorities to address the severe migration-related humanitarian crisis at the border of Croatia and BiH; recalls the need for solidarityhuman rights-based solutions on migration and asylum, ensuring adequate humanitarian assistance and appropriate reception capacities across the country; welcomes the opening of the EU-funded centre in Lipa, especially also medical assistance and vaccination strategies, and appropriate reception capacities across the country; recalls the need for the establishment of accessible and efficient asylum system in the country as well as a full range of integration services for asylum seekers; reiterates its serious concerns over the rights of people in transit in BiH; expresses deep concerns about pushbacks of refugees to Serbia and Montenegro, as well as the limitation of their movement and limitation of public transport inside the country; underlines that the “externalisation” of EU border management and migration control to BiH authorities is of concern in light of violations of human rights standards; states that it is the EU’s duty to conduct a humane and migration approach, that aims at protecting the fundamental rights of persons in need of international protection in countries of transit such as BiH;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 311 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26 a. Condemns the closure of Miral camp on 28 April and that people who were living there were forcibly moved to Lipa camp which is far away from any infrastructural accessibility;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 312 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 b (new)
26 b. Condemns the eviction of squats by the police by force on 28 April which happened when people were sleeping; condemns that people were moved to Lipa camp;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 330 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
28. Calls for the EU to take concrete steps to integrate the Western Balkans and BiH within a broader strategic and security context, also in view of the Russian aggression against Ukraine, disinformation and malign interference destabilising the country and region; stresses the need for the EU to boost its proactive strategic communication to counter attempts at diminishing the EU’s credibility and actions in the region and jeopardizing the country’s unity;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 332 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28 a. Underlines the need for EU to boost assistance and technical expertise to BiH for the protection and securitization of its cyber domain;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 335 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 b (new)
28 b. Urges the EU to assist BiH in increasing its green energy security amid the ongoing war in Ukraine and the precariousness of the energy prices;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 338 #

2021/2245(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
29. Welcomes EU-funded efforts to boost demining and the disposal of weapons, ammunition and explosives; underlines that BiH officially aligns itself with the criteria and principles of the Common Position on Arms Export and is a State Party to most disarmament, non- proliferation and arms control treaties;
2022/05/10
Committee: AFET
Amendment 15 #

2021/2209(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas almost five million people globally have died because of the COVID- 19 pandemic, prompting governments all over the world to enact extraordinary measures to contain the spread of the COVID-19 virus, including closing schools and limiting access to educational facilities; whereas there are other crises, such as the climate crisis, which still need to be addressed;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 21 #

2021/2209(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas since March 2020, around 194 countries have closed schools nationwide because of the COVID-19 pandemic, impacting more than 1.8 billion school learners globally and cutting off their access to education and to other vital benefits that schools provide; whereas one third of children globally do not have access to the internet and digital learning and teaching methods;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 38 #

2021/2209(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas an estimated additional 825 million children will not reach adulthood with the secondary-level skills they need for work and life by 2030; whereas millions of children and young people who regularly attended schools are not developing the skills they need to get a job, start a business and contribute to their communities; whereas millions of children are deprived of desirable future prospects;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 42 #

2021/2209(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G
G. whereas school closures have a large economic impact as they prevent children and youth from developing necessary skills and accessing higher and/or tertiary education, which leads to them entering the labour market upon completion of their education without the required skills, giving rise to learning losses and and with fewer opportunities, frequently giving rise to unemployment and hence increases in inequality;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 43 #

2021/2209(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
G a. whereas school closures have a significant social and psychological impact – since children have less contact and interaction with their peers – and also undermine the right to education;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 47 #

2021/2209(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I
I. whereas it is estimated that school closures during crises may lead to increases in teenage pregnancy of as much as 65 %6; whereas girls out of school are disproportionally exposed to the risk of child marriage; whereas it is estimated that one million girls in Sub-Saharan Africa may be blocked from returning to schools once they reopen given the existence of certain policies that ban pregnant girls and young mothers from school; whereas out- of-school children are at a higher risk of domestic violence; _________________ 6World Vision (2020), COVID-19 Aftershocks: Access Denied .
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 55 #

2021/2209(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J
J. whereas according to several national and regional law enforcement authorities, children out of school – in particular girls and children from disadvantaged backgrounds, such as children of minorities, children with disabilities and children in care and children who have lost their parents and grandparents as a result of the pandemic, among others – are disproportionally vulnerable to exploitation, child labour and domestic violence, including the witnessing of violence, online bullying and other crimes such as sexual exploitation and abuse7; _________________ 7Press release of 19 June 2020 by Europol entitled ‘Exploiting Isolation: Sexual Predators Increasingly Targeting Children during COVID Pandemic’.
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 60 #

2021/2209(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L
L. whereas school closures have been essential to limit the spread of COVID-19, in particular to elderly people and other vulnerable people in contact with children and youth; whereas schools are more than places where children can learn, as they also constitute hubs for mental health and psychosocial support and meeting places; whereas according to UNESCO and UNICEF, school closures do not only affect the right to education but also the right to health, with more than 80 million children missing primary vaccinations as a result of school closures and teachers are not able to notice any particular abnormalities; whereas school closures also impact the right to good nutrition as 304 million children have no access to a daily meal when schools are closed; whereas school closures seriously affect children’s mental wellbeing as children can be exposed to violence and stress in the home; whereas school closures can have psychosocial consequences, including depression and suicide, as children are unable to maintain social contacts;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 70 #

2021/2209(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses the importance of giving every child the opportunity to go back to school and calls on the Commission, the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the Member States to support the authorities of third countries in prioritising school reopening in their recovery plans, including support for teachers to help children catch up with lost learning and support for children’s wellbeing, as schools are critical for children’s learning, safety, health, nutrition and overall wellbeing; calls, furthermore, on the Commission, the EEAS and the Member States to support third-country authorities in developing and implementing digital teaching and learning methods and to guarantee publicly funded internet access for all;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 72 #

2021/2209(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Considers that, even during a crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, schools, parents and NGOs need to work closely together and be in constant contact with each other; calls for partnerships to be supported;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 85 #

2021/2209(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Highlights the massive inequity in the fight against the pandemic owing to unequal access to vaccines, resulting in unequal protection capabilities; emphasises that the pandemic can only be brought to an end globally and that vaccines must be accessible to all;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 86 #

2021/2209(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Stresses that there is a mutual interaction between education and poverty and that children from financially weak families have less access to school materials and a balanced diet, both of which are essential for their concentration and social participation; stresses that these disadvantages can lead to lower educational opportunities and, in turn, to poverty through reduced future prospects;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 87 #

2021/2209(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3 c. Calls on the Commission, the EEAS and the Member States to support third-country authorities in ensuring that all children can enjoy their right to free primary education and to take immediate action to ensure that secondary education is available and accessible;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 90 #

2021/2209(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission, the EEAS and the Member States to support the authorities of third countries in financing and implementing ‘safe school’ operations, including providing hygiene supplies and sharing information on handwashing and other hygiene measures; highlights, in this regard, the key role that teachers can play in health promotion;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 92 #

2021/2209(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Stresses the importance of sufficient clean water to cope with everyday life, all the more so as a result of the pandemic; Calls for access to sufficient clean water and a healthy diets for children in their homes and in schools to be guaranteed;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 95 #

2021/2209(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission, the EEAS and the Member States to support the authorities of third countries in establishing risk mitigation and management plans through resilience planning; highlights the importance of developing and guaranteeing contingency planning and crisis response plans now to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission in schools and to better anticipatminimise the impact of school closures on children, especially on the poorest and most marginalised children; considers the evaluation and monitoring of implementation to be a sine qua non;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 103 #

2021/2209(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission, the EEAS and the Member States to support the authorities of third countries in proactively issuing guidance on best practices in remote learning, and in ensuring that appropriate and safe tools, curricula and technology are used and are made accessible to children from low- income families, marginalised children and children with disabilities or learning difficulties, children in alternative care, and children of indigenous peoples living in remote areas or in environments where they are deprived of liberty or where internet access is not ubiquitous; reiterates the importance of digital learning as a great equaliser that enables educational institutions to reach all children at speed and scale, while at the same time fostering partnerships and working with a wide range of actors from civil society as well as the public and private sectors; stresses, in this regard, that children’s privacy and the protection of personal data must be guaranteed in connection with all digital tools and that due account must be taken of gender-responsive content and the different realities of children’s lives;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 110 #

2021/2209(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Commission and the EEAS to support the governments of third countries in building and further developing stronger gender- responsive education systems;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 119 #

2021/2209(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11 a. Stresses the fragility and sensitivity of children and the consequent need for safe spaces for children, a need which already existed before the COVID- 19 pandemic but which was exacerbated by it; calls on the Commission, the EEAS and the Member States, as well as the national governments of third countries, to provide psychosocial support and sufficient safe spaces for children, and to inform children about them and to make them easily accessible to children; calls, furthermore, for the establishment of emergency hotlines for children and for them to be widely publicised;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 127 #

2021/2209(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses the importance of including vocational training and ‘second chance programmes’ in the recovery plans to help children and young people enter the labour market; calls on the Commission, the EEAS, the Member States and third countries to generate desirable future prospects for the young generation;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 128 #

2021/2209(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Highlights the importance of preparing and supporting teachers, empowering them to address learning losses among their students to be able to respond to their individual social, family and mental conditions, and to incorporate digital technology into their teaching;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 130 #

2021/2209(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14 a. Stresses that children’s rights, and in particular the right to education and the right to health, apply to all children; stresses that there must be no room for unequal treatment and discrimination;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 131 #

2021/2209(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Considers that national governments – and their competent national authorities – must communicate with children in a child-friendly manner to explain the measures taken to limit the spread of COVID-19 to raise awareness about the impact, risks and threats of COVID-19 and to inform children of their rights;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 19 #

2021/2187(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 16 a (new)
— having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 9 June 2021 on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives (2020/2273(INI)),
2022/01/19
Committee: AFET
Amendment 20 #

2021/2187(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 16 b (new)
— having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2021 with recommendations to the Commission on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability (2020/2129(INL)),
2022/01/19
Committee: AFET
Amendment 26 #

2021/2187(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas Resolution 64/292 of the UN General Assembly recognises ‘the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights’; whereas the absence of water is incompatible with life and both rights are essential for a dignified life; whereas sanitation and access to water are mutually dependent and there can be no sustainable and universal access to clean water without functioning sanitation chains;
2022/01/19
Committee: AFET
Amendment 37 #

2021/2187(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas the human right to water is linked to the right to education; whereas children, in most cases girls, have to walk miles every day to fetch water, which prevents them from attending school; whereas water is imperative for concentrating during learning; whereas girls are also forced to drop out of school when they are unable to access gender- appropriate toilets and manage their menstruation in a dignified manner;
2022/01/19
Committee: AFET
Amendment 57 #

2021/2187(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Ha. whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has once again clearly shown the imperative nature of clean and adequate water and sanitation on a global basis; whereas persons who were already disadvantaged have as a result experienced yet greater disadvantages during the pandemic in connection with protection and prevention measures;
2022/01/19
Committee: AFET
Amendment 87 #

2021/2187(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital P a (new)
Pa. whereas 80% of wastewater is released directly into the environment without any treatment, and waterborne diseases are widespread, particularly in developing countries;
2022/01/19
Committee: AFET
Amendment 90 #

2021/2187(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital P b (new)
Pb. whereas the persons employed in parts of the wastewater chain are among the weakest groups in society and are exposed to numerous risks, including health risks as a result of the toxic gases they inhale; whereas these persons are often informal workers who are not protected by labour rights; whereas our right to water and sanitary facilities should not come at the expense of the safety, dignity and wellbeing of workers in the wastewater treatment industry;
2022/01/19
Committee: AFET
Amendment 107 #

2021/2187(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Reaffirms the right to safe drinking water and sanitation as a human right, which is in turn fundamental for the development of other rights, and as such must be guided by a logic grounded in the public interest and common good; underlines that water is a common public good and that an adequate, continuous and high-quality supply of water must be guaranteed; underlines that access to clean drinking water is indispensable to a healthy, dignified and productive life; calls on the Commission and the Member States to guarantee universal and non- discriminatory access to water and sanitary facilities, prioritising those with the greatest need;
2022/01/19
Committee: AFET
Amendment 109 #

2021/2187(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Underlines that the human right to drinking water and the right to health and life are mutually dependent;
2022/01/19
Committee: AFET
Amendment 130 #

2021/2187(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Underlines the finite nature of water and calls on the Commission and the Member States to take preventive action to combat global water scarcity and to support third countries in measures to combat water scarcity;
2022/01/19
Committee: AFET
Amendment 131 #

2021/2187(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Underlines the need for clean water in the context of pandemics and calls for corresponding action on the part of the Commission, Member States and third countries so that adequate protection can be offered to everyone; calls on the Commission to support third countries in the development of strategies and policies;
2022/01/19
Committee: AFET
Amendment 162 #

2021/2187(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Recognises the important work undertaken by environmental rights defenders and the need to support them proactively and protect their life and safety, in particular those safeguarding the right to water, and roundly condemns the killings, abductions, torture, gender- based violence, threats, harassment, intimidation, smear campaigns, criminalisation, judicial harassment, forced evictions and displacements carried out by numerous perpetrators, including governments and multinational corporations; calls on the Commission and the Member States to support environmental activists and defenders and civil society organisations throughout the world;
2022/01/19
Committee: AFET
Amendment 193 #

2021/2187(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Stresses also that the water and sanitation situation is often worse or even inadequate in refugee camps; underlines that countries are obliged to safeguard the right to sanitary facilities and water for refugees;
2022/01/19
Committee: AFET
Amendment 198 #

2021/2187(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Stresses that companies worldwide must ensure that their activities do not encroach on or abuse the enjoyment of the human right of access to safe drinking water; calls, furthermore, for countries to introduce an obligation for companies to furnish evidence and to adopt legislation to ensure that companies do not hinder equal access to an adequate supply of water; demands support for the binding treaty being drafted at the United Nations;
2022/01/19
Committee: AFET
Amendment 201 #

2021/2187(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Emphasises that European companies, when operating in third countries, must comply with the same legal obligations in respect of corporate reinforcement and due diligence that apply to their operations in Europe;
2022/01/19
Committee: AFET
Amendment 207 #

2021/2187(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Deplores that, as several UN experts have stated, the commodification of water and speculation in futures markets is in breach of basic human rights and contributes to increasing environmental degradation and exacerbating the vulnerability of the poorest and most marginalised in society, flying in the face of the Sustainable Development Goals; underlines that water is not a luxury or consumer product and therefore must not be traded as such;
2022/01/19
Committee: AFET
Amendment 211 #

2021/2187(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide practical guidance to consumers in respect of water footprints and nutrition; calls, furthermore, for greater transparency in the form of water labels indicating a product’s impacts on water sustainability;
2022/01/19
Committee: AFET
Amendment 219 #

2021/2187(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Recalls that, as the EU Water Framework Directive recognises, water is not a commodity but a public good that is vital to human life and dignity; calls on the Commission, given that these are services of general interest that fall, therefore, primarily in the public interest, to permanently exclude water and sanitation and wastewater treatment from the scope of any trade and investment agreements and to check carefully that trade agreements and the activities of European companies do not undermine, whether by action or omission, the right to drinking water and sanitation;
2022/01/19
Committee: AFET
Amendment 220 #

2021/2187(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on states to adopt a policy implementing the human right to water and sanitation and promoting the provision of water and sanitation as essential public services for all; and donors to strengthen their promotion of the provision of water and sanitation as essential public services for all by means of investments that make it possible both to increase the number of people with access to water and wastewater services and to maintain existing infrastructures and the provision and use of services; investments in capacity building and strengthening water system management and in operations and maintenance are of crucial importance in establishing and maintaining effective and sustainable water and wastewater services;
2022/01/19
Committee: AFET
Amendment 244 #

2021/2187(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Believes that it is vitally important to promote and strengthen networks of human rights experts, civil society organisations and community representatives at all levels;
2022/01/19
Committee: AFET
Amendment 245 #

2021/2187(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 b (new)
21b. Calls on the EU to incorporate the rights of employees in the wastewater treatment industry into all wastewater treatment programmes and to assist these employees in their efforts to formalise their status and organise themselves, including within officially recognised trade unions;
2022/01/19
Committee: AFET
Amendment 254 #

2021/2187(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Underlines that the weakest in society, namely people living in poverty, in particular women and girls, minorities and people with physical and/or mental disabilities, are once again hit hardest by a lack of water and sanitation or a lack of access to safe and clean water and sanitation, thereby further exacerbating existing inequalities and poverty; calls for decisive action to be taken to combat the resulting discrimination;
2022/01/19
Committee: AFET
Amendment 257 #

2021/2187(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.
2022/01/19
Committee: AFET
Amendment 3 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)
— having regard to the UN Declaration on human rights defenders, adopted by consensus on 10 December 1998,
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 6 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 a (new)
— having regard to the UN SR Report on the exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association in the digital age (A/HRC/41/41, 2019),
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 7 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 b (new)
— having regard to the info note of the UN Special Rapporteur Annalisa Ciampi on strategic litigation against public participations and rights to freedom of assembly and association,
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 8 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 c (new)
— having regard to the UN report on the adverse effect of the surveillance industry on freedom of expression (A/HRC/41/35,2019),
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 11 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 16 a (new)
— having regard to the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights ‘Human Rights Comment: Time to take action against SLAPPs’ issued on 27 October 2020,
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 27 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 a (new)
— having regard to the Commission communication of 12 September 2012 ‘The roots of democracy and sustainable development: Europe's engagement with Civil Society in external relations’ (COM (2012) 0492),
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 28 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 b (new)
— having regard to the joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 8 April 2020 on the Global EU response to COVID-19,
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 30 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 23 a (new)
— having regard to its resolution of 3 July 2018 on violation of the rights of indigenous peoples in the world, including land grabbing,
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 31 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 23 b (new)
— having regard to its resolution of 11 February 2021 on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability (2020/2129(INL)),
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 32 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 23 c (new)
— having regard to its resolution of 19 May 2021 on the effects of climate change on human rights and the role of environmental defenders on this matter (2020/2134(INI)),
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 33 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 23 d (new)
— having regard to its resolution of 23 October 2020 on Gender Equality in EU’s foreign and security policy (2019/2167(INI)),
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 37 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 27 a (new)
— having regard to the Council conclusions of 16 November 2015 on the EU’s support to transitional justice,
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 38 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 27 b (new)
— having regard to the EU’s Policy Framework on support to transitional justice,
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 39 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, as set out in Article 2 of the TEU; whereas no one shall be persecuted or harassed in any way for their involvement in activities to protect human rights or democracy; whereas silencing dissenting voices and curbing public participation and access to information have a direct impact on human rights and democracy;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 43 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas nowadays, the central role of the EU in promoting and protecting human rights around the world acquires greater significance in one of the most challenging times for multilateralism, international law and for our Union; whereas the European Parliament has an even more crucial position as the most vocal and devoted EU institution in defending our values and as a beacon for human rights activists from all around the world;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 44 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas EU’s policies and actions concerning Human Rights protection and promotion in the world should keep moving forward towards a more assertive, decisive and effective action, employing all our instruments; whereas the EU should undertake an assessment of its Human Rights Toolbox with the aim of strengthening it and constantly explore the best ways for the EU to effectively act with concrete actions and employing the most adequate instruments to address Human Rights’ violations and abuses worldwide;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 49 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Is extremely concerned by the challenges to human rights and democracy, resulting in the weakening of the protection of democratic institutions and of universal human rights, as well as the shrinking space for civil society, observed around the world; calls for the EU and its Member States to make stronger efforts to address the challenges to human rights, both individually and in cooperation with like- minded international partners; calls on the EU and its Members States to act a truly global leader in the promotion and the protection of human rights, gender equality, and the rule of law, and to strongly stand up against any attack to the principles of universality, inalienability, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness of the human rights.
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 69 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Is deeply concerned by increasing number of illiberal democracies and autocratic regimes, which are in the majority for the first time in 20 years; calls for the EU and the Member States to make full use of the tools at their disposal to support good governance, rule of law, democratic institutions and enabling space for civil society worldwide;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 76 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines the importance of the EU’s support to mediation and electoral processes through its assistance to domestic observers and through the election observations missions, in which Parliament plays an active role; stresses the importance of providing the highest level of protection for local electoral observers and calls for enquiring about possible EU action in this respect; highlights the need for effective follow-up to the missions’ reports and recommendations, in order to strengthen democratic standards and facilitate future peaceful democratic transitions in the countries concerned; recalls Parliament’s political mediation tools, which could be developed further to help in this overall approach; calls for the EU to closely collaborate with domestic and international organizations such as the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the endorsing organizations of the Declaration of Principles for international election observation;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 77 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines the importance of the EU’s support to mediation and electoral processes through its assistance to domestic observers and through the election observations missions, in which Parliament plays an active role; stresses the importance of providing the highest level of protection for domestic electoral observers; highlights the need for effective follow-up to the missions’ reports and recommendations, in order to strengthen democratic standards and facilitate future peaceful democratic transitions in the countries concerned; recalls Parliament’s political mediation tools, which could be developed further to help in this overall approach; urges the EU to develop a closer and more ambitious international cooperation on election observation jointly with all relevant partners such as the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the endorsing organisations of the Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 81 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls to strengthen the European Parliament’s overseeing of EU Delegation’s actions towards human rights violations and abuses in third countries and to take concrete and vigorous measures in case these cannot fulfil with their responsibilities in this regard; points out the need of guaranteeing that EU Delegations count with all necessary and appropriate resources and capabilities to act effectively concerning human rights issues in third countries;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 95 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Welcomes the contribution of the EU Special Representative for Human Rights (EUSR) to defending and advancing human rights in the world; underlines the EUSR’s important role in enhancing the effectiveness of the EU’s human rights policies through engagement with third countries, cooperation with like-minded partners to advance the human rights agenda and increasing the internal and external coherence of the EU’s policies in the field;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 102 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that the visibility and mandate of the EUSR’s role should be enhanced in order to have a meaningful impact on human rights; underlines that the EUSR has a flexible mandate which could be adapted to evolving circumstances; is of the opinion that the EUSR’s position could be made more effective by enhancing communication activities and developing a more public profile through, inter alia, the publication of public statements in support of human rights activists at risk, including Sakharov Prize laureates and finalists, and of human rights defenders imprisoned for long periods, thereby helping to protect their physical integrity and their essential work;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 114 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Stresses that all civil society actors, in particular independent civil society organisations, trade unions, community- led organisations and human rights defenders, have a vital role to play in the dialogues, in terms of providing input both to the dialogues and to evaluation of their outcomes; underlines that such organisations should therefore be consulted within the framework of official and informal dialogues, as well as exploratory talks; calls on the EEAS and the Commission to improve communication and transparency with regard to civil society organisations; to this end, calls on the EEAS and the Commission to appoint human rights focal points at the geographical divisions of their headquarters;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 118 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that 2020 marked the 75th anniversary of the United Nations, an essential universal forum for international consensus-building on peace and security, sustainable development and respect for human rights and international law; calls for the EU and its Member States to maintain their vital support to the UN and to continue their efforts to speak with one voice in the UN and other multilateral forums; stresses that the challenges to the universal enjoyment of human rights call for even stronger, inclusive and effective multilateralism and international cooperation; highlights the vital role of UN bodies as the forum for advancing peace, conflict resolution and the protection of human rights, and welcomes the UN Secretary-General’s Call to Action on Human Rights; calls to attribute more competences, resources and capacity of intervention to the UN bodies;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 120 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that 2020 marked the 75th anniversary of the United Nations, an essential universal forum for international consensus-building on peace and security, sustainable development and respect for human rights and international law; calls for the EU and its Member States to maintain their vital support to the UN and to continue their efforts to speak with one voice in the UN and other multilateral forums; calls on Member States to make the EU’s foreign and security policy more effective by using the rule of qualified majority voting in the Council, especially in relation to human rights-related matters and for the adoption of sanctions; stresses that the challenges to the universal enjoyment of human rights call for even stronger multilateralism and international cooperation; highlights the vital role of UN bodies as the forum for advancing peace, conflict resolution and the protection of human rights, and welcomes the UN Secretary-General’s Call to Action on Human Rights;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 124 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Condemns the increase in attempts to undermine the functioning of the UN’s bodies, in particular the Human Rights Council, and to obstruct the rules-based international order; strongly condemns all attacks against Special Procedure mandate holders and against the independence of their mandates; calls on the EU Member States and the EU’s democratic partners to decisively counter these attempts and to strengthen their response to serious violations of international human rights; highlights the need for an adequate funding of all UN human rights bodies including the treaty bodies and calls on the UN Secretary- General to provide appropriate resources from the regular budget and on EU member states to increase their voluntary contributions; stresses that state sovereignty cannot be used as a pretext to avoid human rights monitoring by the international community since, according to the Founding Charter of the United Nations and UN General Assembly resolution 60/251, all states, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, have the duty and the responsibility to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, and the UN Human Rights Council should address situations of violations of human rights;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 127 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Condemns the increase in attempts to undermine the functioning of the UN’s bodies, in particular the Human Rights Council, and to obstruct the rules-based international order; urges to reinvigorate UN bodies and make them more capable of making decisions, ensuring also the consistency and agility of its implementation; calls on the EU Member States and the EU’s democratic partners to decisively counter these attempts and to strengthen their response to serious violations of international human rights; stresses that state sovereignty cannot be used as a pretext to avoid human rights monitoring by the international community since, according to the Founding Charter of the United Nations and UN General Assembly resolution 60/251, all states, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, have the duty and the responsibility to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, and the UN Human Rights Council should address situations of violations of human rights;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 139 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Reiterates its call in favour of actions aimed at combating impunity and to promote accountability in countries where the dynamics of impunity reward those who bear the greatest responsibility and disempower victims, through the implementation of the Pilot Project on the European Observatory on Prevention, Accountability, and Combating Impunity, adopted by the EP and the Council, also by following the request in the previous Annual Reports on the human rights and democracy in the world and the European Union’s policy on the matter;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 145 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Recognises the important role played by human rights defenders in responding to COVID-19 by taking on a multitude of new roles in addition to their everyday human rights work, but also the significant and disproportionate risks they faced, particularly more marginalised human rights defenders; notes with concern that around the world, governments used the pandemic as a mean to specifically target human rights defenders by refusing to release imprisoned human rights defenders, prolonging their incommunicado detention, restricting prison visits to jailed human rights defenders, sentencing human rights defenders on trumped-up charges in closed-door hearings;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 162 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Is seriously concerned at the precarious situation of human rights defenders and deplores the fact that they are the victims of increasing violence, including targeted killings; praises the important work undertaken by all human rights defenders around the world, sometimes at the highest of costs, and takes this opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of all human rights defenders to the human rights movement; underlines the particularly severe situation, further aggravated by COVID-19, of female, environmental, labour, environmental and indigenous human rights defenders; deplores the increased use of techniques such as harassment, criminalisation and defamation campaigns, arbitrary arrests and unlimited detention in inhumane conditions used to silence human rights defenders, often on the basis of ill- defined terrorism charges; reiterates its call to EU Delegations and Member States’ embassies in third countries to regularly visit activists in prison, monitor their trials and advocate their access to justice and protection;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 173 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Deems urgent that a EU-wide scheme for issuing short-term visas for the temporary relocation of human rights defenders be implemented, in particular through the inclusion of instructions in the EU Visa Handbook and amending the legal instruments on visas, particularly the Visa Code; deplores the little progress on this issue over the past year and alerts that the current situation in Afghanistan must be a wake-up call on the need to urgently revisit, in a meaningful way, a more coordinated EU policy regarding the issuing of emergency visas for human rights defenders;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 178 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 8 a (new)
Freedoms of Expression, Peaceful Assembly and Association
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 179 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Stresses that recent findings, such as the NSO Pegasus scandal, confirm that spying of human rights defenders and journalists, among others, is extremely alarming, and seems to confirm the dangers in the misuse of surveillance technology to undermine human rights; calls for promoting a safe and open space and building the capacity of CSOs, NGOs, HRDs, journalists and other concerned individuals to protect themselves from government cyber surveillance and interference, and promote stronger national and international regulation in this area;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 180 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 b (new)
21b. Expresses its serious concern about the particular restrictions of freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association, including the widespread use of counter-terrorism laws and policies to silence civil society and human rights defenders; reiterates the specific challenges to freedom of opinion and expression and their link to freedom of information, including access to independent and reliable information; condemns the raise of legal harassment and restrictive legislations as forms to silence critical voices such as through strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) and criminalisation of defamation on and offline;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 181 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 c (new)
21c. Reiterates the specific challenges to freedom of association due to the use of restrictive legislation, such as anti- terrorism, anti-extremist, and anti- corruption legislation against civil society organisations and the consequent risks of burdensome registration, funding and reporting requirements as forms of state control; calls for the EU to diversify and maximise funding modalities and mechanisms for civil society actors, by taking account of their specificities and ensuring not to restrict their scope for action or the number of potential interlocutors; reiterates the call for the EU to continue to work towards greater autonomy of civic space, in accordance with the principle of policy coherence for development;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 182 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 d (new)
21d. Condemns the increased misuse of legislative, police power or security measures to restrict the right to protest; calls to ensure the right of peaceful assembly is protected online and offline, especially when those who assemble protests are voices of dissent;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 197 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Highlights the interdependence between human rights, a healthy environment biodiversity and combating climate change, and welcomes the UN’s call for global recognition of the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment; underlines the vital role played by environmental human rights defenders and local and indigenous populations in preserving such an environment, despite the threats of violence that they often face from those responsible for, and profiting from, environmentally harmful practices; encourages the EU and the Member States to promote the recognition of ecocide as an international crime under the Rome Statute of the ICC, and requests that the Commission study the relevance of ecocide to EU law and EU diplomacy; recommends that the scope of the serious human rights violations covered by the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime be extended to include environmental crimes;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 201 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Stresses that indigenous peoples have often been the first victims of deforestation, which endangers their rights to land, among other rights, and access to vital resources; underlines, in this regard, the right to determine and establish priorities and strategies for their self-development and for the use of their lands, territories and other resources; recalls that impunity for violations of the rights of indigenous peoples is a driving force in deforestation and therefore deems accountability for these violations to be essential;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 202 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 b (new)
22b. Reiterates its call on the Union and its Member States to strengthen the linkage between human rights and the environment throughout their external action, and to use all instruments at their disposal to effectively support and protect human and environmental rights defenders;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 230 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Reminds that child rights have no boundaries and calls for a systematic and coherent approach to promote and defend children’s rights inside and outside Europe, in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and the 2030 Agenda;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 236 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Calls on the EU to mainstream children’s rights and children protection in all EU external policy, including in the context of Human Rights Dialogues, international and trade agreements, the Instrument of Pre-accession (IPA III) and the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI);
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 237 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 b (new)
27b. Calls for the setting up of a mechanism to track all the EU interventions that are relevant for children, including those in non-social sectors such as trade, digital, environment, and security, to ensure that a do-no-harm approach to child rights is fully implemented;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 243 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
28. Reiterates its strong condemnation of discrimination, xenophobia, intolerance, persecution and killings linked to race, ethnicity, nationality, social class, disability, caste, religion, belief, age, sexual orientation and gender identity that continue to be a major problem in many countries; Stresses that the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted even more the profoundly disproportionate impact of racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; welcomes the launch of the EU’s anti-racism action plan 2020– 2025, which recognises not only the individual and social dimensions, but also the structural nature of this phenomenon; stresses that in spite of 20 years of work since the signing of Durban Declaration and Programme of Action in 2001, racism, discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance continue to be a scourge around the world and calls for a zero-tolerance approach to them; calls on governments, regional organizations, civil society and other stakeholders to redouble their efforts to effectively implement the Declaration and to develop and implement action plans to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 244 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
28. Reiterates its strong condemnation of discrimination, xenophobia, intolerance, persecution and killings linked to race, ethnicity, nationality, social class, disability, caste, religion, belief, age, sexual orientation and gender identity that continue to be a major problem in many countries; welcomes the launch of the EU’s anti-racism action plan 2020–2025, which recognises not only the individual and social dimensions, but also the structural nature of this phenomenon; stresses that in spite of 20 years of work since the signing of Durban Declaration and Programme of Action in 2001, racism, discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance continue to be a scourge around the world and calls for a zero-tolerance approach to them; calls the EU to organize a Global Anti-Racism Summit on combating global racism and discrimination in collaboration with like-minded partners and international organization such as the OSCE, UN, the African Union, the OAS and the CoE;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 248 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28a. Regrets the fact that indigenous peoples continue to face widespread and systematic discrimination and persecution worldwide, including forced displacements, arbitrary arrests and the killing of human rights and land defenders; Reiterates the call for the EU, its Member States and their partners in the international community to adopt all necessary measures for the recognition, protection and promotion of the rights of indigenous peoples, including to their language, lands, territories and resources; welcomes the work that civil society and NGOs are doing on these issues; recalls its decision to appoint a standing rapporteur on indigenous peoples within Parliament, with the objective of monitoring the human rights-related situation of indigenous peoples; calls on countries to ratify the provisions of ILO Convention 169 of 27 June 1989 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 256 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
29. Underlines the difficult situation, discrimination and threats to life faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, non-binary, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) people around the world; calls on the EU to play a leading role in defending the rights of LGBTIQ people in international fora, including working towards the decriminalisation of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics (SOGIESC) and the elimination of intersex genital mutilation (IGM), so-called “conversion therapy” and the forced sterilisation of trans people; welcomes the fact that the LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020–2025 includes the EU’s commitment to include LGBTIQ issues in all its external policies, including support under the NDICI – Global Europe Instrument and Instrument for Pre-Accession funds;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 258 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)
29a. Acknowledges that LGBTIQ+ rights defenders and sex worker rights defenders faced increased physical, economic, legal and psychological risks during COVID-19 as they took on additional emergency roles to protect their communities and as state responses to the pandemic have exacerbated existing systems of classed, gendered, raced and sexualized injustice; deplores the use of COVID-19 as an excuse to crackdown on LGBTIQ+ defenders around the world through conducting raids on human rights defenders homes, mass arrests at the offices of LGBTIQ+ rights organisations, eviction from family homes, closure of human rights defender- run medical clinics, sexual harassment and detention of transgender human rights defenders at security check points established to limit social movement, homophobic and transphobic defamation portraying LGBTIQ+ rights defenders as spreaders of COVID-19;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 267 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
30. Fully supports the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, to hold a belief, or not to believe, and the right to manifest and to change or leave one’s religion or belief without fear of violence, persecution, or discrimination; deplores the persecution suffered by minorities on the grounds of belief or religion in many places in the world; condemns the abuse of blasphemy laws to perpetuate discrimination and deplores the use of religion and religious institutions to the detriment of human rights through the persecution, including by legal means, of belief or religious minorities, women and LGBTIQ persons; reiterates its condemnation of any attempt by authorities or governments to deny or interfere in the choice of religious or belief leaders;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 269 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30a. Calls on the Council, the Commission, EEAS and EU Member States to work with third countries for the adoption of measures to prevent and fight hate crime, and for the adoption of legislation that is fully compliant with international standards on the freedom of expression and the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 275 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 b (new)
30b. Underlines the importance of civil society initiatives in ensuring the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, and in promoting a multi- layered holistic approach that encompass human rights, conflict resolution, development, and interfaith and interreligious initiatives;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 285 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 14 b (new)
Right to participate in free and fair elections
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 286 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30a. Underlines that the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs, particularly though elections, in addition to being a human right in itself, is intrinsically linked to a number of other human rights, the enjoyment of which are crucial to a meaningful electoral process, and are at the core of democratic governments;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 287 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 b (new)
30b. Strongly condemns the loss of democratic values in several third countries and the cases of electoral integrity challenges throughout excessive violence performed by public authorities, the misuse of administrative resources by governing parties, clampdowns on political opponents, censorship and threats to independent media, increased disinformation, among other issues of equal concern; urges the EU to target and counter this extremely worrisome situation and come forward with concrete and effective proposals, reaffirming its willingness to take a leadership role on promoting human rights, democratic values and free and fair elections in third countries;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 288 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 c (new)
30c. Deplores that authoritarian and illiberal regimes move away from the path of mature democracies, universal human rights and democratic standards, creating a false impression of legitimacy by means of fake electoral processes that are neither free nor fair or transparent; calls the EU and Member States to strengthen the Union’s promotion of “democratic resilience” in third countries with all the instruments at their disposal;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 289 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 d (new)
30d. Calls to establish the protection of democratic and electoral processes as a main global human right concern, and for the development of an effective framework for responses to interferences of all nature in electoral processes, collaborating closely with international organizations such as the OSCE;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 292 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
31. Considers that corruption also constitutes a major violation of human rights and that the EU and its Member States must address it as such in their external action by applying the highest transparency standards to their funding to third countries, as well as by supporting anti-corruption civil society organisations, journalists and whistle-blowers; reiterates its concern over the use of SLAPPs to silence journalists, activists, whistle- blowers and human rights defenders who investigate and expose corruption;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 295 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)
31a. Calls for addressing the impunity for grand corruption as a priority because of its grave negative impact on human rights, including through the creation of a European Observatory on the fight against impunity;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 296 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 b (new)
31b. Underlines the need to develop principles and work for an internationally recognised legal definition of grand corruption, including its systemic nature, as a crime in national and international law;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 297 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 c (new)
31c. Calls for addressing the ongoing cases of impunity for grand corruption by stronger enforcement of anti-corruption laws to ensure accountability for the perpetrators of grand corruption schemes; calls for exploring comprehensive approaches that includes reforms to international justice institutions, including extending the jurisdiction of the ICC;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 305 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
32. Welcomes the adoption of the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime (EU GHRSR-EU Magnitsky Act) as an essential addition to the EU’s human rights and foreign policy toolbox, which strengthens the EU’s role as a global human rights actor by allowing it to take restrictive measures against legal and natural persons involved in grave human rights violations in the world; indicates that the application of the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime does not prevent or exclude the adoption of other EU’s instruments for Human Rights’ protection, thus these can be combined and complementary; condemns any arbitrary and unjustified retaliatory restrictive measures imposed on the EU or other entities as a response to the EU’s decisions under the EU GHRSR-EU Magnitsky Act; regrets the fact that the Council has decided to apply unanimity instead of qualified majority voting when adopting sanctions on human rights issues;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 306 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
32. Welcomes the adoption of the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime (EU GHRSR-EU Magnitsky Act) as an essential addition to the EU’s human rights and foreign policy toolbox, which strengthens the EU’s role as a global human rights actor by allowing it to take restrictive measures against legal and natural persons involved in grave human rights violations in the world; condemns any arbitrary and unjustified retaliatory restrictive measures imposed on the EU or other entities as a response to the EU’s decisions under the EU GHRSR-EU Magnitsky Act; regrets the fact that the Council has decided to apply unanimity insteadvoting and reiterates its call for the introduction of qualified majority voting when adopting sanctions on human rights issues;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 319 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
33. Calls for the extension of the scope of the EU GHRSR-EU Magnitsky Act to include acts of corruption in order to ensure the effective targeting of the economic and financial enablers of human rights abusers; stresses the need for an effective strategy to implement the EU GHRSR-EU Magnitsky Act, consistent both with the EU’s other external policies, in particular with its human rights policies, and with the existing international frameworks on sanctions, international criminal law and international humanitarian law; welcomes the Commission’s announcement that in 2021, it will conduct a review of practices undermining sanctions and of the existing reporting obligations for Member States on their implementation and enforcement;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 327 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
34. Reaffirms the inalienable human rights of migrants and refugee, refugees and forcibly displaced persons, and calls for the EU and its Member States to fully uphold them in their cooperation with third countries, both in terms of the establishment of high legal standards and, equally importantly, their operationalisation in order to ensure the effective protection of these rights in practice; recalls that the EU and its Member States, in their external and extraterritorial actions, agreements and cooperation in the areas of migration, borders and asylum, shall respect and protect human rights, notably those enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, including the right to life, liberty, and the right to asylum, notably the individual assessment of asylum applications; reiterates its call on the Commission to carry out a review of the human rights impact of migration policy frameworks and of the EU’s cooperation on migration with third countries; underlines the risks related to informal arrangements on return and readmission, which are not subject to judicial scrutiny and therefore do not allow for effective redress for human rights violations suffered by migrants and asylum seekers; reiterates its call on the Commission to ensure a transparent ex ante risk assessments, performed by independent EU-bodies and experts on the impact of any formal, informal or financial EU cooperation with third countries on the rights of migrants, refugees, and forcibly displaced persons;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 339 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a (new)
35a. Calls on partner countries and international organisations for the implementation of legal frameworks and to increase the efforts of reinforced cooperation on what relates to migrant smuggling, ensuring the protection of migrants and the prevention of exploitation of migrants; recalls in this regard that state smuggling of migrants should also be sanctioned;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 342 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 b (new)
35b. Reiterates its call for the establishment of a coordinated European approach in order to support and ensure a prompt and effective identification processes of those who died on their way to the EU;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 347 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
37. Reiterates that the EU and its Member States should actively support the UN Secretary-General’s and UN Security Council’s appeal for a global ceasefire, including through effective measures against illicit arms trade and enhancing the transparency and accountability of Member States' arms exports; deplores the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects have increased political violence, intensified competition between armed groups and exacerbated long-simmering tensions, while leaving victims more unprotected; expresses grave concern about the increase in conflict- related sexual violence in this context, despite 2020 being the 20th anniversary of UN Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 350 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
38. Stresses the multi-faceted threat to the enjoyment of human rights brought about by modern armed conflicts, which, in addition to states, often involve non-state agents and terrorist organisations; reiterates its call for the EU to strengthen its response to conflicts, for which the Union should fully develop and be able to autonomously implement its own instruments, also in collaboration with partner countries and regional organisations, including a strong focus on conflict prevention, mediation and good offices efforts, addressing the root causes of the conflicts, humanitarian aid, providing the necessary support to the international peacebuilding and peacekeeping missions, as well as EU missions in the framework of the common security and defence policy, and post- conflict reconstruction operations supporting and applying strong integration and scrutiny of human rights and a robust gender perspective;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 362 #
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 363 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 a (new)
39a. Calls for the promotion transitional justice processes that empower civil society, victims, marginalised and vulnerable populations, women, children and youth, rural and urban residents; encourages the creation of links between permanent structures such as national justice systems and national institutions or networks for atrocity prevention and transitional justice's initiatives; stresses the need to provide the tools, space and access to information to victims and affected communities.
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 364 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 20
Due diligence and corporate accountability
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 367 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
40. Emphasises that the EU has a unique opportunity to exert leverage on businesses to uphold human rights at global level with the upcoming EU binding legislation on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability, obliging companies to prevent, identify, communicate, account for and effective remedy potential and/or actual adverse impacts on human rights, the environment and good governance inthroughout their value chain and provide for access to justice for victims and corporate liability regimes; calls for the strategylegislation to apply to all large undertakings governed by the law of a Member State, established in the territory of the Union or operating in the internal market, as well as publicly listed small and medium-sized companies; stresses the need to establish and enforce administrative controls and sanctions to make the legislation effective; calls for companies’ due diligence strategiesthe introduction of civil liability for harm caused or that a company has contributed to by failing to perform due diligence; calls for companies’ due diligence strategies to be defined and implemented through meaningful and regular consultation with stakeholders, including workers, workers representatives, trade unions, human rights defenders, local communities including vulnerable ones such as Dalits, indigenous groups, migrant workers, informal workers and home workers and to be made public; welcomes the full entry into force in 2020 of the EU Conflict Minerals Regulation and the EU Taxonomy Regulation as constructive steps in this field;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 370 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40 a (new)
40a. Reiterates that 69% of human rights defenders killed around the world were engaged in the protection of their land and the environment and the defence of the rights of indigenous peoples, often in the context of business, and emphasises the evermore crucial need, expressed by human rights defenders, for the EU to implement mandatory human rights due diligence legislation for companies;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 373 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
41. Notes that 2021 is the 10th anniversary of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, a genuine framework whose guidelines, in particular those in the third pillar focused on access to remedy and respect for human rights defenders, provides an essential framework to cooperate with third countries on prevention, as well as on access to judicial and non-judicial complaint and redress mechanisms for victims; calls for the EU and its Member States to continue to play an active role in the ongoing negotiations for a UN Binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights, as a means to help secure a level playing field for EU companiestresses the importance for all countries to fully implement the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and calls on those EU Member States that have not yet adopted national action plans on business rights to do so as soon as possible; Stresses the need to establish an international binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other companies; encourages the EU and its Member States to participate constructively in the work of the UN Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Respect to Human Rights; considers this to be a necessary step forward in the promotion and protection of human rights;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 374 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 a (new)
41a. Reaffirms the need to create a grievance mechanism to lodge complaints regarding violations and abuses of indigenous peoples’ rights resulting from the activities of multinational businesses; recommends that the EU and its Member States include references to indigenous peoples and the rights contained in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the relevant and emerging frameworks for due diligence, and ensure that multinational companies be held to account in the event of a breach of their obligations;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 380 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
42. Reiterates its call for the systematic inclusion of human rights clauses in all international agreements between the EU and non-EU countries, including free trade agreements and standalone investment protection agreements; calls for a better use of these clauses, including by the setting of dedicated monitoring and problem solving mechanisms; calls for these clauses to be enforced through clear benchmarks and to be monitored, with the involvement of Parliament, civil society and the relevant international organisations; underlines that the establishment of specific benchmarks could lead the EU to explore the introduction of proportionality into sanctions for non-compliance; underlines that breaches of agreements should trigger clear consequences, including, as a last resort, suspension or the withdrawal of the EU from the agreement; recommendscalls for the inclusion of monitoring mechanisms on human rights in all trade and foreign investment agreements, as well as complaints mechanisms, in order to ensure effective recourse to remedy for affected citizens and local stakeholders; calls that no trade or investment agreement be negotiated without enforceable human rights clauses;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 381 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
42. Reiterates its call for the systematic inclusion of human rights clauses in all international agreements between the EU and non-EU countries; calls for these clauses to be enforced through clear benchmarks and to be monitored, with the involvement of Parliament, civil society and the relevant international organisations; underlines that the establishment of specific benchmarks could lead the EU to explore the introduction of proportionality into sanctions for non-compliance; underlines that breaches of agreements should trigger clear consequences, including, as a last resort, suspension or the withdrawal of the EU from the agreement for the most severe cases of human rights violations; recommends the inclusion of monitoring mechanisms on human rights in trade and foreign investment agreements, as well as complaints mechanisms, in order to ensure effective recourse to remedy for affected citizens and local stakeholders;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 388 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
43. Underlines the strong link between trade and human rights and the incentivising role played by access to trade on upholding human rights conditionality for third countries; notes the ongoing review of the GSP+ Regulation, which is an opportunity to further strengthen this link; underlines that access to GSP+ is contingent on respect to international conventions and progress in the area of human rights and calls for the strict application of conditionality to partner countries including, if warranted, the swift revocation of GSP+ status;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 389 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 a (new)
43a. Stresses the need for continued engagement and dialogue between the EU and all stakeholders - in particular civil society organizations and trade unions- in beneficiary countries, as well as further improvement of transparency and monitoring in order to ensure the GSP scheme fulfils its objective of sustainable development and good governance;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 390 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
44. Underlines the important role played by digital technologies, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic; stresses that these technologies will continue to be implemented around the world in the post- pandemic period and that that they should be appropriately regulated to leverage their strength while avoiding their negative effects on human rights; in particular, stresses the importance of effective safeguards to the right to privacy and data protection in the health-related systems of mass surveillance, and of their proportionate use which should also be limited in time; stresses the evident risks of surveillance techniques to be used against human rights defenders, journalists, civil society and others in particular as they represent a serious obstacle to the defence of human rights, a risk to privacy and freedom of expression, and a serious threat to democratic institutions;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 393 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 a (new)
44a. Strongly condemns the misuse of surveillance technology to monitor, intimidate and silence human rights defenders, journalists, among others, seriously undermining human rights; calls to urgently adopt robust regulations worldwide to guarantee the use of these technologies in compliance with international human rights standards and pending that, to adopt a moratorium on its sale, transfer and use, as well as to guarantee transparency on its use and that developing and trading companies comply with due diligence standards and upcoming EU legislation;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 395 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
45. Notes the benefits brought about by the increased use of artificial intelligence, but stresses that the technologies must be developed, deployed and used in conformity with human rights, adopting a human rights based approach and under meaningful human supervision, in full transparency and ensuring accountability and non-discrimination, in particular to avoid both bias in automated decisions and data protection violations;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 397 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
46. Stresses the vital role of social platforms in advancing freedom of expression and of organisation, but underlines the need for proper safeguards to prevent, on the one hand, the unjustified censorshiplimitation, curation or manipulation of users’ content, including automated censorship, and, on the other, the spread of hate speech, fake news and disinformation, disinformation and intentional harmful content; calls the EU to propose ways to facilitate the human rights defenders work online and the recognition that debate on human rights should be promoted and protected in any circumstances; welcomes the adoption of the new EU rules on the control of exports, brokering, technical assistance, transit and transfer of dual-use technologies;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 405 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
47. Reiterates its strong opposition to the death penalty in view of its cruel and irreversible nature and calls for the EU to intensify its efforts to advocate universal abolition; underlines that a positive trend emerged in 2020 towards a moratorium on executions with a view to fully abolishing the death penalty, with 123 states voting in favour of the UN General Assembly’s resolution on this matter; is extremely concerned, however, about the dramatic increase in executions in certain countries; urges the EU and its Member States to defend abolition in all international forums and advocate for the widest possible support for this position;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 406 #

2021/2181(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
48. Deplores the fact that torture and inhuman or degrading treatment continue to be widespread in many countries and calls for the EU to strengthen its efforts aimed at eradicating these practices, while supporting victims and promoting mechanisms to hold perpetrators accountable; urges all Member States and other countries which have not done so to ratify the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its optional Protocol (OPCAT); recognises the importance of civil society organisations and HRDs in the fight against torture and other forms of ill-treatment;
2021/10/13
Committee: AFET
Amendment 4 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)
— having regard to the judgments of the CJEU on 16 February 2022 in cases C-156/21 Hungary v Parliament and Council and C-157/21 Poland v Parliament and Council on the measures for the protection of the Union budget,
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 22 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 21 a (new)
— having regard to its resolution of 13 November 2020 on the impact of COVID-19 measures on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights,
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 42 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 34 a (new)
— having regard to judgments in Cases C-156/21 Hungary v Parliament and Council and C-157/21 Poland v Parliament and Council,
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 76 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the majority of citizens in Poland does not support unlawful and anti-democratic actions, which were undertaken by the government facing severe allegations concerning breaches of the rule of law.
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 77 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas the Citizens, Equality, Rights, and Values Programme allows bypassing the governments and enables to support EU citizens directly.
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 89 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas, in certain Member States, journalists are increasingly subject to threats and attacks, in particular when investigating crime and corruption; whereas independence of media from political interference continues to be under threat in several Member States, including through the use of spyware tools by certain Member States to target journalists, opposition politicians and activists; whereas these unacceptable developments may have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and freedom of the press and may not be allowed to set precedent both within the EU and towards EU candidate and potential candidate countries;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 139 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Notes with satisfaction that the report contains country-specific chapters; commends the Commission’s efforts to engage with national governments and national parliaments, as well as civil society and other national actors; encourages the Commission to devote greater efforts to deepening the analysis, and invites the Commission to ensure proper resources for that; believes that more time should be devoted to the Commission’s country visits, including on site; takes note of the country-specific discussions under the framework of the Commission’s annual rule of law report during each Council Presidency; suggests to focus these discussions on the Member States with the most pressing rule of law issues to be discussed in the first place, instead of in alphabetical order; emphasises that increased transparency would enhance the rule of law dialogue within the EU and therefore invites the Council to make these country-specific discussions public, including detailed public conclusions;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 191 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that the annual report should identify cross-cutting trends at EU level; asks the Commission to identify instances where certain measures or practices that undermine the rule of law in one Member State become blueprints for others, or when the gravity and scope of such deficiencies have the potential to affect the Union as a whole; stresses that internal rule of law deficiencies may have a detrimental effect on the credibility of the EU’s foreign policy, in particular towards its immediate neighbourhood and candidates and potential candidates for EU membership;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 196 #

2021/2180(INI)

8. Commends the effort of the 2021 report to compare the situation with that of the 2020 report; believes that it is necessary to identify clearly positive and negative trends as regards the rule of law situation and provide an analysis of the underlying reasons for that; invites the Commission to include an assessment of all rule of law measures implemented in the previous year, accompanied by an analysis of their effectiveness and possible avenues for improvement;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 200 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that the 2021 report could have provided clearer assessments, stating whether there were deficiencies, a risk of a serious breach or an actual breach of Article 2 TEU values in each of the pillars analysed in the country chapters; calls for a more integrated analysis on the interlinkages between the four pillars and of how combined deficiencies may amount to breaches or risks of a breach; emphasises that the annual Commission report should not merely be a description of previous events, but instead an analytical and prescriptive instrument in order to fulfil its preventive and mitigative purposes;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 207 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to include country-specific recommendations in the 2022 report; calls on the Commission to accompany such recommendations with binding deadlines for implementation, targets and concrete actions to be taken; calls on the Commission to include in subsequent reports indications on the implementation of its recommendations; and, in addition, to submit a mid-year evaluation report on the progress made in this regard to the Parliament;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 218 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Recommends that the Commission indicate next to each of its recommendations the appropriate tools for the EU institutions to use if the shortcomings are not remedied; calls on the Commission not to hesitate in using those tools, especially when there is no trust in a quick implementation of the recommendations or a risk of further deterioration;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 226 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Regrets the fact that both the 2020 and the 2021 reports fails to fully encompass the Article 2 TEU values of democracy and fundamental rights, which are immediately affected when countries start backsliding on the rule of law; reiterates the intrinsic link between the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 228 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Reaffirms the fact that EU law has primacy over national law, regardless of the way in which national justice systems are organised; deplores the serious and structural problems regarding judicial independence in certain Member States; invites the Commission to include strong binding recommendations in its 2022 report in order to ensure the independence of the judiciary in any EU Member State;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 232 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12b. Recalls that media freedom and plurality are essential to democracy; is alarmed by the increasingly hostile environment in which media are operating inside many EU Member States, characterised by a high amount of violent incidents and threats against journalists, oppressive strategies by EU governments such as the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) and smear campaigns, and increasing state control over public media; stresses that the COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated challenges already faced by media operators; regrets that the 2021 report does not reflect the gravity of these trends, especially related to state control, strategic lawsuits and smear campaigns by certain EU Member States; urges the Commission to improve the media related chapters in this regard, to introduce EU legislation against the use of SLAPPs establishing minimum standards and to present an ambitious legal framework to counter the growing politicisation of the media in certain Member States in the upcoming Media Freedom Act; calls on the Commission to explore possibilities for additional and more flexible funding for independent, investigative journalism in the EU;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 235 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 c (new)
12c. Stresses that media freedom is closely related to artistic and academic freedom; underlines that the independence of education systems is under threat when the autonomous organisational structure of its institutions is not secured; calls, therefore, on the Commission to include all aspects of freedom of expression in its rule of law report;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 236 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 d (new)
12d. Welcomes the fact that many EU Member States are among the world’s best performers in the fight against corruption according to the 2020 Corruption Perception Index, as mentioned by the Commission report; is, however, deeply worried by the fact that there is significant difference among the individual Member States with the best performing ones placed at first place and the worst performing ones ranked at 78th place; regrets the strong deterioration observed in some other Member States and the continued emergence of corruption cases involving high level officials; reiterates that the existence of national anti-corruption strategies can only be considered successful once their implementation has been effectively carried out; recalls the need to establish a regulatory framework that allows for a definition of the crime of corruption that is uniform and shared at European level; urges the Commission to update and enhance the EU anticorruption policy and instruments and ensure the proper implementation and enforcement, in order to provide for commons standards and benchmarks as a precondition for strengthening the mutual trust and sincere cooperation; reminds the importance for EU Member States to engage with EPPO and support actively its tasks;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 237 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 e (new)
12e. Underlines that fair and free elections are among the absolute minimum standards for a functioning democracy and that every election process in the EU should be without any irregularities; urges the Commission to take all measures necessary once the risk of manipulation of elections in an EU Member State is identified; stresses that in case of the observation by the OSCE that elections have not taken place in a fair and free manner, strong consequences must be attached to this under the Article 7 Procedure;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 252 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Expresses particular concern about continued and systematic attacks on the fundamental rights of LGBTI+ persons, reinforced by the deterioration of the rule of law in several EU Member States; regrets that this development is not consistently reflected in the Commission’s rule of law report; calls on the Commission to systematically address this issue in all relevant country reports and the synthesis report;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 255 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13b. Recalls the strong impact of measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic on the EU’s rule of law environment and fundamental rights, in particular in the area of justice, corruption and media freedom; stresses that monitoring of the use and proportionality of these measures should be continued until all measures are lifted without any exceptions; notes in this regard the risk of misuse of funds out of the EU Recovery and Resilience Facility; reiterates that these funds can only be distributed once these concerns have been fully addressed;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 264 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the regular, inclusive and structured dialogue with governments and national parliaments, NGOs, national human rights institutions, ombudspersons, equality bodies, professional associations and other stakeholders; calls on the Commission to organise the consultation of stakeholders through a transparent process, based on clear criteria; considers that civil society organisations should be closely involved in all phases of the review cycle; highlights that thematically structured consultations would make the process more efficient and increase the amount of valuable feedback; stresses that the consultation questionnaire should allow stakeholders to report aspects beyond the scope envisaged by the Commission;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 274 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Considers that the time limits for consultation with civil society is often too short and should be suitably adapted and flexible in order to allow for complete and comprehensive input; points out that this has made it more difficult for stakeholders to prepare and plan their contributions and awareness-raising activities, in particular if the consultation coincides with winter holidays; invites the Commission to introduce the opportunity of year-round consultation for civil society instead of focusing mainly on time-limited calls for input; calls on the Commission to allow multilingual submissions; notes that consultation can be improved by ensuring follow-up with civil society actors on the input they provide;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 307 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Strongly condemns EU Member States refusing to engage in the annual Rule of Law dialogue; considers this refusal to be enough for the Commission to accelerate and refine further the situation in these countries concerned;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 321 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Recalls its position regarding the involvement of a panel of independent experts to advise the three institutions, in close cooperation with the FRA; asks its Bureau, in light of the reluctancecalls ofn the Commission and the Council, to organise a public procurement procedure in order to create such a panel under the auspices of Parliament as a first step, in order to advise Parliament on compliance with Article 2 TEU values in different Member Statesto add their input as an annex to the report and include a justification of how these inputs were included in the annual report;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 334 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Reiterates that the annual report should serve as a basis for deciding whether to activate one or several relevant tools such as Article 7 TEU, the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation, the Rule of Law Framework or infringement procedures, including expedited procedures, applications for interim measures before the CJEU and actions regarding non-implementation of CJEU judgments; calls on the Commission to explicitly link these instruments to identified or possible rule of law issues in the report; calls on the institutions to activate such tools without delay;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 356 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Recalls the importance of the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation where breaches of the principles of the rule of law affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget or the protection of the financial interests of the Union; considers that the annual report is the most appropriate place to have a dedicated section and conduct a relevant analysis; urges the Commission to launch the procedure enshrined in Article 6(1) of that regulation at least in the cases of Poland and Hungary; recalls that the applicability, purpose and scope of the Regulation are clearly defined and do not need to be supported by further explanations; condemns the Commission’s intention to still draft guidelines even after the CJEU ruling confirming the legality and validity of the Regulation; calls on the Commission to explore the full potential of the Common Provisions Regulation and the Financial Regulation to protect the rule law;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 362 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Calls on the Commission to present a legislative proposal, which allows bypassing the governments, for which measures for the protection of the Union budget have been adopted in accordance with the procedure set out in the Article 6 of the Regulation 2020/2092 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, in order to ensure that end beneficiaries receive their allocations without the involvement of the governments facing severe allegations concerning breaches of the rule of law.
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 370 #

2021/2180(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
25. Strongly regrets the inability of the Council to make meaningful progress in ongoing Article 7(1) TEU procedures; urges the Council to ensure that hearings take place on a regular basisat minimum once per Presidency and also address new developments; reiterates its call on the Council affecting rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights; emphasises that there is no need for unanimity in the Council in order to identify a clear risk of a serious breach of EU values under Art. 7(1), neither to address concrete recommendations to the Member States in question, and to provide deadlines for the implementation of those recommendations; reiterates its call on the Council to do so; insists that Parliament’s role and competences be respected;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 22 #

2021/2103(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
B a. whereas civic activism is the fabric of a truly functioning democracy where rights of minorities are safeguarded and respected;
2021/11/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 33 #

2021/2103(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G
G. whereas freedom of expression has been restricted in some Member States; whereas strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) have also been used to target civil society organisations (CSOs) and human rights defenders; whereas these exert a severe chilling effect on freedom of expression and public activism;
2021/11/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 47 #

2021/2103(INI)

Motion for a resolution
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 and freedom of media and expression, as well as those providing assistance to asylum seekers, and those involved in search and rescue operations, are particularly exposed;
2021/11/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 73 #

2021/2103(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital M
M. whereas the emergence of government-organised non-governmental organisations (GONGOs) designed to support the political legitimacy of those in power constitutes one of the gravest forms of attack against CSOs, jeopardising their existence by undermining active citizenship and depriving them of public funding;
2021/11/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 80 #

2021/2103(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital O
O. whereas foreignnon-native funding has been the target of legal and political attacks in some Member States;
2021/11/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 101 #

2021/2103(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that for civil society organisations to thrive, civic space must be an enabling and safe environment free from undue interference, intimidation, harassment and chilling effects;
2021/11/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 137 #

2021/2103(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that the ability of CSOs to act depends on the existence of an enabling legal and political environment, in particular on the exercise of freedom of association, peaceful assembly and expression; urges Member States to guarantee the exercise of these rights in conformity with Union and international standards;
2021/11/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 145 #

2021/2103(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that the contribution of CSOs to the single market and the social economy, as well as their role in the realisation of EU values and policies, is a strong argument for removing the barriers to their operations at EU level; calls on the Commission, therefore, to propose legislationmeasures, including legislative measures to approximate Member State laws in this regard;
2021/11/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 152 #

2021/2103(INI)

9. Calls on the Commission to include a systematic civic space check in its impact assessments in order to prevent planned legislation from having negative effects on civic spacefoster the participation of CSOs in implementation of EU legislation and non-legislative measures;
2021/11/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 163 #

2021/2103(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Member States to limit peaceful assemblies only if strictly necessary and in a proportionate way; condemns any unnecessary and disproportionate use of force against protesters, as well as their criminalisation and surveillance; calls on the Commission to issue guidelines for the protection of freedom of peaceful assembly;
2021/11/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 172 #

2021/2103(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Condemns any threats and attacks perpetrated on CSOs by state owned and state linked actors; equally condemns all instances of attacks and threats perpetrated by non-state actors, including, but not limited to SLAPPs;
2021/11/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 178 #

2021/2103(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Urges Member States to unequivocally condemn such acts, adopt preventive and effective measures and systematically investigate any related allegations;
2021/11/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 198 #

2021/2103(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Urges the Commission to propose a comprehensive set of measures and recommendations to ensure long-term financing for CSOs; stresses that EU funding for CSOs should avoid red-tape measures; stresses the importance of securing complementary sources of funding; emphasises that public funding should cover all types of civil society activities;
2021/11/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 210 #

2021/2103(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Calls on the Commission to take appropriate measures in order to ensure that EU funding is not granted to GONGOs;
2021/11/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 232 #

2021/2103(INI)

18. Urges the Commission to ensure that EU funds are only awarded to organisations that are strictly independent from any governmentauthorities and commercial entities and fully adhere to EU values;
2021/11/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 242 #

2021/2103(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Condemns attempts by certain Member States to impose limitations on foreign funding and the related political narratives they have promulgated and measures they have taken with the aim of stigmatising and harassing CSOs;
2021/11/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 243 #

2021/2103(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Condemns attempts by certain Member States to impose limitations on foreignnon-native funding and the related political narratives they have promulgated and measures they have taken with the aim of stigmatising CSOs;
2021/11/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1 #

2021/2071(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Regrets that the Commission committed1a not to propose any measures under the regulation until it develops guidelines, whose finalisation is subject to the delivery of the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the action for annulment brought by Hungary and Poland; reminds that actions brought before the CJEU shall not have suspensory effect in accordance with the Treaties. _________________ 1aEuropean Council conclusions of 11 December 2020, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/4 7296/1011-12-20-euco-conclusions-en.pdf
2021/06/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 4 #

2021/2071(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Reiterates that the application ofcalls that the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation , as adopted by the co-legislators, does not foresee the development of any guidelines therefore its application cannot be subject to their adoption of guidelines, and urges the Commission to avoid any further delay in its application; reminds that guidelines cannot alter, expand or narrow a regulation and that they must respect the intention of the co-legislators;
2021/06/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 11 #

2021/2071(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the Commission has begun toTakes note of the draft guidelines of the Commission on the application of the Regulation; requests that, if the Commission deems such guidelines necessary, Parliament be consulted prior to their adopis of the opinion that the guidelines simply repeat the provisions of the regulation, have little or no added value and merely delay the application of the regulation;.
2021/06/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 15 #

2021/2071(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Recallminds that any guidelines must not undermine the adopted regulationin accordance with the regulation, the Commission shall take into account relevant information when assessing the possibly breaches of the rule of law by a Member State from available sources and recognised institutions, including judgments orf the intention of the co-legislators; asks the Commission to avoid Court of Justice of the European Union, reports of the Court of Auditors, the Commission’s annual Rule of Law Report and EU Justrict or exhaustive definitions of the concepts, as this would be in contradiction with the Regulation; considers that interprete Scoreboard, reports of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the EuropeanPublic Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) as relevant, and conclusions and recommendations of abstract concepts is a dynamic process which cannot be predefined in one document; believes that the guidelines should fully respect the interpretation of relevant concepts by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Venice Commission.relevant international organisations and networks, including Council of Europe bodies such as the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) and the Venice Commission, in particular its rule- of-law checklist, and the European networks of supreme courts and councils for the judiciary;
2021/06/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 24 #

2021/2071(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Is of the view that the Commission already has reasonable grounds to consider the triggering of the procedure in accordance with Article 6(1) of the regulation; and urges the Commission to act promptly and to avoid any further delay in the application of the regulation;
2021/06/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 28 #

2021/2071(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. asks the Commission to include in its annual Rule of Law Report a dedicated section with an analysis of cases where breaches of the principles of the rule of law in a particular Member State could affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget in a sufficiently direct way;
2021/06/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 a (new)
— having regard to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Report of 2010 on Post-public employment: Good practices for preventing Conflict of Interest,
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 3 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 b (new)
— having regard to the 1997 Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union,
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 5 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 a (new)
— having regard to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (2011) and the development of standards in the fight against corruption,
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 6 #

2021/2066(INI)

— having regard to the Council Regulation (EU)2020/1998 of 7 December 2020 concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuse,
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 8 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 a (new)
— having regard to the Council Decision (CFSP)2021/1277 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Lebanon,
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 9 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 b (new)
— having regard to the adoption of new binding provisions by the French Parliament for the restitution of confiscated stolen assets to the people in the countries of origin,
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 10 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 14 a (new)
— having regard to its resolution of 17 December 2020 on sustainable corporate governance,
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 12 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 20 a (new)
— having regard to art. 83(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on areas of crimes with a cross-border dimension, including corruption, in which the EU may establish common rules, by means of directives,
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 17 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 23 a (new)
— having regard to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers Recommendation to Member States on common rules against corruption in the funding of political parties and electoral campaigns,
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 18 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 23 b (new)
— having regard to the Regulation 1141/2014 on the statute and funding of European political parties and European political foundations,
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 35 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas the OECD has declared that bribery and corruption are damaging to democratic institutions and the governance of corporations and a duty to adopt preventive measures against corruption should be part of the due diligence obligations imposed on companies operating in the Union;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 36 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
A b. whereas empirical evidence supports that corruption harmfully impacts the preservation of natural environment and environmental sustainability;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 48 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas corruption typically involves the misuse of power, the capture of structures of the State, a lack of accountability, the obstruction of justice, the use of improper influence, the institutionalisation of discrimination, clientelism, nepotism and the distortion of market mechanisms among other things, and is facilitated by inadequate transparency and access to information; whereas rising authoritarianism provides fertile ground for corruption, the combating of which calls for international cooperation with like- minded democracies;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 55 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
D a. whereas political campaign financing and party funding are particularly exposed to risks of corruption and used globally by domestic private actors and foreign states and non-state actors as a strategy to nurture political allies and to exert influence over political actors and political decisions for private gain, geopolitical and ideological interests; whereas this covert technique is increasingly used by foreign actors to interfere in elections, referendum campaigns and social debates and undermines the fair functioning of democratic processes;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 69 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
G a. whereas the external credibility of the EU also depends on effective anti- corruption action within its Member States and at EU level; whereas many EU Member States have put in place measures to prevent cases of undue influence and risks of corruption involving lawmakers and public officials; whereas these rules are only partially enforced and whereas harmonised rules at EU level are lacking and falling short to prevent risks of undue influence, conflict of interest and corruption;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 70 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G b (new)
G b. whereas external actors such as Russia and China are using strategic corruption as a new foreign policy weapon within the EU, in countries in the EU’s eastern and southern neighbourhood and elsewhere in the world, thus destabilising these countries and hampering their progress towards functioning democracies;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 71 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G c (new)
G c. whereas foreign states and non- state actors are increasingly implementing strategies of elite capture, including at EU level and within EU Member States, and the technique of co-opting top-level civil servants, among them former European politicians and highly qualified staff, recruited to advance specific interests in regulatory and legislative processes; whereas the regulation of professional activities and employment of former public officials in the private sector is a long-standing tool in the international fight against corruption and enshrined in the UNCAC;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 72 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
H a. whereas the EU is the destination of several billion euros of misappropriated public funds and assets stolen from third countries; whereas European authorities are not yet able to confiscate and return the large majority of these stolen assets; whereas legal framework on stolen asset recovery is highly fragmented in the EU; whereas France has newly adopted a restitution mechanism for illicitly acquired assets to be returned to the country of origin;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 73 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H b (new)
H b. whereas the protection of whistleblowers from discriminatory and retaliatory actions in public and private sector environments is essential to encourage the reporting of misuse of public funds, fraud, active bribery and other acts of corruption; whereas providing effective legal protection and clear guidance on reporting procedures is integral to efforts to combat corruption, to promote public sector integrity and accountability and to help businesses to prevent, detect and tackle bribery in commercial transactions;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 74 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H c (new)
H c. whereas the private sector and business enterprises can play a significant role in addressing corruption in multinational groups and in global supply chains and have a key role in limiting Human Rights impacts and fighting corruption globally; whereas only three EU Member States are imposing legal obligation on larger companies related to the prevention and detection of corruption;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 75 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H d (new)
H d. whereas States parties of the UNCAC, including all EU Member States, have committed to establishing the bribery of foreign public official as a criminal offence, punishable by criminal penalties and to establishing the liability of legal persons for the bribery of foreign public officials;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 77 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I
I. whereas corporate due diligence rleguislations are indispensable means to prevent and tackl, tackle and effectively remediate human rights and environmental violations globally; whereas the provisions of the UNCAC should form part of the due diligence obligations envisaged in the forthcoming Commission proposal on the matter;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 80 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
I a. whereas several States have in place Investor Citizenship and Residence Schemes, also called ‘golden visas’ programmes, which offer facilitated routes to citizenship or residence rights to foreign investors; whereas in order to make their programmes more competitive and to attract foreign direct investments, States, including EU Member States, tend to weaken their due diligence and integrity requirements, which increases the risk of misuse of these programmes for the purposes of money laundering or hiding funds obtained via corrupt activities and avoiding confiscation and persecution in home jurisdictions; whereas clients of these programmes increasingly come from China, followed by Russia;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 93 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
J a. whereas the new EU framework for targeted restrictive measures to address the situation in Lebanon provides for the possibility to impose sanctions against persons and entities responsible for undermining democracy and rule of law, including for serious financial misconduct, concerning public funds, insofar as the acts concerned are covered by the UNCAC, and the unauthorised export of capital; whereas the EU should avoid fragmentation of its legal framework with country-based sanction regimes and should rather adopt an horizontal regime against acts of corruption;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 113 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point c
(c) formulate a comprehensive EU global anti-corruption strategy by taking stock of existing anti-corruption instruments and good practices in the EU’s toolbox, identifying gaps, increasing funding, and expanding support to anti- corruption CSOs, as already requested by the European Parliament in its resolution of 13 September 2017 on corruption and human rights in third countries; take urgent action to prevent corruption by putting in place preventing measures, policies and practices, enhancing efforts and resources for education and training in the public and private sectors, including through public global corruption prevention campaigns;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 117 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) establish a dedicated Council Working Party for preparatory works on anti-corruption matters in order to inform the discussions in the Council;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 120 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point e
(e) insist on the full implementation and enforcement of existing national and international anti-corruption instruments such as the UNCAC, OECD Convention on Combating the Bribery of Foreign Public Officials, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the Council of Europe’s Criminal Law Convention on Corruption; encourage all States that have not yet done so to ratify those anti-corruption instruments as matter of priority; launch an inclusive and comprehensive process to review the EU’s implementation of the UNCAC;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 125 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point f
(f) advance efforts in all EU Member States to freeze and confiscate stolen assets in their jurisdictions, in line with the UNCAC, and to return them in a transparent and accountable manner to the country of origin; ensure greater transparency and access to information on foreign assets detained on the EU territory, including on the origin of these assets, while taking into consideration possible threats to the owners’ safety and safeguarding their fundamental rights; encourage the adoption of legislations and take further measures to freeze and confiscate stolen assets in their jurisdictions, in line with the UNCAC, and to return them in a transparent and accountable manner to the country of origin; ensuring that fundamental rights are respected and preventing further corrupt practices in the country of asset origin; meaningfully involve CSOs in the entire process, from identification of assets to monitoring the use of return assets;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 129 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
(f a) provide technical assistance and resources to States lacking sufficient capacity to address corruption and business-related human rights challenges; insist on the need for strengthened resources and additional capabilities for national law enforcement bodies dealing with corruption, including for enhanced technological capabilities to investigate corruption; promote and support the role of parliaments and other legislative bodies in the management of public resources and ensure their capacity to exercise effective budget oversight;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 132 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – subheading 2
Internal-external coherence: fighting corruption in EU democracies
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 135 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point g
(g) strengthen the credibility of EU external anti-corruption action by more effectively combating corruption and money laundering within the EU; recognise that systemic corruption in some EU Member States undermines anti-corruption efforts in third countries and take action to terminate it; recognise that a lack of harmonisation and determined action, delays and a gap in implementing the anti- corruption regulations within the EU emboldens corrupt actors both inside and outside of the EU;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 143 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point g a (new)
(g a) request the Commission to put forward an EU anti-corruption directive on the basis of Art. 83 TFEU, establishing common EU rules for the definition of criminal sanctions for corruption and creating EU provisions regarding the return of confiscated stolen assets to countries of origin, including the reversal of the burden of proof for assets confiscation in corruption cases; align these standards with most advanced legal provisions in existing national legislations and best practices in EU Member States;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 144 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point g b (new)
(g b) thoroughly analyse foreign interferences, including in the EU and its Member States, by foreign States and non-State actors using corruption as a tool to undermine democratic processes, notably by means of party funding and elite-capture;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 145 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point g c (new)
(g c) urge Member States to prohibit extra-EU funding to political parties and those entities directly funded by political parties to campaign on their behalf; urge the strengthening of national rules, institutional frameworks and enforcement practices in respect of extra-EU funding of political foundations and electoral campaigns, particularly with transparency and oversight provisions; ensure coordination and harmonisation of national rules and enforcements practices to improve effectiveness both at EU and non-EU level, including by increasing resources for the European Coordination Network on Elections to take up this role; promote dedicated programmes on transparent political party financing and campaign spending in the EU’s external democracy support in third countries;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 146 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point g d (new)
(g d) adopt and apply strict standards for post-public employment and consistently monitor and enforce compliance with national post- employment rules designed to guard against corruption of former elected office holders and public officials increasingly exposed to corruption and co-opted by foreign stakeholders to exert undue influence towards EU and national institutions; tackle the current legal fragmentation, including at EU level, for post-public employment by creating harmonised rules, including at EU level, a robust oversight system and an appropriate sanction regime;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 147 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point g e (new)
(g e) address the impunity for grand corruption as a priority because of its grave negative impact on human rights, including through the creation of a European Observatory on the fight against impunity; develop principles and work for an internationally recognised legal definition of grand corruption, including its systemic nature, as a crime in national and international law; address ongoing cases of impunity for grand corruption by stronger enforcement of anti-corruption laws to ensure accountability for the perpetrators of grand corruption schemes; explore comprehensive approaches that includes reforms to international justice institutions, including extending the jurisdiction of the ICC; encourage States, including EU Member States, to make use of their universal jurisdiction to prosecute acts of grand corruption;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 148 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point g f (new)
(g f) work with third countries for the adoption and implementation of a comprehensive legislation on whistleblower protection in line with international human rights standards, providing for confidential and secure reporting mechanisms and robust legal protection from reprisals to all whistleblowers, including those reporting to CSOs, the media, and to international mechanisms; advance all efforts in EU Member States to swiftly transpose the EU Whistleblower Protection Directive into their national legislation and to effectively implement it; guarantee the same level of protection for staff of EU institutions and harmonise internal rules and standards in this regard; apply a minima the same level of protection for persons reporting breaches of national law;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 149 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point g g (new)
(g g) adopt common standards and mechanisms for enhanced transparency and reduction of the corruption and money laundering risk posed by ‘Citizenship by Investment’ programmes; require proper control and oversight of applicants and investments before granting ‘golden visas’ and regulate national schemes on the basis of minimum standards and practices harmonised at EU level to terminate competition between single Member States;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 150 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – subheading 3
Human rights and anti-corruption: enriching and operationalising the EU’s toolbox
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 157 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point h a (new)
(h a) create an EU anti-corruption task force, gathering anti-corruption experts, with the mandate to conduct ex-ante assessments of the level of corruption in third countries and to design comprehensive reform plans to tackle corruption prior to the conclusion of any EU agreement and the programming of EU funds; place this taskforce’s work under European Parliament’s oversight and grant this task force with adequate powers and resources to conduct investigations and evaluation on the ground and to provide technical and operational assistance to partner countries to implement required reforms; condition any EU bilateral assistance and bilateral agreement to full cooperation with this taskforce and genuine anti- corruption reform steps;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 163 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point j
(j) ensure that the highest ethical and transparency standards are applied in EU funding, that CSOs and independent actors are included and that grievance mechanisms are available and accessible; ensure that all EU bodies and agencies improve access to information and refrain from charging fees for access to information; including the financing of projects and loans by the European Investment Bank (EIB), that CSOs and independent actors are fully involved in the monitoring of these funds and that grievance mechanisms are available, accessible and ensure accountability for the possible misuse of funds; ensure that all EU bodies and agencies guarantee free, swift and easy access to information, including regarding the allocation, the final recipient of funding and the final use of funds;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 169 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point l
(l) include in all EU-third country trade and investment agreements, include a strong and mandatory human rights conditionality framework with transparency provisions and binding and enforceable anti- corruption clauses; as a last resort,include commitment and high-standards of whistleblower protection in all EU trade and investment agreements with third parties; impose sanctions or suspend agreements in the event of serious acts of corruption;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 173 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point l a (new)
(l a) apply inclusive and meaningful transparency in trade negotiations, enable public oversight and public awareness of strategies and priorities; require similar degree of transparency from the negotiating partners;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 185 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point o
(o) recognise the crucial role of CSOs, human rights defenders (HRDs) and investigative journalists in the fight against corruption, through changing societal norms, fighting impunity, gathering data, and achieving better implementation and enforcement of anti-corruption measures; insist on the need for victims of corruption to be able to participate in judicial corruption proceedings and to claim for compensations;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 187 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point o a (new)
(o a) insist on the importance of creating a safe and enabling environment and protecting journalists, whistleblowers, witnesses and anti-corruption activists from threats arising from their activities in preventing and fighting corruption;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 190 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point p
(p) design programmes to provide more financial support to CSOs, independent media, whistleblowers and HRDs working on preventing and exposing corruption, advancing transparency and accountability,; inclumprove smaller CSOs’ access to EU funding; support against strategic lawsuits (strategic lawsuits against public participation, SLAPP suits); improve smaller CSOs’ access to EU fuparliaments in their oversight roles with capacity building and advance internal party democracy with capacity building and ingternal reforms;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 192 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point p a (new)
(p a) strengthen their support to civil society stakeholders targeted by strategic lawsuits against public participations (SLAPPs) and come forward with an EU directive enacting protection and legal safeguards for victims of SLAPPs, including the possibility for the victim to request the dismissal of abusive lawsuits;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 196 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point q
(q) empower and allocate dedicated resources to EU delegations and Member States' representations to strengthen protection of witnesses, whistleblowers and anti-corruption HRDs, including through temporary visa schemtheir relatives and other persons close to them, as appropriate, including through issuing emergency visas and providing temporary shelter in EU Member States;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 202 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point r
(r) promote strong access to information laws, including improved transparency of public procurement and lobbying, with independent oversight bodies; promote greater policy coherence, including by integrating human rights due diligence and anti-corruption provisions into public procurement;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 204 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point s
(s) support and strengthen independent, impartial and effective judiciaries, prosecution and law enforcement bodies; for the successful investigation, prosecution and adjudication of corruption offences, including through sufficient financial and training resources;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 208 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point t
(t) continue supporting free and fair electoral processes and promote accountability to voters with special attention to electoral fraud and vote buying; promote transparency and impartiality rules to counter illicit political financing; ensure a more systematic follow-up on the recommendations of international observer missions;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 238 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point ab
(ab) promote the inclusmeaningful and effective participation of non- governmental stakeholders, including academia and CSOs, as observers in subsidiary bodies of the Conference of States Parties of the UNCAC and other multilateral anti-corruption mechanisms;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 240 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point ab a (new)
(ab a) advance efforts to effectively enforce the prohibition of corruption in the private sector, in line with the UNCAC, to effectively enforce penalties on corporations for acts of corruption and to extend the prohibition of corruption to all corporation under national jurisdictions, regardless of where the act of corruption takes place;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 241 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point ab b (new)
(ab b) require all large companies and all listed companies, included those established in the EU and non EU companies operating in the EU market, to report on the impact of their activities and on the policy they implement on anti- corruption and anti-bribery matters;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 245 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point ac
(ac) urgently set up an EU mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence (HRDD) instrumentlegislation that requires companies to engage actively in the identification, assessment, mitigation, prevention and notification of any adverse impacts of their businesses and supply chains on human rights, and which includes strong anti-corruption provisions and obligatory grievance mechanismsundertakings, including banks and financial institutions, to identify, prevent, mitigate, cease and account for human rights violations, including acts of bribery and corruption arising from their business models and operations in their global value chains, with robust enforcement mechanisms and liability regimes enabling victims to hold companies into account and to seek for remedy;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 247 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point ac a (new)
(ac a) ensure that due diligence obligations apply to the bribery of foreign public officials, occurring directly or through intermediaries and is imposed to all entities and business relationships on a company’s global value chain; ensure liability of the company directing, authorizing or covering acts of corruption;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 249 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point ad a (new)
(ad a) enact binding provisions and guidance for companies to guarantee safe internal and confidential reporting by directors, officers, employees and business partners on breaches of anti- corruption rules and professional ethics within the company and to protect these stakeholders, in line with the EU whistleblower directive;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 251 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point ae
(ae) reconfirm the importance of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights by ensuring that all Member States that have not yet adopted national action plans do so as soon as possible, and promote the adoption of action plans and corporate due diligence legislations by third countries; engage constructively and actively in the negotiations on the UN Binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 255 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – subheading 8
Sanctioning corruption through the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime (EU Magnitsky Act )
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 260 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point af
(af) swiftly come forward with a legislative proposal to amend the current EU Global Human Rights Screate a stand-alone global sanctions regime to tackle acts of corruption defined on the basis of the UNCAC; ensure oversight of the European Parliament on the implementation of this new sanctions Rregime by extending its scope to include acts of corrupand adopt strict reporting requirements to monitor the implementation of sanctions; note the risk of corrupt actors moving their assets to the EU as more and more countries adopt stricter frameworks;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 272 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point af a (new)
(af a) swiftly adopt targeted sanctions, including asset freeze and travel bans, to high-ranked officials and economic actors responsible for acts of corruption; share information and coordinate with likeminded partners;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 280 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point aj
(aj) recognise the causal linkages between environmental degradastruction as an impediment to the enjoyment of human rights, and the underlying networks of corruption, bribery or organised crime; work towards mainstreaming anti- corruption in EU climate action,nd environmental action advancing transparency and good governance of natural resources and the fight against land grabbing, and focusing on the sectors most at risk, such as the extractive industries;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 284 #

2021/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point ak
(ak) protect environmental HRDs and land defenders, particularly women and indigenous HRDs, who face the greatest risk of harassment, intimidation and violence and killings, including through issuing emergency visas and providing temporary shelter in EU Member States;
2021/09/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 3 #

2021/2036(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 3
— having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and especially Articles 11, 20, 47 and 48 thereof,
2021/07/15
Committee: JURILIBE
Amendment 17 #

2021/2036(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 35 a (new)
— having regard to the Council of Europe Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors CM/Rec(2016)4[1]
2021/07/15
Committee: JURILIBE
Amendment 33 #

2021/2036(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas independent journalism and access to pluralistic information are key pillars of democracy; whereas civil society is essential for any democracy to thrive and for the rule of law to be upheld;
2021/07/15
Committee: JURILIBE
Amendment 54 #

2021/2036(INI)

Motion for a resolution
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 preventing public participation including investigating and reporting on breaches of Union and national law, corruption or other fraudulent practices or of blocking public participation and activism including by violating civil liberties such as freedom of association, assembly and freedom of expression and of information thus resulting in lessening societal resilience against authoritarian pushback against democracy and rule of law;
2021/07/15
Committee: JURILIBE
Amendment 75 #

2021/2036(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas SLAPPs have become an increasingly widespread practice used against journalists, academicmedia organisations, academics, watchdogs, human rights defenders, whistle blowers, 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, the Slovenian investigative news outlet Necenzurirano recently hit by a barrage of 39 lawsuits and continuous lawsuits against defenders of women's rights in Poland;
2021/07/15
Committee: JURILIBE
Amendment 100 #

2021/2036(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas SLAPPs within the Union are often cross-border in nature, which results in reporting delays as illustrated in many cases, often relating to cases of environmental protection, financial fraud and/or corruption, where they constitute a clear attempt to delay publication of information by halting or discrediting the work of individual journalists and publishing entities, hence depriving citizens of their right to information; whereas SLAPPs and SLAPP threats may be brought within the Union also by actors in third countries and before courts in third countries;
2021/07/15
Committee: JURILIBE
Amendment 109 #

2021/2036(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
D a. whereas the murders of David Beriain and Roberto Fraile in Burkina Faso on the 26 April 2021 are the last of an increasing list of despicable assassinations of European journalists in Europe and abroad; whereas the OSCE reports that impunity prevails as, for example, fewer than 15 % of murders of journalists in the OSCE region are solved;
2021/07/15
Committee: JURILIBE
Amendment 114 #

2021/2036(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
D b. whereas SLAPP suits can be issued by private entities and public actors including state-owned companies thus becoming a tool of exerting political power; whereas in the case of public authorship of SLAPPs the damage borne by SLAPP victims can be even greater;
2021/07/15
Committee: JURILIBE
Amendment 124 #

2021/2036(INI)

Motion for a resolution
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 freedom of expression, media freedom and public democratic participation threatens– including freedom of expression, media freedom and rights to peaceful assembly and association and on Union values as enshrined in Article 2 of the TEU; welcomes the fact that the 2020 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 2021 annual and subsequent reports to include a thorough assessment of the legal environment for the media, and investigative journalism in particular, and to look more thoroughly at challenges affecting civil society, including as regards SLAPPs targeting NGOs, activists and rights defenders;
2021/07/15
Committee: JURILIBE
Amendment 162 #

2021/2036(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that SLAPPs undermine the rule of law and constitute a misuse of Member States’ justice systems and legal frameworks, especially for successfully addressing ongoing common challenges outlined in the Justice Scoreboard, such as caseload administration and case backlogs; recalls that a properly functioning justice system delivers judgements without undue delay, and manages judicial resources so as to maximise efficiency, and that this is only possible where judges and judicial bodies are not burdened with the handling of claims that are later on dismissed as abusive and lacking in legal merit;
2021/07/15
Committee: JURILIBE
Amendment 175 #

2021/2036(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Highlights that in recent years online hate speech has become increasingly widespread against journalists, media organisations, NGOs, academics and civil society, including those defending fundamental rights and freedoms, such as, inter alia, women's rights and LGBTQI rights, thus threatening media freedom, freedom of expression and public safety given that online hate speech can incite real-world violence;
2021/07/15
Committee: JURILIBE
Amendment 201 #

2021/2036(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that SLAPPs are often 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, media organisations, academics, civil society and NGOs, with the ultimate objective of blackmailing and forcing them into silence 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;
2021/07/15
Committee: JURILIBE
Amendment 225 #

2021/2036(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses, with regard to this problem, that all Member States lack harmonised minimum standards to protect journalists, media organisations, academics, civil society and NGOs and to ensure that fundamental rights are upheld in the Member States;
2021/07/15
Committee: JURILIBE
Amendment 238 #

2021/2036(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. 2. Condemns in the strongest terms the assassination of David Beriain and Roberto Fraile; calls on all European institutions and the Government of Burkina Faso to take all possible actions to end impunity and bring those responsible for their deaths to justice, recalls that accountability is a key element in preventing future attacks;
2021/07/15
Committee: JURILIBE
Amendment 254 #

2021/2036(INI)

Motion for a resolution
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 amendmentsproperly amended in order to prevent ‘libel tourism’ or ‘forum shopping’; urgently calls for theurgent 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;
2021/07/15
Committee: JURILIBE
Amendment 276 #

2021/2036(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Considers that it is essential to adopt a legislative measure protecting the role of journalists, media organisations, 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;
2021/07/15
Committee: JURILIBE
Amendment 303 #

2021/2036(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Urges the Commission to present a proposal for measures to ensure that defamation, libel and slander, which constitute criminal offences in most Member States, cannot be used for SLAPPs, including through through public or private prosecution; underljoines the calls of the Council of Europe and OSCE for the decriminalisation of defamation; invites the Commission to address the question of the seriousness of threats of SLAPPs in a legislative proposal; notes that defendants often face criminal charges while at the same time being sued for civil liability allegedly arising from the same conduct;
2021/07/15
Committee: JURILIBE
Amendment 320 #

2021/2036(INI)

Motion for a resolution
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, including psychological support for victims and their family members;
2021/07/15
Committee: JURILIBE
Amendment 328 #

2021/2036(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19 a. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to propose a recommendation on the safety of journalists; is however concerned of its limited geographical scope; point out that many European media organisations operate in an international environment; is concerned that media organisations are increasingly relinquishing their duty of care within and beyond the EU towards journalists employed by them or those producing the media content they acquire; notes the increasing use of freelancers, particularly young journalists and media workers at the start of their career, to cover high-risk areas and conflict zones; is concerned by the precarious working and decreasing safety conditions under which freelancers operate from high-risk areas and conflict zones;
2021/07/15
Committee: JURILIBE
Amendment 329 #

2021/2036(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
19 b. Calls on the Member States to fully implement the Council of Europe recommendation on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors, calls to the Commission to include in the forthcoming Recommendation on the safety of journalists a Beriain-Fraile Protocol, in line with the Council of Europe Recommendation, stablishing common European guidelines and procedures for the deployment of journalists and other media workers on difficult or dangerous assignments, such as in conflict zones; believes that the Beriain-Fraile Protocol. should detail the institutional responsibilities of media companies, including among others, providing journalists and other media workers with adequate information, including on the risks involved, and requisite training in all matters of safety, digital security and privacy, as well as arranging for life assurance and health and travel insurance as part of a comprehensive and equitable package of work conditions the provision of legal support, when relevant, and representation and trauma counselling on return from assignments, stresses that such deployment should be voluntary and informed; stresses that the Beriain-Fraile Protocol, should apply indistinctively to all journalists and other media actors working for European media companies – in salaried, freelance and all other capacities;
2021/07/15
Committee: JURILIBE
Amendment 15 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 a (new)
– having regard to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal number 5 “Gender Equality”,
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 41 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 15 a (new)
– having regard to the EU LGBTIQ Strategy 2020-2025,
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 45 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 15 b (new)
– having regard to the EU Strategy on victims' rights 2020-2025,
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 49 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 15 c (new)
– having regard to the EU strategy on the rights of the child,
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 61 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) defines gender- based violence ias violence directed against womea person because they are women and it affects women disproportionatelyof their gender; whereas both women and men experience gender- based violence, at the same time highlighting that the overwhelming majority of victims are women and girls; whereas LGBTI persons are also victims of gender-based violence because of their gender, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics; whereas gender- based violence is rooted in gender stereotypes, patriarchal structures and power asymmetries;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 76 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) defines gender- based violence against women as any form of violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 80 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas gender-based violence includes many types of violence, including domestic violence; whereas the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), similarly to the Istanbul convention, defines domestic violence as all acts of physical, sexual, psychological or economic violence that occur within the family or domestic unit, irrespective of biological or legal family ties, or between former or current spouses or partners, whether or not the perpetrator shares or has shared the same residence as the victim: recognises that domestic violence affects women disproportionately, and that men may also be victims of domestic violence;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 104 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas no real progress can be made on gender equality without an intersectional approach;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 105 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)
Eb. whereas the expression ‘in all their diversity’ in this report states the position that women, men and non-binary people fall into heterogeneous categories, including but not limited to in relation to their sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinions, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics, migratory status or socio-economic status; whereas it affirms the commitment to leave no one behind and achieve a gender-equal Europe for everyone;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 135 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Condemns all forms of violence against women and girls in all their diversity and other forms of gender-based violence, such as violence against LGBTI persons, and deplores the fact that women and girls continue to be exposed to psychological, physical, sexual and economic violence, including sexual exploitation and trafficking in human beings, both online and offline;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 139 #

2021/2035(INL)

1d. Underlines that men’s violence against women starts with boy’s violence against girl’s, considers therefore that preventive measures must start at an early age;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 142 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 g (new)
1g. Insists that the definition of “women” when addressing violence against women must include girls under the age of 18;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 159 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that violence against women and other forms of gender-based violence are the result of the unequal distribution of power, resources, patriarchal structures, and gender stereotypes, that have led to domination over and discrimination against women by men; underlines that this situation is aggravated by social and economic inequalities;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 164 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Underlines that rigid gender and masculinity norms based on patriarchal stereotypes contributes to discrimination and subjugation of women, as well as adversely affect men’s and boy’s health and lives, contributes to the invisibility of violence suffered by men as well as hinders rehabilitation of male perpetrators;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 167 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Underlines that rigid gender norms lead to increased exposure to gender-based violence for anyone who does not conform to them; deplores the high instances of violence targeting trans women, trans men, trans feminine, intersex and non-binary people;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 169 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Recognises that progress toward equality has occurred thanks to the hard fought feminist struggle against the global oppression of women and girls;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 200 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Denounces the fact that the combat against gender-based violence is negatively affected by the attack on women’s and girl´s rights and gender equality; condemns the actions of anti-gender and anti-women movements in Europe and worldwide that aim to overturn existing laws on women’s rights and LGBTI+ rights;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 222 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Regrets the lack of research and knowledge on boy’s violence against girl’s, as knowledge forms the foundation for effective policy and law-making, therefore calls on the establishment of a knowledge hub on violence against girls in the EU by relevant EU institutions such as Eurostat, EIGE;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 225 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Calls for effective prevention of gender inequality and gender-based violence, including educational measures directed towards, and implemented with, young people, as well as ensuring that all young people benefit from comprehensive sexual, reproductive, health, rights and relationship education;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 247 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Emphasises the necessity of using an intersectional approach in policy and law making, and adding specific and measurable undertakings, including relating to groups protected from discrimination by EU law and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 263 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Insists that all legislation on sexual offences must be based on consent; insists that only voluntary sexual acts should be considered legal;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 266 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Concerned about the sexualisation of children, especially sexualisation of girls by adult men; considers it imperative to enhance the protection provided under criminal law concerning sexual offences against children; calls on Member States and the commission to adopt the view to criminalise sexual offences where the perpetrator displays negligence with regard to the child's age;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 269 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 c (new)
10c. Stresses that consent cannot be bought, therefore considers all forms of sex purchase to be sexual exploitation;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 270 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 d (new)
10d. Calls on Member States to recognise sex purchase as a form of violence against women; calls on Member States to criminalise sex purchase in line with the Swedish Equality Model introduced in 1999;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 271 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 e (new)
10e. Emphasises that women engaged in the sex industry, including in prostitution, due to poverty, discrimination or other types of distress, experience sexualised violence and abuse on a daily basis;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 280 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Considers that domestic violence is not only a crime against the victim of violence but should also be considered a crime against any child who witness it, especially due to the long lasting negative effects on the child’s wellbeing and development;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 301 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to ensure information to victims and perpetrators of gender-based violence is available in all EU languages, with the aim to ensure rights of victims are upheld when exercising their fundamental right to freedom movement within the EU;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 302 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13b. Considers the widespread impunity for sexual offences to be a serious impairment to gender equality and the fight against gender-based violence;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 310 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the Member States to improve the resources and training of practitioners, law enforcement officers, judicial staff and all other professionals dealing with victims of gender-based violence; calls on Members States to ensure that victims have the right to state- funded legal aid before and during legal proceedings;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 337 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Considers minimum standards on gender-based violence a precondition for the free movement of people within the EU; considers lack of access to adequate protection from gender-based violence a violation of human rights, specifically affecting women and girls;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 346 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses that the special need to combat violence against women and girls and other forms of gender-based violence on a common basis also results from the need to establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions, including a common definition of gender-based violence;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 353 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Considers that the cross-border dimensions of cyber violence against women and girls needs a common Union response;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 368 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the Commission to propose a directive on gender-based violence that implements the standards of the Istanbul Convention and includes the following elements: prevention, including through gender-sensitive education programming directed at both girls and boys, and empowerment of women and girls; ensuring information provided in all relevant languages; support services and protection measures for survivors; combating all forms of gender-based violence, including violations of women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights; and minimum standards for law enforcement;
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 383 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – Recital 5
(5) Gender-based violence is violence directed against womea person because they are women and it affects women disproportionatelyof their gender; gender-based violence against women is any type of violence directed against women because they are women or affects women disproportionately. Both women and men experience gender-based violence, however the vast majority of victims are women and girls. LGBTI persons are also victims of gender-based violence because of their gender, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics. Gender- based violence is rooted in gender stereotypes, patriarchal structures and power asymmetries.
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 396 #

2021/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – Recital 9 a (new)
(9a) Considers minimum standards on gender-based violence a precondition for the free movement of people within the EU; considers lack of access to adequate protection from gender-based violence a violation of human rights, specifically affecting women and girls.
2021/06/08
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 171 #

2021/0422(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 13 a (new)
(13a) Ecocide refers to the process of environmental or ecological destruction and means unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts. It can be linked to unlawful economic activity, unsocial behaviour, disrespect of human rights, war crimes, excessive pollution, destruction of biodiversity or wilful and severe actions aggravating climate change beyond the enshrined limits according to the Paris agreement.
2022/06/13
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 257 #

2021/0422(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 a (new)
(5a) "severe" means damage which involves very serious adverse changes, disruption or harm to any element of the environment, including grave impacts on human life or natural, cultural or economic resources;
2022/06/13
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 260 #

2021/0422(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 a (new)
(5a) "wanton" means with reckless disregard for damage which would be clearly excessive in relation to the social and economic benefits anticipated;
2022/06/13
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 263 #

2021/0422(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 b (new)
(5b) "widespread" means damage which extends beyond a limited geographic area, crosses state boundaries, or is suffered by an entire ecosystem or species or a large number of human beings;
2022/06/13
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 265 #

2021/0422(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 c (new)
(5c) "long-term" means damage which is irreversible or which cannot be redressed through natural recovery within a reasonable period of time;
2022/06/13
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 266 #

2021/0422(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 c (new)
(5c) ‘ecocide’ means unlawful or wanton acts committed with the knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood that those acts cause a severe and either wide-spread or long-term damage to the environment.
2022/06/13
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 359 #

2021/0422(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point r a (new)
(ra) ecocide as severe disrespect of the European Climate Law, the biodiversity and the pollution legislation;
2022/06/13
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 508 #

2021/0422(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. The maximum limit of fines shall be extended to 15% in cases of offences with aggravating circumstances as referred to in Article 8, and in the case of ecocide.
2022/06/13
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 38 #

2021/0297(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
(16) The Commission and where appropriate the European External Action Service should monitor the status of ratification of the international conventions on human and labour rights, environmental protection and good governance and their effective implementation, by examining the relevant information, in particular where available the conclusions and recommendations of the relevant monitoring bodies established under those conventions. Every threewo years, the Commission should present to the European Parliament and the Council a report on the status of ratification of the respective conventions, the compliance of the beneficiary countries with any reporting obligations under those conventions, and the status of the implementation of the conventions in practice.
2021/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 47 #

2021/0297(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 11 a (new)
(11 a) "human rights due diligence obligations" refers to the responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights and to protect against human rights abuse by business as set in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) in 2011. The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights refers to internationally recognized human rights – understood, at a minimum, as those expressed in the International Bill of Human Rights and the principles concerning fundamental rights set out in the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
2021/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 67 #

2021/0297(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)
The plan of action referred to in paragraph 1 point d) shall: (a) contain a schedule for the implementation of Article 12 (the ‘tariff suspension schedule’), based on benchmarks against which the progress in the implementation of the relevant conventions is assessed; (b) be jointly agreed with the Commission for a period of two years; (c) serve as a basis for the report referred to in Article 14; (d) be publicy available.
2021/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 73 #

2021/0297(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. The Common Customs Tariff ad valorem duties on all products listed in Annex III and Annex VII, which originate in a GSP+ beneficiary country, shall be suspended according to the tariff suspension schedule referred to in Article 9(2).
2021/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 83 #

2021/0297(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. By 1 January 2027, and every threewo years thereafter, the Commission shall present to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the status of ratification of the relevant conventions, the compliance of the GSP+ beneficiary countries with any reporting obligations under those conventions and the status of the effective implementation thereof.
2021/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 93 #

2021/0297(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
3. WAt the request of the European Parliament or where, either on the basis of the conclusions of the report referred to in Article 14 or on the basis of the evidence available, including evidence submitted through a complaint, the Commission has a reasonable doubt that a particular GSP+ beneficiary country does not respect its binding undertakings as referred to in Article 9, points (d), (e) and (f), or has formulated a reservation which is prohibited by any of the relevant conventions or which is incompatible with the object and purpose of that convention as established in Article 9, point (c), it shall, in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 39(2), adopt an implementing act to initiate the procedure for the temporary withdrawal of the tariff preferences provided under the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance. The Commission shall inform the European Parliament and the Council thereof.
2021/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 109 #

2021/0297(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. 1. The preferential arrangements referred to in Article 1(2) may be withdrawn temporarily, fully or partially, in respect of all or of certain products, or of economic sectors, originating in a beneficiary country, for any of the following reasons:
2021/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 111 #

2021/0297(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(a a) the beneficiary country fails to show effective implementation of the plan of action ;
2021/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 112 #

2021/0297(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(b a) When the Commission, acting upon a complaint or on its own initiative, considers that there may be sufficient grounds justifying temporary withdrawal of the tariff preferences provided under any preferential arrangement referred to in Article1(2) on the basis of the reasons referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 19 a) or b), the Commission may before publishing the notice referred § 4 art 19 enhance its engagement with the partner country and negotiate a dedicated and timebound action plan to remedy the violations including through a full cooperation with the UN human rights and labour rights monitoring mechanisms.
2021/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 113 #

2021/0297(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point b b (new)
(b b) when the Commission decides to withdraw a preferential arrangement to a beneficiary country in a particular economic sector, in application of article 19 (a and b) the commission may publish a list of companies, EU importers and local suppliers, that may still benefit from preferences. This list should be established based on the evidences provided by companies that they fully implemented their human rights due diligence obligations and that they have a supply chain free from human rights violations. The companies should agree on having the evidences and informations published for public scrutiny and civil society consultation.
2021/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 121 #

2021/0297(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 3
3. WAt the request of the European Parliament or where the Commission, acting upon a complaint or on its own initiative, considers that there armay be sufficient grounds justifying temporary withdrawal of the tariff preferences provided under any preferential arrangement referred to in Article 1(2) on the basis of the reasons referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article it shall adopt an implementing act to initiate the procedure for temporary withdrawal in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 39(2). The Commission shall inform the European Parliament and the Council of the adoption of that implementing act.
2021/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 129 #

2021/0297(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 10
10. Where the Commission considers that the findings justify temporary withdrawal for the reasons referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, it is empowered to adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 36, to amend Annex I and Annex II, in order to temporarily withdraw the tariff preferences provided under the preferential arrangements referred to in Article 1(2). In adopting the delegated act the Commission may, where appropriate, consider the socio-economic effect of the temporary withdrawal of tariff preferences in the beneficiary country.
2021/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 134 #

2021/0297(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1
By 1 January 2027 and every threewo years thereafter, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the effects of the scheme covering the most recent three- wo-year period and all of the preferential arrangements referred to in Article 1(2).
2021/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 136 #

2021/0297(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex VI – paragraph 1 – point a (new)
(a) First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)
2021/12/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 41 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
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 facilitatensure free movement and ensures a high level of security, justice and protection of fundamental rights, including the protection of personal data.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 43 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
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 toin order to ensure a well- functioning Schengen area without internal border controls, in full respect for fundamental rights.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 45 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
(6) The evaluation and monitoring mechanism mayshould cover all areas of the Schengen acquis - present and future - except those where a specific evaluation mechanism already exists under Union law. As regards the issue of borders, the evaluation and monitoring mechanism should cover both the efficiency of border controls at external borders and the absence of border controls at internal borders. The evaluation and monitoring mechanism should encompass all relevant legislation and operational activities contributing to the functioning of Schengen areaan area without border control at internal borders.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 48 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
(7) The correct functioning of the authorities that apply the Schengen acquis should be taken into account in all the evaluations in line with the European Council conclusions of 1 and 2 March 2012. The evaluation should also cover the practices of private entities, such as airlines or external service providers, as far as they are involved in or affected by the implementation of the Schengen acquis while cooperating with the Member States. Equally, given the increasing role of Union bodies, offices and agencies in the implementation of the Schengen acquis, the evaluation and monitoring mechanism should support the verification of the activities of these Union bodies, offices and agencies in so far as they perform functions on behalf of the Member States to assist in the operational application of provisions of the Schengen acquis. Verification of these activities in this regard should be embedded into the evaluation of the Member States and carried out without prejudice to and in full respect of the responsibilities attributed to the Commission and to the relevant governing bodies of the agencies, offices and bodies concerned by their establishing regulations and their own evaluation and monitoring procedures therein. Should evaluations identify deficiencies in relation to functions fulfilled or supported by Union bodies, offices and agencies, the Commission should include this in the evaluation report and inform their relevant governing bodies.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 64 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
(14) Unannounced visits, being one of the most effective tools to verify Member States practices should, depending on their purpose, take place without prior notification to the Member State concerned or with only short prior notification. Unannounced visits without prior notification should take place for ‘investigative’ purposes in order to verify compliance with obligations under the Schengen acquis, including, in response to indications as regards the emergence of systemic problems that could potentially have a significant impact on the functioning of the Schengen area or to fundamental rights violations, in particular allegations of serious violations of fundamental rights at the external borders. In such cases, the provision of advance notice would defeat the objective of the visit. Unannounced visitsVisits or evaluations at short-notice, with a 24-hour advance notice, should take place if the main purpose of the visit is to carry out a random check of the Member State’s implementation of the Schengen acquis.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 68 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
(16) Evaluation and monitoring activities should be carried out by teams consisting of Commission representatives and experts designated by Member States. These representatives and experts should have appropriate qualifications, including a solid theoretical knowledge and practical experience, and have undertaken the appropriate training. 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.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 70 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
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, and gender balance 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 on serious professional or personal grounds only.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 77 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
(22) In addition, where evaluations identify a serious deficiency, specific provisions should apply to ensure the prompt adoption of remedial measures. Given the risk posed by such deficiency, as soon as the evaluated Member State is informed about a serious deficiency, the evaluated Member State should start immediately implementing actions to remedy the deficiency including, where necessary, mobilising all available operational and financial means. Remedial action should be subject to tighter deadlines and closer political scrutiny and monitoring throughout the process. In this regard, the Commission should immediately inform the Council and the European Parliament when an evaluation establishes the existence of a serious deficiency and report on any infringement proceedings that are ongoing or to be brought against the evaluated Member State. The Commission should also organise a ‘serious deficiency’ revisit no later than one yearsix months from the date of the evaluation to verify whether the Member State has remedied the shortcomings concerned. The Commission should present a revisit report to the Council and the Parliament following the revisit.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 80 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
(23) The identification of a serious deficiency requires a thorough case-by- case assessment on the basis of clear criteria regarding the nature, scale and potential impact of the problems, which may be different for each policy area. Different key elements for the effective implementation of the Schengen acquis and different combination of factors could lead to the classification of a finding as a serious deficiency. However, if it is considered that a shortcoming identified is or in a short-term has the potential of putting the overall functioning of the area without internal border control at risk, or have a significant negative impact on fundamental rights or the rights of individuals, such shortcoming is to be regarded as a serious deficiency. Where a serious deficiency in the carrying out of external border control is identified in an evaluation report, Articles 21 and 29 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council37 may apply. _________________ 37 Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ L 77, 23.3.2016, p. 1).
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 87 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
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. To that end, it is imperative that both institutions are fully and equally informed of all developments in the implementation of the Schengen acquis in the Member States. 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 acquis.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 89 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
(28) The classification status of the evaluation and revisit reports should be determined in accordance with the applicable security rules set out in Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/44438 . The evaluated Member State should neverthelessin exceptional cases only retain the possibility to request the classification of all or parts of the report in accordance with the applicable security rules. _________________ 38 Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/444 of 13 March 2015 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (OJ L 72, 17.3.2015, p. 53).
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 97 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
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 toin order to ensure a well-functioning area without internal border controls, in full respect for fundamental rights.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 101 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 3
3. Evaluations may cover all aspects of the Schengen acquis and, shall always include a fundamental rights assessment, and may take into account the functioning of the authorities that apply the Schengen acquis.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 104 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) ‘unannounced evaluation’ means an evaluation, which is not included in the multiannual and annual evaluation programmes, and which is carried out without any prior notice, to verify the application of the Schengen acquis by one or more Member States in one or more policy fields;
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 106 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(d a) "evaluation on short-notice" means an evaluation, which is not included in the multiannual and annual evaluation programmes, to verify the application of the Schengen acquis by one or more Member States in one or more policy field, and in respect of which the Member State or Member States in question receive a maximum of 24 hours advance notice.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 110 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point i
(i) ‘serious deficiency’ means one or more deficiencies which concern the effective application of key elements of the Schengen acquis, including upholding the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and which individually or in combination, have, or risk to have over time, a significant negative impact on freedom of movement, the rights of individuals, or on the functioning of the Schengen area;
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 115 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point k a (new)
(k a) 'Union observer' means an expert designated by a Union institution, body, office or Agency to participate, as an observer, in an evaluation of a Member State, a visit or revisit of a Member State
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 120 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. The Member States and the Commission shall cooperate fully at all stages of evaluations in order to ensure the effective implementation of this Regulation, while ensuring that the European Parliament is kept fully informed of all substantive developments.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 121 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
They shall ensure that the Commission and the teams carrying out evaluation and monitoring activities are able to perform their tasks effectively, in particular by granting the possibility to the Commission and the teams to address individually and directly relevant persons and by providing full and unimpeded access to all areas, premises and documents to which access has been requested, including national and internal guidelines and instructions, also classified ones.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 127 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) Evaluations at short-notice
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 131 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) to evaluate practices at internal borders, in particular where internal border controls have been in place for longer than four months;
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 138 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
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 particular allegations of serious fundamental rights violations at the external borders.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 141 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. When it has received or is aware of multiple reports from external sources regarding allegations of fundamental rights violations at the external borders of a Member State, the Commission shall organise an unannounced evaluation of that Member State.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 142 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Evaluations may cover any aspect of the Schengen acquis, including the effective and efficient application by the Member States of accompanying measures in the areas of external borders, visa policy, the Schengen Information System, data protection, police cooperation, judicial cooperation, as well as the absence of border control at internal borders. All evaluations shall comprise an assessment of compliance with fundamental rights in the context of the aspects covered.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 146 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Evaluations and monitoring activities referred to in Articles 4 and 5 may be carried out by means of announced or unannounced visits, or visits at short- notice, and questionnaires or other remote methods where physical visits are not feasible or are unnecessary.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 152 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. By 31 August each year, Frontex shall submit to the Commission and, the Member States, and the European Parliament a risk analysis in view to the annual evaluation programme referred to in Article 13 of this Regulation.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 153 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The risk analysis referred to in paragraph 1 shall cover all relevant aspects related toaspects of European integrated border management, as laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, and include a fundamental rights component, and it shall also contain recommendations for unannounced visits in the following year, irrespective of the order of Member States to be evaluated each year, as established in the multiannual evaluation programme in accordance with Article 12.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 157 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 a (new)
Article 9 a Cooperation with the Fundamental Rights Agency In accordance with Article 4(1)(a) and (d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 168/2007, the Fundamental Rights Agency shall submit, by 31 August each year, conclusions on its overall fundamental rights assessment in relation to the implementation of the Schengen acquis with a view to providing to the Commission when drawing up the annual evaluation programme referred to in Article 13.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 162 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
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 other national quality control mechanisms in preparing the evaluation and monitoring activities, in determining the need for unannounced evaluation or evaluations at short-notice, to improve awareness on the functioning of the Schengen area and to avoid the duplication of efforts and conflicting measures.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 171 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
In the programming and implementation of the evaluations and monitoring activities, in particular in determining the need for unannounced evaluations in accordance with Article 4(2) and Article 4(2a), the Commission shall take into account information provided by third parties, including independent authorities, non- governmental organisations and international organisations.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 177 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The multiannual evaluation programme shall identify the specific priority area, in accordance with Article 4(2b), those aspects of the Schengen Acquis to be covered by the periodic evaluations and shall include a provisional time-schedule of those evaluations.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 186 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
The Commission shall make the replies available to the other Member States and to the European Parliament.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 189 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Member States and the Commission, in cooperation with relevant Union bodies, offices or agencies, shall ensure that Member State experts and Commission representatives receive adequate training to become Schengen evaluators. Completion of this training shall be mandatory for all experts participating in a team carrying out an evaluation in accordance with Article 18.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 191 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, shall establish every year a pool of experts whose professional background cover those aspecific priority areas set out ints of the Schengen acquis to be covered in accordance with the multiannual evaluation programme.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 192 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2
2. In parallel to the establishment of the annual evaluation programme in accordance with Article 13(1), on the invitation of the Commission, Member States shall designate at least one qualified expert per each specific area determinedspect of the Schengen acquis to be evaluated as laid down in the multiannual evaluation programme for next year’s pool of experts.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 193 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 11
11. The Commission shall keep the list of experts of the pool up to date and inform Member States and the European Parliament about the number of experts and their profiles designated per Member State.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 195 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall define the number of Member State experts and Commission representatives participating in a team based on the particularities and needs of the evaluation or monitoring activity. The Commission shall select experts from the pool of experts to become members of a team. All members of athe team, with the exception of observers or Union observers, shall have undergone the training in accordance with Article 16(1).
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 196 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. In selecting experts, the Commission shall have regard to the profiles needed for a particular evaluation or monitoring activity taking account of the need to ensure geographical balance, gender balance, balance as regards professional experience and the capacity of national administrations.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 197 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Member State experts shall not participate in a team carrying out an evaluation or monitoring activity of the Member State where they are employed. Moreover, where the activities of an Union body, office or agency present in the Member State are being evaluated as part of that Member State's evaluation, no expert or observer from that Union body, office or agency shall participate in the evaluation.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 198 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 4
4. In the case of unannounced visits, or visits at short-notice, the Commission shall send the invitations no later than two weeks before the visit is scheduled to commence. Experts shall respond within 72 hours of receiving the invitation, in agreement with their designating authorities.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 202 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. In the case of revisits, the Commission shall invite a representative of the European Parliament to participate as a Union observer.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 204 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1
The Commission shall designate a Commission lead expert and propose the Member State lead expert. The Member State lead expert shall be appointed by the members of the team as soon as possible after the team has been set up. The Commission shall also designate an expert responsible for the fundamental rights elements of the visit or evaluation.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 211 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. Unannounced visits shall take place without prior notification to the Member State concerned. By way of exception, the 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 verification of the implementation of the Schengen acquis.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 221 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1
The Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, may establish guidelines for conducting evaluation and monitoring activities by questionnaire or other remote methods. Remote methods shall be used only where physical visits are not feasible or unnecessary.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 258 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 7 – introductory part
7. To verify the progress made in the implementation of the recommendations related to the serious deficiency, the Commission shall organise a revisit that is to take place no later than one yearsix months from the date of the evaluation activity.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 266 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
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 thereof including information on infringement proceedings that are underway or will be brought against the evaluated Member State .
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 275 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2
2. The classification status of the reports shall be determined in accordance with Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/444. TheyIn exceptional cases, parts of the reports may also be classified as ‘EU RESTRICTED/RESTREINT UE’ on a duly justified request of the evaluated Member State.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 277 #

2021/0140(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1
The Commission shall undertake a review of the application of this Regulation and submit a report to the Council within six months of the adoption of all evaluation reports regarding the evaluations covered by the first multiannual evaluation programme adopted in accordance with this Regulation. Such review shall cover all the elements of this Regulation, including the functioning of the procedures for adopting acts under the evaluation mechanism. The Commission shall submit that report to the European Parliament without delay.
2022/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 314 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
(1) The purpose of this Regulation is to improve the funensure a high level of protectioning of the internal market by laying down a uniform legal frameworkfundamental rights, health, safety and the environment, as well as the Union values enshrined in paArticular 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,le 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), from harmful effects of the use of artificial intelligence systems in the Union while enhancing innovation and improving the functioning of the internal market. This Regulation lays down a uniform legal framework in particular for the development, the placing on the market, the putting into service and the use of artificial intelligence in conformity with Union values 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 316 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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, the placing on the market, the putting into service and the 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, the environment and the Union values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 324 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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). To the extent thatAs AI systems rely on the processing of large volumes of data, including personal data, it is appropriate to base this Regulation contains specific rules on the protection of individuals with regard Article 16 of the TFEU, which enshrines the right of everyone to the processingtection 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 andthem and provides for the adoption of rules on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data. In light of the recourse to Article 16 TFEU, it is appropriate to consult the European Data Protection Board.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 325 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 a (new)
(2 a) However, in line with Article 114(2) TFEU, this Regulation does not affect the rights and interests of employed persons. This Regulation should therefore not affect Community law on social policy and national labour law and practice, that is any legal and contractual provision concerning employment conditions, working conditions, including health and safety at work and the relationship between employers and workers, including information, consultation and participation. This Regulation should not affect the exercise of fundamental rights as recognized in the Member States and at Union level, including the right or freedom to strike or to take other action covered by the specific industrial relations systems in Member States, in accordance with national law and/or practice. Nor should it affect concertation practices, the right to negotiate, to conclude and enforce collective agreement or to take collective action in accordance with national law and/or practice. It should in any case not prevent the Commission from proposing specific legislation on the rights and freedoms of workers affected by AI systems.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 327 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 a (new)
(2 a) This Regulation should not affect the restrictions, prohibitions or enforcement that apply where an artificial intelligence practice infringes another EU law, including EU acquis on data protection, privacy, or the confidentiality of communications, on non discrimination, consumer protection or on competition.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 335 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4) At the same time, depending on the circumstances regarding its specific application and use, as well as the level of technological development, artificial intelligence may generate risks and cause harm to public interests and rights that are protected by Union law. Such harm might be material or immaterial, including physical, psychological, societal or economic harm.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 338 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 a (new)
(4 a) In order to ensure the dual green and digital transition, and secure the technological resilience of the EU, to reduce the carbon footprint of artificial intelligence and achieve the objectives of the new European Green Deal, this Regulation should contribute to the promotion of a green and sustainable artificial intelligence and to the consideration of the environmental impact of AI systems throughout their lifecycle. Sustainability should be at the core at the European artificial intelligence framework to guarantee that the development of artificial intelligence is compatible with sustainable development of environmental resources for current and future generations, at all stages of the lifecycle of artificial intelligence products; sustainability of artificial intelligence should encompass sustainable data sources, data centres, resource use, power supplies and infrastructure;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 339 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 a (new)
(4 a) AI available in the Union market or otherwise affecting people in the Union should be designed human centered, so that people can trust that the technology is used in a way that is safe and compliant with the law, including the respect of fundamental rights what requires a shift towards a Human Centered AI Engineering, also in research and education.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 341 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 a (new)
(4 a) Given the major impact that artificial intelligence can have on society and the need to build trust, it is vital for artificial intelligence systems to respect the principles of fairness, accountability, transparency and accountability, privacy and security, and social benefit.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 342 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 b (new)
(4 b) Despite the high potential of solutions to the environmental and climate crisis offered by artificial intelligence, the design, training and execution of algorithms imply a high energy consumption and, consequently, high levels of carbon emissions. Artificial intelligence technologies and data centres have a high carbon footprint due to increased computational energy consumption, and high energy costs due to the volume of data stored and the amount of heat, electric and electronic waste generated, thus resulting in increased pollution. These environmental and carbon footprints are expected to increase overtime as the volume of data transferred and stored and the increasing development of artificial intelligence applications will continue to grow exponentially in the years to come. It is therefore important to minimise the climate and environmental footprint of artificial intelligence and related technologies and that AI systems and associated machinery are designed sustainably to reduce resource usage and energy consumption, thereby limiting the risks to the environment.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 343 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 c (new)
(4 c) To promote the sustainable development of AI systems and in particular to prioritise the need for sustainable, energy efficient data centres, requirements for efficient heating and cooling of data centres should be consistent with the long-term climate and environmental standards and priorities of the Union and comply with the principle of 'do no significant harm' within the meaning of Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and should be fully decarbonised by January 2050. In this regard, Member States and telecommunications providers should collect and publish information relating to the energy performance and environmental footprint for artificial intelligence technologies and date centres including information on the energy efficiency of algorithms to establish a sustainability indicator for artificial intelligence technologies. A European code of conduct for datacentre energy efficiency can establish key sustainability indicators to measure four basic dimensions of a sustainable data centre, namely, how efficiently it uses energy, the proportion of energy generated from renewable energy sources, the reuse of any waste and heat, and the usage of fresh water.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 345 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
(5) A Union legal framework laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence is therefore needed to foster the development, use and uptake of artificial intelligence in the internal market that at the same time meets a high level of protection of public interests, such as health and safety and, the protection of fundamental rights, as recognised and protected by Union law, the environment and the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU. To achieve that objective, rules regulating the development, the placing on the market, and the putting into service and the use of certain AI systems should be laid down, thus ensuring the smooth functioning of the internal market and allowing those systems to benefit from the principle of free movement of goods and services. By laying down those rules, this Regulation supports the objective of the Union of being a global leader in the development of secure, trustworthy and ethical artificial intelligence, as stated by the European Council33 , and it ensures the protection of ethical principles, as specifically requested by the European Parliament34 . _________________ 33 European Council, Special meeting of the European Council (1 and 2 October 2020) – Conclusions, EUCO 13/20, 2020, p. 6. 34 European Parliament resolution of 20 October 2020 with recommendations to the Commission on a framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, 2020/2012(INL).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 350 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
(5) A Union legal framework laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence is therefore needed to foster the development, use and uptake of artificial intelligence in the internal market that at the same time meets a high level of protection of public interests, such as health and safety and the protection of fundamental rights, health and safety, as recognised and protected by Union law. To achieve that objective, rules regulating the development, the placing on the market and, putting into service and the use of certain AI systems should be laid down, thus ensuring the smooth functioning of the internal market and allowing those systems to benefit from the principle of free movement of goods and services. By laying down those rules, this Regulation supports the objective of the Union of being a global leader in the development of secure, trustworthy and ethical artificial intelligence, as stated by the European Council33 , and it ensures the protection of ethical principles, as specifically requested by the European Parliament34 . _________________ 33 European Council, Special meeting of the European Council (1 and 2 October 2020) – Conclusions, EUCO 13/20, 2020, p. 6. 34 European Parliament resolution of 20 October 2020 with recommendations to the Commission on a framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, 2020/2012(INL).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 359 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 objective to perceive, reason and act on machine and/or human-based inputs, to generate outputs such as content, hypotheses, 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 360 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 Commission to amend that list. AI systems can be developed through various techniques using learning, reasoning or modelling, such as: machine learning approaches, including supervised, unsupervised and reinforcement learning, using a wide variety of methods including deep learning; logic- and knowledge-based approaches, including knowledge representation, inductive (logic) programming, knowledge bases, inference and deductive engines, (symbolic) reasoning and expert systems; statistical approaches, Bayesian estimation, search and optimization methods.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 369 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
(7) The notion of biometric data used in this Regulation is in line with and should be interpreted consistently with the notion of biometric data asthe same as that defined in Article 4(14) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council35 , Article 3(18) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council36 and Article 3(13) of Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council37 . _________________ 35 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1). 36 Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39) 37 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 (Law Enforcement Directive) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 371 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
(8) The notion of remote biometric identification system as used in this Regulation should be defined functionally, as an AI system intended for the identification of natural persons at a distance through the comparison of a person’s biometric data with the biometric data contained in a reference database, and without prior knowledge whether the targeted person will be present and can be identified, irrespectively of the particular technology, processes or types of biometric data used. Considering their different characteristics and manners in which they are used, as well as the different risks involved, a distinction should be made between ‘real-time’ and ‘post’ remote biometric identification systems. In the case of ‘real-time’ systems, the capturing of the biometric data, the comparison and the identification occur all instantaneously, near-instantaneously or in any event wiperforming automated recognition of physical, physiological, behavioural, and psychological human features, for the purpose of identification of natural persons throut a significant delay. In this regard, there should be no scope for circumventing the rules of this Regulation on the ‘real-time’ use of the AI systems in question by providing for minor delays. ‘Real-time’ systems involve the use of ‘live’ or ‘near-‘live’ material, such as video footage, generated by a camera or other device with similar functionality. In the case of ‘post’ systems, in contrast, the biometric data have already been captured and the comparison and identification occur only after a significant delay. This involves material, such as pictures or video footage generated by closed circuit television cameras or private devices, which has been generated befgh the comparison of a person’s biometric data with the biometric data contained in a reference database, irrespectively of the particular technology, processes ore the use of the system in respect of the natural persons concernypes of biometric data used.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 372 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
(8) The notion of remote biometric identification system as used in this Regulation should be defined functionally, as an AI system intended for the identification of natural persons at a distance through the comparison of a person’s biometric data with the biometric data contained in a reference database, and without prior knowledge whether the targeted person will be present and can be identified, irrespectively of the particular technology, processes or types of biometric data used. Considering their different characteristics and manners in which they are used, as well as the different risks involved, a distinction should be made between ‘real-time’ and ‘post’ remote biometric identification systems. In the case of ‘real-time’ systems, the capturing of the biometric data, the comparison and the identification occur all instantaneously, near-instantaneously or in any event without a significant delay. In this regard, there should be no scope for circumventing the rules of this Regulation on the ‘real-time’ use of the AI systems in question by providing for minor delays. ‘Real-time’ systems involve the use of ‘live’ or ‘near-‘live’ material, such as video footage, generated by a camera or other device with similar functionality. In the case of ‘post’ systems, in contrast, the biometric data have already been captured and the comparison and identification occur only after a significant delay. This involves material, such as pictures or video footage generated by closed circuit television cameras or private devices, which has been generated before the use of the system in respect of the natural persons concerned.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 382 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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, having regard to the specificities of the individual situation at hand.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 383 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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, having regard to the specificities of the individual situation at hand.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 390 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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. 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 391 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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. 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 or it affects natural persons within the Union.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 395 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
(12) This Regulation should also apply to Union institutions, offices, bodies and agencies when acting as a provider or user of an AI system. 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].
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 402 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12 a (new)
(12 a) AI systems developed or used exclusively 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 TEU. However, AI systems which are developed or used for military purposes but can also be used for civil purposes, falling under the definition of “dual use items” pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2021/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council1ashould fall into the scope of this Regulation. _________________ 1a Regulation (EU) 2021/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 setting up a Union regime for the control of exports, brokering, technical assistance, transit and transfer of dual-use items (OJ L 206 11.6.2021, p. 1).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 405 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12 b (new)
(12 b) This Regulation should not affect the provisions aimed at improving working conditions in platform work set out in Directive 2021/762/EC.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 409 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
(13) In order to ensure a consistent and high level of protection of public interests as regards health, safety and fundamental rights, the environment and the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 414 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 unacceptable 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 421 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15 a (new)
(15 a) As signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), the European Union and all Member States should protect persons with disabilities from discrimination and promote their equality, ensure that persons with disabilities have access, on an equal basis with others, to information and communications technologies and systems and ensure respect for privacy of persons with disabilities.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 427 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
(16) The placing on the market, putting into service or use of certain AI systems intended towith the effect or likely effect of distorting human behaviour, whereby material or non-material harm, including physical or, psychological or economic harms are likely to occur, should be forbidden. This limitation should be understood to include neuro-technologies assisted by AI systems that are used to monitor, use, or influence neural data gathered through brain- computer interfaces. 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 toeffect of materially distorting 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 user. 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 that exposes natural persons to harm and such research is carried out in accordance with recognised ethical standards for scientific research.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 433 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) AI systems providing social scoring of natural persons for general purpose by private or public authorities or on their behalf may lead to discriminatory outcomes and the exclusion of certain groups. 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 lead 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 436 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 groups. 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 lead 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 440 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17 a (new)
(17 a) AI systems used by law enforcement authorities or on their behalf to make predictions, profiles or risk assessments based on data analysis or profiling of natural groups or locations, for the purpose of predicting the occurrence or reoccurrence of an actual or potential criminal offence(s) or other criminalised social behaviour, hold a particular risk of discrimination against certain persons or groups of persons, as they violate human dignity as well as the key legal principle of presumption of innocence. Such AI systems should therefore be prohibited.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 442 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17 a (new)
(17 a) AI systems used by law enforcement authorities or on their behalf to predict the probability of a natural person to offend or to reoffend, based on profiling and individual or place-based risk-assessment hold a particular risk of discrimination against certain persons or groups of persons, as they violate human dignity as well as the key legal principle of presumption of innocence. Such AI systems should therefore be prohibited.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 447 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
(18) The use of AI systems for ‘real- time’ remote biometric identification of natural persons in publicly or privately accessible spaces, as well as online 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 affect the private life of a large part of the population, evoke a feeling of constant surveillance and indirectly dissuade 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 ofTechnical 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. In addition, whether such systems operatingare used in 'real- time’ carry' or post factum, there is little difference on the impact and the heightened risks for the rights and freedoms of the persons that are concerned by law enforcement activities. The placing or making available on the market, the putting into service or use of those systems should therefore be prohibited.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 448 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
(18) The use of AI systems for ‘real- time’ remote biometric identification of natural persons in publicly or privately accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement is consideredis particularly intrusive in the rights and freedoms of the concerned persons, to the extent that it may affect the private life of a large part of the population, evoke a feeling of constant surveillance and indirectly dissuade 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 activitiesSuch systems should therefore be prohibited.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 456 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18 a (new)
(18 a) Despite progress regarding biometric identification technologies, the accuracy of the results still varies across technologies and depends on contextual factors. Even the relatively well- established fingerprint identification applications face challenges, in particular at the stage of the collection of biometric data (related to, for example, subject's age). The reliability of face recognition technologies in 'real world' settings is highly dependent on the quality of the images captured and on the quality of the algorithms used for biometric matching. During enrolment, poor quality images taken at e-gates or through a CCTV camera under variable environmental conditions may result in less accurate results. As in the case of automated fingerprint identification, changes in a person's physical characteristics over time may also affect the accuracy of facial recognition technologies. Research has found a considerable degradation in performance for face recognition algorithms on children as compared to the performance obtained on adults. In light of this, the placing or making available on the market, the putting into service or use of remote biometric identification systems should be prohibited.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 460 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18 b (new)
(18 b) There are serious concerns about the scientific basis of AI systems aiming to detect emotions from facial expressions. Facial expressions and perceptions thereof vary considerably across cultures and situations, and even within a single person. Among the key shortcomings of such technologies are the limited reliability (emotion categories are neither reliably expressed through, nor unequivocally associated with, a common set of facial movements), the lack of specificity (facial expressions do not perfectly match emotion categories) and the limited generalisability (the effects of context and culture are not sufficiently considered). Reliability issues may also arise when deploying the system in real- life situations, for example, when dealing with subjects who actively seek (and train themselves) to fool the system. Therefore, the placing on the market, putting into service, or use of AI systems intended to be used as polygraphs and similar tools to detect the emotional state, trustworthiness or related characteristics of a natural person, should be prohibited.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 463 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
(19) The use of those systems for the purpose of law enforcement should therefore be prohibited, except in three exhaustively listed and narrowly defined situations, where the use is strictly necessary to achieve a substantial public interest, the importance of which outweighs the risks. Those situations involve the search for potential victims of crime, including missing children; certain threats to the life or physical safety of natural persons or of a terrorist attack; and the detection, localisation, identification or prosecution of perpetrators or suspects of the criminal offences referred to in Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA38 if those criminal offences are punishable in the Member State concerned by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years and as they are defined in the law of that Member State. Such threshold for the custodial sentence or detention order in accordance with national law contributes to ensure that the offence should be serious enough to potentially justify the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems. Moreover, of the 32 criminal offences listed in the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, some are in practice likely to be more relevant than others, in that the recourse to ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification will foreseeably be necessary and proportionate to highly varying degrees for the practical pursuit of the detection, localisation, identification or prosecution of a perpetrator or suspect of the different criminal offences listed and having regard to the likely differences in the seriousness, probability and scale of the harm or possible negative consequences. _________________ 38 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1).deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 466 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
(19) The use of those systems for the purpose of law enforcement should therefore be prohibited, except in three exhaustively listed and narrowly defined situations, where the use is strictly necessary to achieve a substantial public interest, the importance of which outweighs the risks. Those situations involve the search for potential victims of crime, including missing children; certain threats to the life or physical safety of natural persons or of a terrorist attack; and the detection, localisation, identification or prosecution of perpetrators or suspects of the criminal offences referred to in Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA38 if those criminal offences are punishable in the Member State concerned by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years and as they are defined in the law of that Member State. Such threshold for the custodial sentence or detention order in accordance with national law contributes to ensure that the offence should be serious enough to potentially justify the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems. Moreover, of the 32 criminal offences listed in the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, some are in practice likely to be more relevant than others, in that the recourse to ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification will foreseeably be necessary and proportionate to highly varying degrees for the practical pursuit of the detection, localisation, identification or prosecution of a perpetrator or suspect of the different criminal offences listed and having regard to the likely differences in the seriousness, probability and scale of the harm or possible negative consequences. _________________ 38 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1).deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 472 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
(20) In order to ensure that those systems are used in a responsible and proportionate manner, it is also important to establish that, in each of those three exhaustively listed and narrowly defined situations, certain elements should be taken into account, in particular as regards the nature of the situation giving rise to the request and the consequences of the use for the rights and freedoms of all persons concerned and the safeguards and conditions provided for with the use. In addition, the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement should be subject to appropriate limits in time and space, having regard in particular to the evidence or indications regarding the threats, the victims or perpetrator. The reference database of persons should be appropriate for each use case in each of the three situations mentioned above.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 475 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
(20) In order to ensure that those systems are used in a responsible and proportionate manner, it is also important to establish that, in each of those three exhaustively listed and narrowly defined situations, certain elements should be taken into account, in particular as regards the nature of the situation giving rise to the request and the consequences of the use for the rights and freedoms of all persons concerned and the safeguards and conditions provided for with the use. In addition, the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement should be subject to appropriate limits in time and space, having regard in particular to the evidence or indications regarding the threats, the victims or perpetrator. The reference database of persons should be appropriate for each use case in each of the three situations mentioned above.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 481 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
(21) Each use of a ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification system in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement should be subject to an express and specific authorisation by a judicial authority or by an independent administrative authority of a Member State. Such authorisation should in principle be obtained prior to the use, except in duly justified situations of urgency, that is, situations where the need to use the systems in question is such as to make it effectively and objectively impossible to obtain an authorisation before commencing the use. In such situations of urgency, the use should be restricted to the absolute minimum necessary and be subject to appropriate safeguards and conditions, as determined in national law and specified in the context of each individual urgent use case by the law enforcement authority itself. In addition, the law enforcement authority should in such situations seek to obtain an authorisation as soon as possible, whilst providing the reasons for not having been able to request it earlier.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 482 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
(21) Each use of a ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification system in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement should be subject to an express and specific authorisation by a judicial authority or by an independent administrative authority of a Member State. Such authorisation should in principle be obtained prior to the use, except in duly justified situations of urgency, that is, situations where the need to use the systems in question is such as to make it effectively and objectively impossible to obtain an authorisation before commencing the use. In such situations of urgency, the use should be restricted to the absolute minimum necessary and be subject to appropriate safeguards and conditions, as determined in national law and specified in the context of each individual urgent use case by the law enforcement authority itself. In addition, the law enforcement authority should in such situations seek to obtain an authorisation as soon as possible, whilst providing the reasons for not having been able to request it earlier.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 491 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
(22) Furthermore, it is appropriate to provide, within the exhaustive framework set by this Regulation that such use in the territory of a Member State in accordance with this Regulation should only be possible where and in as far as the Member State in question has decided to expressly provide for the possibility to authorise such use in its detailed rules of national law. Consequently, Member States remain free under this Regulation not to provide for such a possibility at all or to only provide for such a possibility in respect of some of the objectives capable of justifying authorised use identified in this Regulation.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 493 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
(22) Furthermore, it is appropriate to provide, within the exhaustive framework set by this Regulation that such use in the territory of a Member State in accordance with this Regulation should only be possible where and in as far as the Member State in question has decided to expressly provide for the possibility to authorise such use in its detailed rules of national law. Consequently, Member States remain free under this Regulation not to provide for such a possibility at all or to only provide for such a possibility in respect of some of the objectives capable of justifying authorised use identified in this Regulation.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 500 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
(23) The use of AI systems for ‘real- time’ remote biometric identification of natural persons in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement necessarily involves the processing of biometric data. The rules of this Regulation that prohibit, subject to certain exceptions, such use, which are based on Article 16 TFEU, should apply as lex specialis in respect of the rules on the processing of biometric data contained in Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, thus regulating such use and the processing of biometric data involved in an exhaustive manner. Therefore, such use and processing should only be possible in as far as it is compatible with the framework set by this Regulation, without there being scope, outside that framework, for the competent authorities, where they act for purpose of law enforcement, to use such systems and process such data in connection thereto on the grounds listed in Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. In this context, this Regulation is not intended to provide the legal basis for the processing of personal data under Article 8 of Directive 2016/680. However, the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for purposes other than law enforcement, including by competent authorities, should not be covered by the specific framework regarding such use for the purpose of law enforcement set by this Regulation. Such use for purposes other than law enforcement should therefore not be subject to the requirement of an authorisation under this Regulation and the applicable detailed rules of national law that may give effect to it.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 501 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
(23) The use of AI systems for ‘real- time’ remote biometric identification of natural persons in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement necessarily involves the processing of biometric data. The rules of this Regulation that prohibit, subject to certain exceptions, such use, which are based on Article 16 TFEU, should apply as lex specialis in respect of the rules on the processing of biometric data contained in Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, thus regulating such use and the processing of biometric data involved in an exhaustive manner. Therefore, such use and processing should only be possible in as far as it is compatible with the framework set by this Regulation, without there being scope, outside that framework, for the competent authorities, where they act for purpose of law enforcement, to use such systems and process such data in connection thereto on the grounds listed in Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. In this context, this Regulation is not intended to provide the legal basis for the processing of personal data under Article 8 of Directive 2016/680. However, the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for purposes other than law enforcement, including by competent authorities, should not be covered by the specific framework regarding such use for the purpose of law enforcement set by this Regulation. Such use for purposes other than law enforcement should therefore not be subject to the requirement of an authorisation under this Regulation and the applicable detailed rules of national law that may give effect to it.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 509 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
(24) Any processing of biometric data and other personal data involved in the use of AI systems for biometric identification, other than in connection to the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement as regulated by this Regulation, including where those systems are used by competent authorities in publicly accessible spaces for other purposes than law enforcement, should continue to comply with all requirements resulting from Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 and Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, as applicable.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 510 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
(24) Any processing of biometric data and other personal data involved in the use of AI systems for biometric identification, other than in connection to the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement as regulated by this Regulation, including where those systems are used by competent authorities in publicly accessible spaces for other purposes than law enforcement, should continue to comply with all requirements resulting from Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 and Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, as applicable.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 516 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
(25) In accordance with Article 6a of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, as annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Ireland is not bound by the rules laid down in Article 5(1), point (d), (2) and (3) of this Regulation adopted on the basis of Article 16 of the TFEU which relate to the processing of personal data by the Member States when carrying out activities falling within the scope of Chapter 4 or Chapter 5 of Title V of Part Three of the TFEU, where Ireland is not bound by the rules governing the forms of judicial cooperation in criminal matters or police cooperation which require compliance with the provisions laid down on the basis of Article 16 of the TFEU.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 517 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
(26) In accordance with Articles 2 and 2a of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the TEU and TFEU, Denmark is not bound by rules laid down in Article 5(1), point (d), (2) and (3) of this Regulation adopted on the basis of Article 16 of the TFEU, or subject to their application, which relate to the processing of personal data by the Member States when carrying out activities falling within the scope of Chapter 4 or Chapter 5 of Title V of Part Three of the TFEU.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 518 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26 a (new)
(26 a) AI systems capable of reading facial expressions to infer emotional states hold no scientific basis, while at the same time running a high risk of inaccuracy, in particular for certain groups of individuals whose facial traits are not easily readable by such systems, as several examples have shown. Therefore, due to the particular risk of discrimination, these systems should be prohibited.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 524 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 and do not breach the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU or the principles applicable to all AI systems as per this Regulation. 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, their health and safety and such limitation minimises any potential restriction to international trade, if any.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 525 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
(27) High-risk AI systems should only be placed on the Union market or put into service or used 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 and do not contravene the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU. AI systems identified as high-risk should be limited to those that have a significant harmful impact on the health, safety and the fundamental rights of persons in the Union or the environment and such limitation minimises any potential restriction to international trade, if any.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 543 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32 a (new)
(32 a) In the light of the nature and complexity of the value chain for AI systems, it is essential to consider the foreseeable high-risks they can create when combined. Particular attention should be paid to the foreseeable uses and reasonably foreseeable misuses of AI systems with indeterminate uses.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 544 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 545 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 559 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 or monitor 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 569 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
(37) Another area in which the use of AI systems deserves special consideration is the access to and enjoyment of certain essential private and public services and benefits necessary for people to fully participate in society or to improve one’s standard of living. In particular, AI systems used to evaluate the credit score or creditworthiness of natural persons should be classified as high-risk AI systems, since they determine those persons’ access to financial resources or essential services such as housing, electricity, and telecommunication services. AI systems used for this purpose may lead to discrimination of persons or groups and perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination, for example based on racial or ethnic origins, disabilities, age, sexual orientation, or create new forms of discriminatory impacts. Considering the very limited scale of the impact and the available alternatives on the market, it is appropriate to exempt AI systems for the purpose of creditworthiness assessment and credit scoring when put into service by small-scale providers for their own use. Natural persons applying for or receiving public assistance benefits and services from public authorities are typically dependent on those benefits and services and in a vulnerable position in relation to the responsible authorities. If AI systems are used for determining whether such benefits and services should be denied, reduced, revoked or reclaimed by authorities, they may have a significant impact on persons’ livelihood and may infringe their fundamental rights, such as the right to social protection, non- discrimination, human dignity or an effective remedy. Those systems should therefore be classified as high-risk. Nonetheless, this Regulation should not hamper the development and use of innovative approaches in the public administration, which would stand to benefit from a wider use of compliant and safe AI systems, provided that those systems do not entail a high risk to legal and natural persons. Finally, AI systems used to dispatch or establish priority in the dispatching of emergency first response services should also be classified as high- risk since they make decisions in very critical situations for the life and health of persons and their property.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 577 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37 a (new)
(37 a) Given the speed at which AI applications are being developed around the world, it is not feasible to compile an exhaustive listing of applications that should be prohibited or considered high- risk. What is needed is a clear and coherent governance model guaranteeing both the fundamental rights of individuals and legal clarity for operators, considering the continuous evolution of technology. Nevertheless, given the role and responsibility of police and judicial authorities, and the impact of decisions they take for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, the use of AI applications has to be categorised as high-risk in instances where there is the potential to significantly affect the lives of individuals.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 579 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 performance, including 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 581 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 offenceon their behalf to detect ‘deep fakes’, for the evaluation of the reliability of evidence in criminal proceedings, 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 585 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38 a (new)
(38 a) The use of AI tools by law enforcement and judicial authorities should not become a factor of inequality, social fracture or exclusion. The impact of the use of AI tools on the defence rights of suspects should not be ignored, notably the difficulty in obtaining meaningful information on their functioning and the consequent difficulty in challenging their results in court, in particular by individuals under investigation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 587 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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. 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).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 588 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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.; for verifying the authenticity of the relevant documents of natural persons; 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).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 601 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40 a (new)
(40 a) Certain AI systems should at the same time be subject to transparency requirements and be classified as high- risk AI systems, given their potential to deceive and cause both individual and societal harm. In particular, AI systems that generate deep fakes representing existing persons have the potential to both manipulate the natural persons that are exposed to those deep fakes and harm the persons they are representing or misrepresenting, while AI systems that, based on limited human input, generate complex text such as news articles, opinion articles, novels, scripts and scientific articles have the potential to manipulate, to deceive, or to expose natural persons to built-in biases or inaccuracies. These should not include AI systems intended to translate text, or cases where the content forms part of an evidently artistic, creative or fictional cinematographic and analogous work.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 608 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
(41) The fact that an AI system is classified as high risk under this Regulation should not be interpreted as indicating that the use of the system is necessarily lawful under other acts of Union law or under national law compatible with Union law, such as on the protection of personal data, on the use of polygraphs and similar tools or other systems to detect the emotional state of natural persons. Any such use should continue to occur solely in accordance with the applicable requirements resulting from the Charter and from the applicable acts of secondary Union law and national law. This Regulation should not be understood as providing for the legal ground for processing of personal data, including special categories of personal data, where relevant.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 609 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
(41) The fact that an AI system is classified as high risk under this Regulation should not be interpreted as indicating that the use of the system is necessarily lawful under other acts of Union law or under national law compatible with Union law, such as on the protection of personal data, on the use of polygraphs and similar tools or other systems to detect the emotional state of natural persons. Any such use should continue to occur solely in accordance with the applicable requirements resulting from the Charter and from the applicable acts of secondary Union law and national law. This Regulation should not be understood as providing for the legal ground for processing of personal data, including special categories of personal data, where relevant.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 619 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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. Those requirements are necessary to effectively mitigate the risks for health, safety and, fundamental rights, the environment and the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, as applicable in the light of the intended purpose or reasonably foreseeable use of the system, and no other less trade restrictive measures are reasonably available, thus avoiding unjustified restrictions to trade.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 629 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 datasets, and where applicable, 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, including the labels, shall be relevant, representative, up-to-date, and to the best extent possible, free of errors and complete. 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 purpoby the intended purpose, the foreseeable uses and reasonably foreseeable misuses of AI systems with indeterminate uses, 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 631 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44 a (new)
(44 a) Biases can be inherent in underlying datasets, especially when historical data is being used, introduced by the developers of the algorithms, or generated when the systems are implemented in real world settings. Any result provided by an AI system is necessarily influenced by the quality of the data used, and such inherent biases are inclined to gradually increase and thereby perpetuate and amplify existing discrimination, in particular for persons belonging to certain ethnic groups or racialised communities.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 638 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 47 a (new)
(47 a) It is vital to ensure that the development, deployment and use of AI systems for the judiciary and law enforcement comply with fundamental rights, and are trusted by citizens, as well as in order to ensure that results generated by AI algorithms can be rendered intelligible to users and to those subject to these systems, and that there is transparency on the source data and how the system arrived at a certain conclusion. To this aim, law enforcement or judiciary authorities in the Union should use only such AI systems whose algorithms and logic are auditable and accessible at least to the police and the judiciary, as well as independent auditors, to allow for their evaluation, auditing and vetting, and such systems should not be closed or labelled as proprietary by the vendors.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 644 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48 a (new)
(48 a) In order to protect natural persons that are developers or users of AI systems against retaliation from their employers and colleagues, and to prevent misconduct or breaches of this Regulation and other relevant Union law, they should have the right to rely on the whistleblower protections set in Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 661 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 56
(56) To enable enforcement of this Regulation and create a level-playing field for operators, and taking into account the different forms of making available of digital products, it is important to ensure that, under all circumstances, a person established in the Union can provide authorities with all the necessary information on the compliance of an AI system. Therefore, prior to making their AI systems available in the Unionplacing any AI system on the Union market, putting it into service or using it, where an importer cannot be identified, provideoperators established outside the Union shallould, by written mandate, appoint an authorised representative established in the Union. legal representative established in the Union. The legal representative should act on behalf of the operator and may be addressed by any competent authorities for the purpose of this Regulation. The designation of such a legal representative does not affect the responsibility or liability of the operator under this Regulation. Such a legal representative should perform its tasks according to the mandate received from the operator, including cooperating with the national supervisory authorities with regard to any action taken to ensure compliance with this Regulation. The designated legal representative should be subject to enforcement proceedings in the event of non-compliance by the operator.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 666 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58 a (new)
(58 a) Whilst risks related to AI systems can generate from the way such systems are designed, risks can as well stem from how such AI systems are used. Users of high-risk AI system therefore play a critical role in ensuring that fundamental rights are protected, complementing the obligations of the provider when developing the AI system. Users are best placed to understand how the high-risk AI system will be used concretely and can therefore identify potential risks that were not foreseen in the development phase, thanks to a more precise knowledge of the context of use, the people or groups of people likely to be affected, including marginalised and vulnerable groups. In order to efficiently ensure that fundamental rights are protected, the user of high-risk AI systems should therefore carry out a fundamental rights impact assessment on how it intends to use such AI systems, and prior to putting it into use. The impact assessment should be accompanied by a detailed plan describing the measures or tools that will help mitigating the risks to fundamental rights identified. When performing this impact assessment, the user should notify the national supervisory authority, the market surveillance authority as well as relevant stakeholders. It should also involve representatives of groups of persons likely to be affected by the AI system in order to collect relevant information which is deemed necessary to perform the impact assessment.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 668 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58 a (new)
(58 a) Risks for people affected by AI systems often arise from uses of an AI system in a specific context and with respect to a specific group of people, and might not always be foreseeable for the provider. Therefore, prior to putting a high-risk AI system into use, the user should conduct an assessment of the system’s impact on the fundamental rights in particular, within the context of use, and publish the results.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 681 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 they are not prohibited.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 689 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 65
(65) In order to carry out third-party conformity assessment for AI systems intended to be used for the remote biometric identification of personsany of the use- cases listed in Annex III, notified bodies should be designated under this Regulation by the national competent authorities, provided they are compliant with a set of requirements, notably on independence, competence and absence of conflicts of interests.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 701 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 704 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 69
(69) In order to facilitate the work of the Commission and the Member States in the artificial intelligence field as well as to increase the transparency towards the public, both providers and users of high- risk AI systems other than those related to products falling within the scope of relevant existing Union harmonisation legislation, should be required to register their high-risk AI system in a EU database, to be established and managed by the Commission. Users who are public authorities or European Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies or users acting on their behalf should also register in the EU database before putting into service or using any AI system. The Commission should be the controller of that database, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council55 . In order to ensure the full functionality of the database, when deployed, the procedure for setting the database should include the elaboration of functional specifications by the Commission and an independent audit report. _________________ 55 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 712 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 system 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 disclose that the content has been artificially created or manipulated by labelling the artificial intelligence output accordingly and disclosing its artificial origin.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 714 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 system 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 disclose that the content has been artificially created or manipulated by labelling the artificial intelligence output accordingly and disclosing its artificial origin.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 722 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 71
(71) Artificial intelligence is a rapidly developing family of technologies that requires novel forms of regulatory oversight and a safe space for experimentation, while ensuring responsible innovation and integration of appropriate safeguards and risk mitigation measures. To ensure a legal framework that safeguards fundamental rights and is innovation-friendly, future-proof and resilient to disruption, national competentsupervisory authorities from one or more Member States should be encouraged tocould establish artificial intelligence regulatory sandboxes to facilitate the development and testing of innovative AI systems under strict regulatory oversight before these systems are placed on the market or otherwise put into service.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 726 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 72
(72) The objectives of the regulatory sandboxes should be to foster AI innovation by establishing a controlled experimentation and testing environment in the development and pre-marketing phase with a view to ensuring compliance of the innovative AI systems with this Regulation and other relevant Union and Member States legislation; to enhance legal certainty for innovators and the competent authorities’ oversight and understanding of the opportunities, emerging risks and the impacts of AI use, and to accelerate access to markets, including by removing barriers for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups. To ensure uniform implementation across the Union and economies of scale, it is appropriate to establish common rules for the regulatory sandboxes’ implementation and a framework for cooperation between the relevant authorities involved in the supervision of the sandboxes. This Regulation should provide the legal basis for the use of personal data collected for other purposes for developing certain AI systems in the public interest within the AI regulatory sandbox, in line with Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, and without prejudice to Article 4(2) of Directive (EU) 2016/680. Participants in the sandbox should ensure appropriate safeguards and cooperate with the competent authorities, including by following their guidance and acting expeditiously and in good faith to mitigate any high-risks to safety and fundamental rights that may arise during the development and experimentation in the sandbox. The conduct of the participants in the sandbox should be taken into account when competent authorities decide whether to impose an administrative fine under Article 83(2) of Regulation 2016/679 and Article 57 of Directive 2016/680.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 727 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 72
(72) The objectives of the regulatory sandboxes should be to foster AI innovation, while safeguarding fundamental rights and the values enshrined in Article 2 TFEU, by establishing a controlled experimentation and testing environment in the development and pre-marketing phase with a view to ensuring compliance of the innovative AI systems with this Regulation and other relevant Union and Member States legislation; to enhance legal certainty for innovators and the competentnational supervisory authorities’ oversight and understanding of the opportunities, emerging risks and the impacts of AI use, and to accelerate access to markets, including by removing barriers for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and start- ups. To ensure uniform implementation across the Union and economies of scale, it is appropriate to establish common rules for the regulatory sandboxes’ implementation and a framework for cooperation between the relevant authorities involved in the supervision of the sandboxes. This Regulation should provide the legal basis for the use of personal data collected for other purposes for developing certain AI systems in the public interest within the AI regulatory sandbox, in line with Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, and without prejudice to Article 4(2) of Directive (EU) 2016/680national supervisory authorities involved in the supervision of the sandboxes. Participants in the sandbox should ensure appropriate safeguards and cooperate with the competentnational supervisory authorities, including by following their guidance and acting expeditiously and in good faith to mitigate any high-risks to safety and fundamental rights that may arise during the development and experimentation in the sandbox. The conduct of the participants in the sandbox should be taken into account when competent authorities decide whether to impose an administrative fine under Article 83(2) of Regulation 2016/679 and Article 57 of Directive 2016/680.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 728 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 72 a (new)
(72 a) To ensure that Artificial Intelligence leads to socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes, Member States should support and promote research and development of AI in support of socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes by allocating sufficient resources, including public and Union funding, and giving priority access to regulatory sandboxes to projects led by civil society. Such projects should be based on the principle of interdisciplinary cooperation between AI developers, experts on inequality and non- discrimination, accessibility, consumer, environmental, and digital rights, as well as academics.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 738 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 76
(76) In order to facilitate a smooth, effective and harmconsisedtent implementation of this Regulation an independent European Artificial Intelligence Board should be established. The Board should be responsible for a number of advisory tasks, including issuing opinions, recommendations, advice or guidance on matters related to the implementation of this Regulation, including on technical specifications or existing standards regarding the requirements established in this Regulation and providing advice to and assisting the Commission on specific questions related to artificial intelligence, including on possible amendments of the annexes, in particular the annex listing high-risk AI systems. To contribute to the effective and harmonised enforcement of this Regulation, the Board should also be able to adopt binding decisions for the settlement of cases involving two or more Member States in which the national supervisory authorities are in disagreement or when it is not clear who the lead national supervisory authority is. The Board should also be able to adopt a binding decision in those cases when a national supervisory authority of a Member State finds that although an AI system is in compliance with this Regulation, it presents a risk to the compliance with obligations under Union or national law intended to protect fundamental rights, the principles of Article 4a, the values as enshrined in Article 2 TEU, the environment, or to other aspects of public interest protection.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 745 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 77
(77) Each Member States should a key role in the application and enforcement of this Regulation. In this respect, each Member State should designate one or more national competent authorities for the purpose of supervising the application andestablish or designate a single national supervisory authority to act as the lead authority and be responsible for ensuring the effective coordination between the national competent authorities regarding the implementation of this Regulation. In order to inct should also reprease organisation efficiency on the side of Member States and to set an official point of contact vis-à-vis the public and other counterparts at Member Stant its Member State on the Board. Each national supervisory authority should act with complete aind Union levels, in each Member State one national authority should be designated as national supervisory authorityependence in performing its tasks and exercising its powers in accordance with this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 746 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 77 a (new)
(77 a) The national supervisory authorities should monitor the application of the provisions pursuant to this Regulation and contribute to its consistent application throughout the Union. For that purpose, the national supervisory authorities should cooperate with each other, with the market surveillance authorities and with the Commission, without the need for any agreement between Member States on the provision of mutual assistance or on such cooperation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 756 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 80 a (new)
(80 a) Where the national market surveillance authority has not taken measures against an infringement to this Regulation, the Commission should be in possession of all the necessary resources, in terms of staffing, expertise, and financial means, for the performance of its tasks instead of the national market surveillance authority under this Regulation. In order to ensure the availability of the resources necessary for the adequate investigation and enforcement measures that the Commission could undertake under this Regulation, the Commission should charge fees on national market surveillance authorities, the level of which should be established on a case-by-case basis. The overall amount of fees charged should be established on the basis of the overall amount of the costs incurred by the Commission to exercise its investigation and enforcement powers under this Regulation. Such an amount should include costs relating to the exercise of the specific powers and tasks connected to Chapter 4 of Title VIII of this Regulation. The external assigned revenues resulting from the fees could be used to finance additional human resources, such as contractual agents and seconded national experts, and other expenditure related to the fulfilment of these tasks entrusted to the Commission by this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 764 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 84 a (new)
(84 a) In order to strengthen and harmonise administrative penalties for infringements of this Regulation, each national supervisory authority should have the power to impose administrative fines. This Regulation should indicate infringements and the upper limit for setting the related administrative fines, which should be determined by the national supervisory authority in each individual case, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the specific situation, with due regard in particular to the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement and of its consequences and the measures taken to ensure compliance with the obligations under this Regulation and to prevent or mitigate the consequences of the infringement.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 765 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 84 a (new)
(84 a) An affected person should also have the right to mandate a not-for-profit body, organisation or association that has been properly constituted in accordance with the law of a Member State, to lodge the complaint on their behalf. To this end, Directive 2020/1828/EC on Representative Actions for the Protection of the Collective Interests of Consumers should be amended to include this Regulation among the provisions of Union law falling under its scope.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 767 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 84 b (new)
(84 b) Natural persons, affected by an AI system falling within the scope of this Regulation, should have the right to lodge a complaint against the providers or users of such AI system with a national supervisory authority, if they consider that their fundamental rights, health or safety have been breached. An affected person should also have the right to mandate a not-for-profit body, organisation or association that has been properly constituted in accordance with the law of a Member State, to lodge the complaint on their behalf.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 772 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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, and 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. 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 780 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph -1 (new)
-1 The purpose of this Regulation is to ensure a high level of protection of health, safety, fundamental rights, the environment and the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU from harmful effects of artificial intelligence systems in the Union while promoting innovation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 784 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
The purpose of this Regulation is to ensure a high level of protection of fundamental rights, health, safety and the environment from harmful effects of the use of artificial intelligence systems in the Union while enhancing innovation. This Regulation lays down:
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 789 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) harmonised rules for the development, placing on the market, the putting into service and the use of artificial intelligence systems (‘AI systems’) in the Union;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 790 #
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 792 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) harmonised rules on high-risk AI systems to ensure a high level of trustworthiness and protection of fundamental rights, health and safety, the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU and the environment;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 793 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) harmonised rules on high-risk AI systems to ensure a high level of trustworthiness and protection of fundamental rights, health and safety
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 794 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) harmonised transparency rules for AI systems intended to interact with natural persons, emotion recognition systems and biometric categorisation systems, and AI systems used to generate or manipulate image, audio or video content;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 811 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)
This Regulation shall be applied taking due account of the precautionary principle.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 816 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) provideoperators placing on the market or putting into service AI systems in the Union, irrespective of whether those provideoperators are established within the Union or in a third country;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 821 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) users of AI systems that are located within the Union;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 825 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) providers and users of AI systems that are located in a third country, where the output produced by the system is used in the Union or affects natural persons within the Union;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 831 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) natural persons, affected by the use of an AI system, who are in the Union;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 832 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) natural persons, affected by the use of an AI system, who are in the Union;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 835 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)
(c b) providers placing on the market or putting into service AI systems outside the Union where the provider is located within the Union;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 838 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. providers placing on the market or putting into service AI systems in a third country where the provider or distributor of such AI systems originates from the Union;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 840 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. This Regulation shall apply to Union institutions, offices, bodies and agencies when acting as an operator of an AI system.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 867 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 3
3. This Regulation shall not apply to AI systems developed or used exclusively for military purposes. However, this Regulation shall apply to AI systems which are developed or used as dual-use items, as defined in Article 2, point (1) of Regulation (EU) 2021/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a. _________________ 1a Regulation (EU) 2021/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 setting up a Union regime for the control of exports, brokering, technical assistance, transit and transfer of dual-use items (OJ L 206, 11.6.2021, p. 1).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 872 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Union law on the protection of personal data, privacy and the confidentiality of communications applies to personal data processed in connection with the rights and obligations laid down in this Regulation. This Regulation shall not affect Regulations (EU) 2016/679, (EU) 2018/1725 or Directives 2002/58/EC and (EU) 2016/680.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 876 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. This Regulation shall apply to Union institutions, offices, bodies and agencies when acting as an operator of an AI system.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 878 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 4
4. This Regulation shall not apply to public authorities in a third country nor to international organisations falling within the scope of this Regulation pursuant to paragraph 1, where those authorities or organisations use AI systems in the framework of international agreements for law enforcement and judicial cooperation with the Union or with one or more Member States.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 882 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 4
4. This Regulation shall not apply to public authorities in a third country nor to international organisations falling within the scope of this Regulation pursuant to paragraph 1, where those authorities or organisations use AI systems in the framework of international agreements for law enforcement and judicial cooperation with the Union or with one or more Member States.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 890 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. This Regulation shall not affect community law on social policy.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 891 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. This Regulation shall not affect national labour law and practice or collective agreements, and it shall not preclude national legislation to ensure the protection of workers’ rights in respect of the use of AI systems by employers, including where this implies introducing more stringent obligations than those laid down in this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 897 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 5 c (new)
5 c. This Regulation is without prejudice to the rules laid down by other Union legal acts regulating other aspects of AI systems as well as the national rules aimed at enforcing or, as the case may be, implementing these acts, in particular Union law on consumer protection and product safety, including Regulation (EU)2017/2394, Regulation (EU) 2019/1020, Directive 2001/95/EC on general product safety and Directive 2013/11/EU.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 920 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1
(1) ‘artificial intelligence system’ (AI system) means software that is developed with can perceive, learn, reasone or more of the techniques and approaches listed in Annex I and can, for a given set of human-defined objectives,del based on machine and/or human based inputs, to generate outputs such as content, hypotheses, predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing the real or virtual environments they interact with;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 921 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 listcan for example perceive, learn, reason or model based ion Annex I and can, for a given set of human-defined objectives,machine and/or human based inputs, to generate outputs such as content, hypotheses, predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing the real or virtual environments they interact with;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 953 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 5
(5) ‘authorisedlegal representative’ means any natural or legal person established in the Union who has received a written mandate from a provider of an AI system to, respectively, perform and carry out on its behalf any of the obligations and procedures established by this Regulation;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 959 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 8
(8) ‘operator’ means the provider, the user, the authorisedlegal representative, the importer and the distributor;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 960 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 8 a (new)
(8 a) ‘affected person’ means any natural person or a group of persons who are subjects to or affected by an AI system
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 961 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 8 a (new)
(8 a) ‘affected person’ means any natural person or group of persons who are subject to or affected by an AI system;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 978 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 13
(13) ‘reasonably foreseeable misuse’ means the use of an AI system in a way that is not in accordance with its intended purpose, but which may result from reasonably foreseeable human behaviour or interaction with other systems, and with other AI systems;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 983 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 14
(14) ‘safety component of a product or system’ means a component of a product or of a system which fulfils a safety or security function for that product or system or the failure or malfunctioning of which endangers the fundamental rights, health andor safety of persons, or propertywhich damages property or the environment;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 984 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 14
(14) ‘safety component of a product or system’ means a component of a product or of a system which fulfils a safety or security function for that product or system or the failure or malfunctioning of which endangers the health and, safety of persons or property, fundamental rights of persons or which damages property, or the environment;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 999 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 20
(20) ‘conformity assessment’ means the process of verifydemonstrating whether the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2 of this Regulation relating to an AI system have been fulfilled;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1019 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 30
(30) ‘validation data’ means data used for providing an evaluation of the trained AI system and for tuning its non-learnable parameters and its learning process, among other things, in order to prevent underfitting or overfitting; whereas the validation dataset can beis a separate dataset or part of the training dataset, either as a fixed or variable split;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1022 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 33
(33) ‘biometric data’ means personal data resulting from specific technical processing relating to the physical, physiological or behavioural characteristics of a natural person, which allow or confirm the unique identification of that natural person, such as facial images or dactyloscopic dataas defined in Article 4, point (14) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1029 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 33 a (new)
(33 a) “special categories of personal data” means the categories of personal data referred to in Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU)2016/679;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1030 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 33 b (new)
(33 b) ‘biometric identification’ means the use of AI-systems for the purpose of the automated recognition of physical, physiological, behavioural, and psychological human features such as the face, eye movement, facial expressions, body shape, voice, speech, gait, posture, heart rate, blood pressure, odour, keystrokes, psychological reactions (anger, distress, grief, etc.) for the purpose of verification of an individual’s identity by comparing biometric data of that individual to stored biometric data of individuals in a database (one-to-many identification);
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1036 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 personthoughts, states of mind or intentions of individuals or groups on the basis of their biometric and biometric-based data;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1039 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 35
(35) ‘biometric categorisation system’ means an AI system for the purpose of assigning natural persons to specific categories, such as gender, sex, age, hair colour, eye colour, tattoos, ethnic origin or sexual or political orientation, on the basis of their biometric data; social origin, health, mental or physical ability, behavioural or personality traits, language, religion, or membership of a national minority, or sexual or political orientation, on the basis of their biometric or biometric-based data, or which can be reasonably inferred from such data.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1040 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 35
(35) ‘biometric categorisation system’ means an AI system for the purpose of assigning natural persons to specific categories, such as gender, sex, age, hair colour, eye colour, tattoos, ethnic origin or sexual or political orientation, on the basis of their biometric social origin, health, mental or physical ability,behavioural or personality traits, language, religion, or membership of a national minority, or sexual or political orientation, on the basis of their biometric or biometric-based data, or which can be reasonably inferred from such data;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1057 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 36
(36) ‘remote biometric identification system’ means an AI system for the purpose 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 ;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1076 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 41
(41) ‘law enforcement’ means activities carried out by law enforcement authorities solely 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;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1077 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 42
(42) ‘national supervisory authority’ means thean independent public authority to which a Member State assigns the responsibility for the implementation and application of this Regulation, for coordinating the activities entrusted to that Member State, for acting as the single contact point for the Commission, and for representing the Member State at the European Artificial Intelligence Board;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1080 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 43
(43) ‘national competent authority’ means the national supervisory authority, the notifying authority and the market surveillance authority;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1089 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 – point a
(a) the death of a person or serious damage to a person’s health, to property or the environment,
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1095 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 – point b a (new)
(b a) a breach of obligations under Union law intended to protect fundamental rights;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1098 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 a (new)
(44 a) ‘AI systems presenting a risk’ means an AI system having the potential to affect adversely fundamental rights, health and safety of persons in general, including in the workplace, protection of consumers, the environment, public security, the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU and other public interests, that are protected by the applicable Union harmonisation legislation, to a degree which goes beyond that considered reasonable and acceptable in relation to its intended purpose or under the normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use of the system concerned, including the duration of use and, where applicable, its putting into service, installation and maintenance requirements.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1107 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 a (new)
(44 a) 'near miss' means any incident that, if the circumstances were slightly different, would have resulted in a 'serious incident';
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1112 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 b (new)
(44 b) ‘artificial intelligence system with indeterminate uses’ means an artificial intelligence system without specific and limited provider-defined purposes;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1114 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 b (new)
(44 b) ‘child’ means any person below the age of 18 years.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1117 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 c (new)
(44 c) ‘profiling’ means any form of automated processing of personal data as defined point (4) of Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1131 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4
Amendments to Annex I 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 on the basis of characteristics that are similar to the techniques and approaches listed therein.rticle 4 deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1132 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4
Amendments to Annex I 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 on the basis of characteristics that are similar to the techniques and approaches listed therein.rticle 4 deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1141 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 4 a Principles applicable to all AI systems All operators of AI systems shall respect the following principles: 1.Operators of AI systems shall respect fundamental rights and the Union values, as enshrined in Article 2 TEU, throughout the AI system lifecycle.To ensure this, operators shall implement mechanisms and safeguards that are appropriate to the context and consistent with the state of art (‘fairness’) 2.Operators shall be accountable for the proper functioning of AI systems and for the respect of the fairness principle, based on their roles, the context, and consistent with the state of art. Operators shall ensure the proper functioning, throughout their lifecycle, of the AI systems that they design, develop, operate or deploy, in accordance with their role and applicable regulatory framework, and by demonstrating this through their actions and decision-making processes (‘accountability’) 3.Operators shall commit to transparency and responsible disclosure regarding AI systems.To this end, they shall provide meaningful information, appropriate to the context, and consistent with the state of art: (a) to foster a general understanding of AI systems, (b) to make affected persons aware that they are interacting with an AI system and an explanation thereof, (c) to enable those affected by an AI system to understand the outcome, and (d) to enable those adversely affected by an AI system to challenge its outcome based on plain and easy-to-understand information on the factors, and the logic that served as the basis for the prediction, recommendation or decision (‘transparency and explainability’) 4.Operators shall ensure that AI systems are robust, secure and safe throughout their entire lifecycle so that, in conditions of normal use, foreseeable use or misuse, or other adverse conditions, they functionappropriately and do not pose unreasonable risk.Operators shall ensure, based on their roles and the context, traceability including in relation to datasets, processes and decisions made during the AI system lifecycle, to enable the analysis of the outcomes of the AI system and responses to inquiry, appropriate to the context and consistent with the state of art. Operators shall, based on their roles, the context, and their ability to act, apply a systematic risk management approach to each phase of the AI system lifecycle on a continuous basis to address the risks related to AI systems, including privacy, protection of personal data, digital security, safety and bias (‘privacy and security’) 5.Operators shall proactively engage in pursuit of beneficial outcomes for people, socieites and the planet, such as advancing inclusion, reducing economic, social, gender and other inequalities, and protecting natural environments, therefore invigorating inclusive growth, sustainable development and well-being (‘social benefit’) 6. Operators should be motivated to follow a human-centric approach. AI available in the Union market or otherwise affecting people in the Union should be designed human centered, so that people can trust that the technology is used in a way that is safe and compliant with the law, including the respect of fundamental rights what requires a shift towards a Human Centered AI Engineering, also in research and education.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1143 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 a (new)
Article 4 a Principles applicable to all AI systems All operators of AI systems shall respect the following principles: 1. Operators of AI systems shall respect fundamental rights and the Union values, as enshrined in Article 2 TEU, throughout the AI system lifecycle. To ensure this, operators shall implement mechanisms and safeguards that are appropriate to the context and consistent with the state of art (‘fairness’) 2. Operators shall be accountable for the proper functioning of AI systems and for the respect of the fairness principle, based on their roles, the context, and consistent with the state of art. Operators shall ensure the proper functioning, throughout their lifecycle, of the AI systems that they design, develop, operate or use, in accordance with their role and applicable regulatory framework, and by demonstrating this through their actions and decision-making processes (‘accountability’) 3. Operators shall commit to transparency and responsible disclosure regarding AI systems. To this end, they shall provide meaningful information, appropriate to the context, and consistent with the state of the art: (a) to foster a general understanding of AI systems, (b) to make affected persons aware that they are interacting with an AI system and an explanation thereof, (c) to make affected persons aware about their rights conferred in this Regulation, (d) to enable those affected by an AI system to understand the outcome, and (e) to enable those adversely affected by an AI system to challenge its outcome based on plain and easy-to-understand information on the factors, and the logic that served as the basis for the prediction, recommendation or decision (‘transparency and explainability’). 4. Operators shall ensure that AI systems are robust, secure and safe throughout their entire lifecycle so that, in conditions of normal use, foreseeable use or misuse, or other adverse conditions, they function appropriately and do not pose unreasonable risk. Operators shall ensure, based on their roles and the context, traceability including in relation to datasets, processes and decisions made during the AI system lifecycle, to enable the analysis of the outcomes of the AI system and responses to inquiry, appropriate to the context and consistent with the state of the art. Operators shall, based on their roles, the context, and their ability to act, apply a systematic risk management approach to each phase of the AI system lifecycle on a continuous basis to address the risks related to AI systems, including privacy, protection of personal data, digital security, safety and bias (‘privacy and security’) 5. Operators shall proactively engage in pursuit of beneficial outcomes for people, societies and the planet, such as advancing inclusion, reducing economic, social, gender and other inequalities, and protecting natural environments, therefore invigorating inclusive growth, sustainable development and well-being (‘social benefit’).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1145 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 a (new)
Article 4 a Principles applicable to all AI systems All operators of AI systems shall respect the following principles: 1. Operators of AI systems shall respect fundamental rights and the Union values, as enshrined in Article 2 TEU, throughout the AI system lifecycle. To ensure this, operators shall implement mechanisms and safeguards that are appropriate to the context and consistent with the state of art (‘fairness’) 2. Operators shall be accountable for the proper functioning of AI systems and for the respect of the fairness principle, based on their roles, the context, and consistent with the state of art. Operators shall ensure the proper functioning, throughout their lifecycle, of the AI systems that they design, develop, operate or deploy, in accordance with their role and applicable regulatory framework, and by demonstrating this through their actions and decision-making processes (‘accountability’) 3. Operators shall commit to transparency and responsible disclosure regarding AI systems. To this end, they shall provide meaningful information, appropriate to the context, and consistent with the state of art: (a) to foster a general understanding of AI systems, (b) to make affected persons aware that they are interacting with an AI system and an explanation thereof, (c) to enable those affected by an AI system to understand the outcome, and (d) to enable those adversely affected by an AI system to challenge its outcome based on plain and easy-to-understand information on the factors, and the logic that served as the basis for the prediction, recommendation or decision (‘transparency and explainability’) 4. Operators shall ensure that AI systems are robust, secure and safe throughout their entire lifecycle so that, in conditions of normal use, foreseeable use or misuse, or other adverse conditions, they function appropriately and do not pose unreasonable risk. Operators shall ensure, based on their roles and the context, traceability including in relation to datasets, processes and decisions made during the AI system lifecycle, to enable the analysis of the outcomes of the AI system and responses to inquiry, appropriate to the context and consistent with the state of art. Operators shall, based on their roles, the context, and their ability to act, apply a systematic risk management approach to each phase of the AI system lifecycle on a continuous basis to address the risks related to AI systems, including privacy, protection of personal data, digital security, safety and bias (‘privacy and security’) 5. Operators shall proactively engage in pursuit of beneficial outcomes for people, socieites and the planet, such as advancing inclusion, reducing economic, social, gender and other inequalities, and protecting natural environments, therefore invigorating inclusive growth, sustainable development and well-being (‘social benefit’)
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1148 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 b (new)
Article 4 b Accessibility Requirements for providers and users of AI systems 1. Providers of AI systems shall ensure that their systems are accessible in accordance with the accessibility requirements set out in Section I, Section II, Section VI, and Section VII of Annex I of Directive (EU) 2019/882 prior to those systems being placed on the market or put into service. 2. Users of AI systems shall use such systems in accordance with the accessibility requirements set out in Section III, Section IV, Section VI, and Section VII of Annex I of Directive (EU) 2019/882. 3. Users of AI systems shall prepare the necessary information in accordance with Annex V of Directive (EU) 2019/882. Without prejudice to Annex VIII of this Regulation, the information shall be made available to the public in an accessible manner for persons with disabilities and be kept for as long as the AI system is in use. 4. Without prejudice to the rights of affected persons to information about the use and functioning of AI systems, transparency obligations for providers and users of AI, obligations to ensure consistent and meaningful public transparency under this Regulation, providers and users of AI systems shall ensure that information, forms and measures provided pursuant to this Regulation are made available in such a manner that they are easy to find, easy to understand, and accessible in accordance with Annex I to Directive 2019/882. 5. Users of AI systems shall ensure that procedures are in place so that the use of AI systems remains in conformity with the applicable accessibility requirements. Changes in the characteristics of the use, changes in applicable accessibility requirements and changes in the harmonised standards or in technical specifications by reference to which use of an AI system is declared to meet the accessibility requirements shall be adequately taken into account by the user. 6. In the case of non-conformity, users of AI systems shall take the corrective measures necessary to conform with the applicable accessibility requirements. When necessary, and at the request of the user, the provider of the AI system in question shall cooperate with the user to bring the use of the AI system into compliance with applicable accessibility requirements. 7. Furthermore, where the use of an AI system is not compliant with applicable accessibility requirements, the user shall immediately inform the competent national authorities of the Member States in which the system is being used, to that effect, giving details, in particular, of the non-compliance and of any corrective measures taken. They shall cooperate with the authority, at the request of that authority, on any action taken to bring the use of the AI system into compliance with applicable accessibility requirements. 8. AI systems and the use of thereof, which are in conformity with harmonised technical standards or parts thereof derived from Directive (EU) 2019/882 the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be presumed to be in conformity with the accessibility requirements of this Regulation in so far as those standards or parts thereof cover those requirements. 9. AI systems and use of thereof, which are in conformity with the technical specifications or parts thereof adopted for the Directive (EU) 2019/882 shall be presumed to be in conformity with the accessibility requirements of this Regulation in so far as those technical specifications or parts thereof cover those requirements.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1151 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 b (new)
Article 4 b A right to explanation of individual decision-making 1. A decision which is taken by the user on the basis of the output from an AI system and which produces legal effects on an affected person, or which similarly significantly affects that person, shall be accompanied by a meaningful explanation of: (a) the role of the AI system in the decision-making process; (b) the logic involved, the main parameters of the decision-making, and their relative weight; and (c) the input data relating to the affected person and each of the main parameters on the basis of which the decision was made. For information on input data under point c) to be meaningful, it must include an easily understandable description of inferences drawn from other data, if it is the inference that relates to the main parameter. 2. For the purpose of Paragraph 1, it shall be prohibited for the law enforcement authorities or the judiciary in the Union to use AI systems that are considered closed or labelled as proprietary by the providers or the distributors; 3. The explanation within the meaning of paragraph 1 shall be provided at the time when the decision is communicated to the affected person.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1153 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 c (new)
Article 4 c Right to receive an explanation of individual decision-making 1. A decision which is taken by the user on the basis of the output from an AI system and which produces legal effects on an affected person, or which similarly significantly affects that person, shall be accompanied by a meaningful explanation of (a) the role of the AI system in the decision-making process; (b) the logic involved, the main parameters of the decision-making, and their relative weight; and (c) the input data relating to the affected person and each of the main parameters on the basis of which the decision was made. For information on input data under point c) to be meaningful, it must include an easily understandable description of inferences drawn from other data, if it is the inference that relates to the main parameter. 2. For the purpose of Paragraph 1, it shall be prohibited for the law enforcement authorities or the judiciary in the Union to use AI systems that are considered closed or labelled as proprietary by the providers or the distributors; 3. The explanation within the meaning of paragraph 1 shall be provided at the time when the decision is communicated to the affected person.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1154 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 d (new)
Article 4 d Right not to be subject to non-compliant AI systems Natural persons shall have the right not to be subject to AI systems that: (a) pose an unacceptable risk pursuant to Article 5, or (b) otherwise do not comply with the requirements of this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1157 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 behaviourtechniques with the effect or likely effect of materially distorting a person’s behaviour by appreciably impairing the persons’ ability to make an informed decision, thereby causing the person to take a decision that they would not have taken otherwise, in a manner that causes or is likely to cause that person or another person, or a group of persons material or non-material harm, including physical or, psychological or economic harm;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1160 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 behaviourtechniques with the effect or the likely effect of materially distorting the behaviour of a person by impairing their ability to make an autonomous decision, thereby causing them to take a decision that they would not have taken otherwise, in a manner that causes or is likely to cause that person or another persons material or non-material harm, including physical or, psychological or economic harm;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1173 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(a a) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system that deploys subliminal techniques.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1176 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 ofor may be reasonably foreseen to exploit vulnerabilities of children or characteristics of a person or a specific group of persons due to their age, physical or mental disability, in order togender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, origin, and religion or social or economic situation, with the effect or likely effect of materially distorting the behaviour of a person pertaining to that group in a manner that causes or is likely to cause that person or another person material or non-material harm, including physical or, psychological or economic harm;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1177 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system that exploits any ofor may be reasonably foreseen to exploit the vulnerabilities of a specific group of persons due to their age, physical or mental disability, in order tosex, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic or social origin, race, religion or belief, or social or economic situation, with the effect or the likely effect of materially distorting the behaviour of a person pertaining to that group in a manner that causes or is likely to cause that person or another persons material or non-material harm, including physical or, psychological or economic harm;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1191 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 basfor the scoring, evaluation or classification of natural persons or groups related ton their social behaviour or known or predicted personal or personality characteristics, with the social score leading to either or both of the following:education, employment, housing, socioeconomic situation, health, reliability, social behaviour, location or movements;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1192 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – introductory part
(c) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of AI systems by private actors or 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:;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1201 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – point i
(i) detrimental or unfavourable treatment of certain natural persons or whole groups thereof in social contexts which are unrelated to the contexts in which the data was originally generated or collected;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1202 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – point i
(i) detrimental or unfavourable treatment of certain natural persons or whole groups thereof in social contexts which are unrelated to the contexts in which the data was originally generated or collected;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1212 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – point ii
(ii) detrimental or unfavourable treatment of certain natural persons or whole groups thereof that is unjustified or disproportionate to their social behaviour or its gravity;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1217 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – point ii
(ii) detrimental or unfavourable treatment of certain natural persons or whole groups thereof that is unjustified or disproportionate to their social behaviour or its gravity;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1222 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system for making individual or place-based risk assessments of natural persons in order to assess the risk of a natural person for offending or reoffending or for predicting the occurrence or reoccurrence of an actual or potential criminal offence based on profiling of a natural person or on assessing personality traits and characteristics or past criminal behaviour of natural persons or groups of natural persons;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1225 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) the placing on the market, putting into service, or use of AI systems intended to be used as polygraphs and similar tools to detect the emotional state, trustworthiness or related characteristics of a natural person;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1237 #

2021/0106(COD)

(d) the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly or privately accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement, unless and in as far as such use is strictly necessary for one of the following objectives:, both online and offline.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1244 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d – introductory part
(d) the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement, unless and in as far as such use is strictly necessary for one of the following objectivplacing or making available on the market, the putting into service or use of remote biometric identification systems that are or maybe used in publicly or privately accessible spaces, as well as online spaces:;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1246 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d – point i
(i) the targeted search for specific potential victims of crime, including missing children;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1252 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d – point i
(i) the targeted search for specific potential victims of crime, including missing children;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1257 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d – point ii
(ii) the prevention of a specific, substantial and imminent threat to the life or physical safety of natural persons or of a terrorist attack;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1265 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d – point ii
(ii) the prevention of a specific, substantial and imminent threat to the life or physical safety of natural persons or of a terrorist attack;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1272 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d – point iii
(iii) the detection, localisation, identification or prosecution of a perpetrator or suspect of a criminal offence referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA62 and punishable in the Member State concerned by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years, as determined by the law of that Member State. _________________ 62 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1).deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1277 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d – point iii
(iii) the detection, localisation, identification or prosecution of a perpetrator or suspect of a criminal offence referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA62 and punishable in the Member State concerned by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years, as determined by the law of that Member State. _________________ 62 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1).deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1288 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(d a) the creation or expansion of biometric databases through the untargeted or generalised scraping of biometric data from social media profiles or CCTV footage, or equivalent methods;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1298 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d b (new)
(d b) the use of remote biometric categorisation systems in publicly accessible spaces;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1300 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d c (new)
(d c) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of biometric categorisation systems, or other AI systems, that categorise natural persons according to sensitive or protected attributes or characteristics, or infer those attributes or characteristics.Sensitive attributes or characteristics include, but are not limited to: (i) Gender & gender identity (ii) Race (iii) Ethnic origin (iv) Migration or citizenship status (v) Political orientation (vi) Sexual orientation (vii) Religion (viii) Disability (ix) Or any other grounds on which discrimination is prohibited under Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as well as under Article 9 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1307 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d d (new)
(d d) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system for making predictions, profiles or risk assessments based on data analysis or profiling of natural persons, groups or locations, for the purpose of predicting the occurrence or reoccurrence of an actual or potential criminal offence(s) or other criminalised social behaviour;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1316 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d e (new)
(d e) the use of private facial recognition or other private biometric databases for the purpose of law enforcement;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1319 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d f (new)
(d f) the placing on the market, putting into service, or use of AI systems that are aimed at automating judicial or similarly intrusive binding decisions by state actors;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1322 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d g (new)
(d g) the placing on the market, putting into service or the use of AI systems by or on behalf of competent authorities in migration, asylum or border control management, to profile an individual or assess a risk, including a security risk, a risk of irregular immigration, or a health risk, posed by a natural person who intends to enter or has entered the territory of a Member State, on the basis of personal or sensitive data, known or predicted, except for the sole purpose of identifying specific care and support needs;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1328 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d h (new)
(d h) the placing on the market, putting into service or the use of AI systems, by or on behalf of competent authorities in migration, asylum and border control management, to forecast or predict individual or collective movement for the purpose of, or in any way reasonably foreseeably leading to, the prohibiting, curtailing or preventing migration or border crossings;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1332 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d i (new)
(d i) the placing on the market, putting into service or the use of AI systems intended to assist competent authorities for the examination of application for asylum, visa and residence permits and associated complaints with regard to the eligibility of the natural persons applying for a status;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1350 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. The use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement for any of the objectives referred to in paragraph 1 point d) shall take into account the following elements: (a) the nature of the situation giving rise to the possible use, in particular the seriousness, probability and scale of the harm caused in the absence of the use of the system; (b) the consequences of the use of the system for the rights and freedoms of all persons concerned, in particular the seriousness, probability and scale of those consequences. In addition, the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement for any of the objectives referred to in paragraph 1 point d) shall comply with necessary and proportionate safeguards and conditions in relation to the use, in particular as regards the temporal, geographic and personal limitations.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1351 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. The use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement for any of the objectives referred to in paragraph 1 point d) shall take into account the following elements: (a) the nature of the situation giving rise to the possible use, in particular the seriousness, probability and scale of the harm caused in the absence of the use of the system; (b) the consequences of the use of the system for the rights and freedoms of all persons concerned, in particular the seriousness, probability and scale of those consequences. In addition, the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement for any of the objectives referred to in paragraph 1 point d) shall comply with necessary and proportionate safeguards and conditions in relation to the use, in particular as regards the temporal, geographic and personal limitations.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1368 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. As regards paragraphs 1, point (d) and 2, each individual use for the purpose of law enforcement of a ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification system in publicly accessible spaces shall be subject to a prior authorisation granted by a judicial authority or by an independent administrative authority of the Member State in which the use is to take place, issued upon a reasoned request and in accordance with the detailed rules of national law referred to in paragraph 4. However, in a duly justified situation of urgency, the use of the system may be commenced without an authorisation and the authorisation may be requested only during or after the use. 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.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1370 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. As regards paragraphs 1, point (d) and 2, each individual use for the purpose of law enforcement of a ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification system in publicly accessible spaces shall be subject to a prior authorisation granted by a judicial authority or by an independent administrative authority of the Member State in which the use is to take place, issued upon a reasoned request and in accordance with the detailed rules of national law referred to in paragraph 4. However, in a duly justified situation of urgency, the use of the system may be commenced without an authorisation and the authorisation may be requested only during or after the use. 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.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1380 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point 1 (new)
(1) The placing on the market, putting into service or use of biometric categorisation systems, or other AI systems, that categorise natural persons or groups of persons according to sensitive or protected attributes or characteristics, or infer those attributes or characteristics. Sensitive attributes or characteristics include, but are not limited to: gender and gender identity, race, ethnic origin, migration or citizenship status, political orientation, sexual orientation, religion, disability or any other grounds on which discrimination is prohibited under Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as well as under Article 9 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1382 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. A Member State may decide to provide for the possibility to fully or partially authorise the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement within the limits and under the conditions listed in paragraphs 1, point (d), 2 and 3. That Member State shall lay down in its national law the necessary detailed rules for the request, issuance and exercise of, as well as supervision relating to, the authorisations referred to in paragraph 3. Those rules shall also specify in respect of which of the objectives listed in paragraph 1, point (d), including which of the criminal offences referred to in point (iii) thereof, the competent authorities may be authorised to use those systems for the purpose of law enforcement.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1386 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. A Member State may decide to provide for the possibility to fully or partially authorise the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement within the limits and under the conditions listed in paragraphs 1, point (d), 2 and 3. That Member State shall lay down in its national law the necessary detailed rules for the request, issuance and exercise of, as well as supervision relating to, the authorisations referred to in paragraph 3. Those rules shall also specify in respect of which of the objectives listed in paragraph 1, point (d), including which of the criminal offences referred to in point (iii) thereof, the competent authorities may be authorised to use those systems for the purpose of law enforcement.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1394 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. This Article shall not affect the restrictions, prohibitions or enforcement that apply where an artificial intelligence practice infringes another EU law, including EU acquis on data protection, privacy, or the confidentiality of communications, on non discrimination, consumer protection or on competition.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1395 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. The placing on the market, putting into service or use of AI systems intended to be used as polygraphs, emotion recognition systems or similar tools to detect the emotional state, trustworthiness or related characteristics of a natural person.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1398 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Member States may, by law or collective agreements, decide to prohibit or to limit the use of AI systems to ensure the protection of the rights of workers in the employment context, in particular for the purposes of the recruitment, the performance of the contract of employment, including discharge obligations laid down by law or by collective agreements, management, planning and organization of work, equality and diversity at the workplace, health and safety at work, protection of employers or customers' property and for the purposes of the exercise and enjoyment, on an individual or collective basis, of rights and benefits related to employment, and for the purpose of the termination of the employment relationship.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1399 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4 c (new)
4 c. the placing on the market, putting into service or the use of AI systems by or on behalf of competent authorities in migration, asylum or border control management, to profile an individual or assess a risk, including a security risk, a risk of irregular immigration, or a health risk, posed by a natural person who intends to enter or has entered the territory of a Member State, on the basis of personal or sensitive data, known or predicted, except for the sole purpose of identifying specific care and support needs;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1400 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4 d (new)
4 d. the placing on the market, putting into service or use of AI systems by competent authorities or on their behalf in migration, asylum and border control management, to forecast or predict individual or collective movement for the purpose of, or in any way reasonably foreseeably leading to, the prohibiting, curtailing or preventing migration or border crossings;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1401 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4 e (new)
4 e. the placing on the market, putting into service or the use of AI systems intended to assist competent authorities for the examination of application for asylum, visa and residence permits and associated complaints with regard to the eligibility of the natural persons applying for a status;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1402 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4 f (new)
4 f. the placing on the market, putting into service, or use of an AI system for the specific technical processing of brain or brain-generated data in order to access, infer, influence, or manipulate a person's thoughts, emotions, memories, intentions, beliefs, or other mental states against that person's will or in a manner that causes or is likely to cause that person or another person physical or psychological harm;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1413 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph -1 (new)
-1. AI systems referred to in Annex III shall be considered high-risk for the purposes of this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1433 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. In addition to the high-risk AI systems referred to in paragraph 1, AI systems referred to in Annex III shall also be considered high-risk.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1447 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. An artificial intelligence system with indeterminate uses shall also be considered high risk if so identified per Article 9, paragraph 2, point (a).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1452 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. In addition to the high-risk AI systems referred to in paragraph 1 and paragraph 2, AI systems that create foreseeable high-risks when combined shall also be considered high-risk.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1462 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 73 to update the list in Annex III by addingAnnex III, including by adding new areas of high-risk AI systems, where both of the following conditions are fulfilled: a type of AI system poses a risk of harm to the health and safety, a risk of adverse impact on fundamental rights, on climate change mitigation and adaptation, the environment, or a risk of contravention of the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, and that risk is, in respect of its severity and probability of occurrence, equivalent to or greater than the risk of harm or of adverse impact posed by the high-risk AI systems in use in the areas listed in Annex III.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1463 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 73 to update or amend the list in Annex III by adding areas of high-risk AI systems where both of the following conditions are fulfilled:the AI systems pose a risk of harm to the health and safety, or a risk of adverse impact on fundamental rights, a risk of breach of the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU or a risk of adverse impact on the society and the environment.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1473 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the AI systems are intended to be used in any of the areas listed in points 1 to 8 of Annex III;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1475 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the AI systems are intended to be used in any of the areas listed in points 1 to 8 of Annex III;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1479 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the AI systems pose a risk of harm to the health and safety, or a risk of adverse impact on fundamental rights, that is, in respect of its severity and probability of occurrence, equivalent to or greater than the risk of harm or of adverse impact posed by the high-risk AI systems already referred to in Annex III.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1481 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the AI systems pose a risk of harm to the health and safety, or a risk of adverse impact on fundamental rights, that is, in respect of its severity and probability of occurrence, equivalent to or greater than the risk of harm or of adverse impact posed by the high-risk AI systems already referred to in Annex III.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1488 #

2021/0106(COD)

2. When assessing 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:
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1499 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) the extent to which an AI system has been used or is likely to be used, including its reasonably foreseeable misuse;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1502 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(b a) the type and nature of the data processed and used by the AI system;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1504 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b b (new)
(b b) the extent to which the AI system respects the principles of Article 4a;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1506 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) the extent to which the use of an AI system has already caused harm to natural persons, has breached the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, has caused harm to the health and safety or has had an adverse impact on the fundamental rights, on the environment or the society or has given rise to significant concerns in relation to the materialisation of such harm or adverse impact, as demonstrated by reports or documented allegations submitted to national competent authoritiesthe national supervisory authority, to the national competent authorities, to the Commission, to the Board, to the EDPS or to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA);
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1507 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) the extent to which the use of an AI system has already caused harm to natural persons, has contravened the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, has caused harm to the health and safety or has had an adverse impact on the fundamental rights, on the environment or society, or has given rise to significant concerns in relation to the materialisation of such harm or adverse impact, as demonstrated by reports or documented allegations submitted to national competent authorities, to the Commission, to the Board, to the EDPS or to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA);
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1525 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point g
(g) the extent to which the outcome produced with an AI system is easily reversible, whereby outcomes having an impact on the health or safety of personsfundamental rights of persons, the environment or the society, the health or safety of persons, or on the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, shall not be considered as easily reversible;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1526 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point g
(g) the extent to which the outcome produced with an AI system is easily reversible, whereby outcomes having an impact on the health or safety of persons, the fundamental rights of persons, the environment or society, or on the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU shall not be considered as easily reversible;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1547 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. When carrying out the assessment referred to in paragraph 1 the Commission shall consult, where relevant, representatives of groups on which an AI system has an impact, stakeholders, independent experts and civil society organisations. The Commission shall organise public consultations in this regard.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1563 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. The intended purpose of the high- risk AI system, the foreseeable uses and foreseeable misuses of AI systems with indeterminate uses and the risk management system referred to in Article 9 shall be taken into account when ensuring compliance with those requirements.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1566 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. The intended purpose, reasonably foreseeable uses and foreseeable misuses of the high- risk AI system and the risk management system referred to in Article 9 shall be taken into account when ensuring compliance with those requirements.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1583 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) identification and analysis of the known and the reasonably foreseeable risks associated with each high-risk AI system;that the high-risk AI system, and AI systems with indeterminate uses, can pose to: (i) the health or safety of natural persons; (ii) the legal rights or legal status of natural persons; (iii) the fundamental rights; (iv) the equal access to services and opportunities of natural persons; (v) the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1590 #
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1594 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) estimation and evaluation of the risks that may emerge when the high-risk AI system is used in accordance with its intended purpose or reasonably foreseeable use and under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1615 #

2021/0106(COD)

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 use or misuse. Those residual risks shall be communicated to the user.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1633 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
In eliminating or reducing risks related to the use of the high-risk AI system, due consideration shall be given to the technical knowledge, experience, education, training to be expected by the user and the environment in which the system is intended or reasonably foreseeable to be used.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1678 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Validation datatsets shall be separate datasets from both the testing and the training datasets, in order for the evaluation to be unbiased. If only one dataset is available, it shall be divided in three parts: a training set, a validation set, and a testing set. Each set shall comply with paragraph 3 of this Article.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1679 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Techniques such as unsupervised learning and reinforcement learning, that do not use validation and testing data sets, shall be developed on the basis of training data sets that meet the quality criteria referred to in paragraphs 2 to 5.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1680 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Techniques such as unsupervised learning and reinforcement learning, that do not use validation and testing datasets, shall be developed on the basis of training datasets that meet the quality criteria referred to in paragraphs 2 to 4.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1686 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Training, validation and testing data sets shall be subject to appropriate data governance and management practices for the entire lifecycle of data processing. Those practices shall concern in particular,
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1689 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) the relevant design choices;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1690 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) data collection processes;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1694 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) relevant data preparation processing operations, such as annotation, labelling, cleaning, enrichment and aggregation;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1701 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point f
(f) examination in view of possible biases, especially where data outputs are used as an input for future operations(‘feedback loops’);
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1718 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3
3. Training datasets, and where applicable, validation and testing data sets, including the labels, shall be relevant, representative, up-to-date, and to the best extent possible, free of errors and complete. They shall have the appropriate statistical properties, including, where applicable, as regards the persons or groups of persons on which the high-risk AI system is intended to be used. These characteristics of the data sets mayshall be met at the level of each individual data sets or a combination thereof.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1719 #

2021/0106(COD)

3. Training, validation and testing data sets shall be relevant, representative, up-to-date, and to the best extent possible, taking into account the state of the art, free of errors and be as complete as possible. They shall have the appropriate statistical properties, including, where applicable, as regards the persons or groups of persons on which the high-risk AI system is intended to be used. These characteristics of the data sets mayshall be met at the level of each individual data sets or a combination thereof.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1729 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4
4. Training, validation and testing dData sets shall take into account, to the extent required by the intended purpose, the foreseeable uses and reasonably foreseeable misuses of AI systems with indeterminate uses, the characteristics or elements that are particular to the specific geographical, ,behavioural or functional setting within which the high-risk AI system is intended to be used.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1732 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4
4. Training, validation and testing dData sets shall take into account, to the extent required by the intended purpose, the reasonably foreseeable uses and misuses of AI systems, the characteristics or elements that are particular to the specific geographical, cultural, behavioural or functional setting within which the high-risk AI system is intended to be used.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1736 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. To the extent that it is strictly necessary for the purposes of ensuring bias monitoring, detection and correction in relation to the high-risk AI systems, the providers of such systems may process special categories of personal data referred to in Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680 and Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, subject to appropriate safeguards for the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, including technical limitations on the re-use and use of state- of-the-art security and privacy-preserving measures, such as pseudonymisation, or encryption where anonymisation may significantly affect the purpose pursued.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1755 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The technical documentation shall be drawn up in such a way to demonstrate that the high-risk AI system complies with the requirements set out in this Chapter and provide the national supervisory authority, the national competent authorities and notified bodies with all the necessary information to assess the compliance of the AI system with those requirements. It shall contain, at a minimum, the elements set out in Annex IV.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1764 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Providers that are credit institutions regulated by Directive 2013/36/EU shall maintain the technical documentation as part of the documentation concerning internal governance, arrangements, processes and mechanisms pursuant to Article 74 of that Directive.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1773 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. The logging capabilities shall ensure a level of traceability of the AI system’s functioning throughout its lifecycle that is appropriate to the intended purpose or reasonably foreseeable use of the system.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1782 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4 – point a
(a) recording of the period of each use of the system (start date and time and end date and time of each use);
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1783 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4 – point c
(c) the input data for which the search has led to a match;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1799 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point b – point ii
(ii) the performance metrics and its appropriateness, including the level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity referred to in Article 15 against which the high-risk AI system has been tested and validated and which can be expected, and any known and foreseeable circumstances that may have an impact on that expected level of accuracyperformance, robustness and cybersecurity;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1805 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point b – point v
(v) when appropriate, specifications for the input data, or any other relevant information in terms of the training, validation and testing data sets used, taking into account the intended purposedata sets used, including their limitation and assumptions, taking into account the intended purpose, the foreseeable and reasonably foreseeable misuses of the AI system.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1849 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
1. High-risk AI systems shall be designed and developed in such a way that they achieve, in the light of their intended purpose, an appropriate level of accuracythe foreseeable uses and reasonably foreseeable misuses, an appropriate level of perfomance (such as accuracy, reliability and true positive rate), robustness and cybersecurity, and perform consistently in those respects throughout their lifecycle.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1854 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. The perfomance metrics and its appropriateness, including the levels of accuracy and the relevant accuracy metrics of high-risk AI systems shall be declared in the accompanying instructions of use.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1873 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 a (new)
Article 15 a Sustainable AI systems reporting 1. Providers of high-risk AI systems shall make publicly available information on the energy consumption of the AI system, in particular its carbon footprint with regard to the development of hardware, computational resources, as well as algorithm design and training, testing and validating processes of the high-risk AI systems. The provider shall include this information in the technical documentation referred to in Article 11. 2. The Commission shall develop, by means of an implementing act, a standardised document to facilitate the disclosure of information on the energy used in the training and execution of AI systems and their carbon intensity.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1882 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(a a) indicate their name, registered trade name or registered trade mark, and their address on the high-risk AI system or, where that is not possible, on its packaging or its accompanying documentation, as appropriate;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1883 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(a a) ensure that the performance of their high-risk AI system is measured appropriately, including its level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1886 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point a b (new)
(a b) provide specifications for the input data, or any other relevant information in terms of the data sets used, including their limitation and assumptions, taking into account of the intended purpose and the foreseeable and reasonably foreseeable misuses of the AI system;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1903 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point j
(j) upon request of a national supervisory authority or a national competent authority, demonstrate the conformity of the high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1931 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point i
(i) procedures related to the reporting of serious incidents and of malfunctioning, including near misses, in accordance with Article 62;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1945 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18
Obligation to draw up technical documentation 1. Providers of high-risk AI systems shall draw up the technical documen-tation referred to in Article 11 in accordance with Annex IV. 2. Providers that are credit institutions regulated by Directive 2013/36/EU shall maintain the technical documentation as part of the documentation concerning internal governance, arrangements, processes and mechanisms pursuant to Article 74 of that Directive.Article 18 deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1962 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 a (new)
In the cases referred to in paragraph 1, providers shall immediately inform the distributors of the high-risk AI system and, where applicable, the legal representative, importers and users accordingly. They shall also immediately inform the national supervisory authority and the national competent authorities of the Member States where they made the AI system available or put it into service, and where applicable, the notified body of the non-compliance and of any corrective actions taken.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1963 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1
Where the high-risk AI system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 65(1) and that risk is known toby the provider of the system, thate provider shall immediately inform the national supervisory authority and the national competent authorities of the Member States in which it made the system available and, where applicable, the user, the notified body that issued a certificate for the high-risk AI system, in particular of the non-compliance and of any corrective actions taken. Where applicable, the provider shall also inform the users of the high-risk AI system.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1971 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1
Providers and, where applicable, users of high-risk AI systems shall, upon request by a national competent authority, provide that authoritysupervisory authority or a national competent authority or, where applicable, by the Board or the Commission, provide them with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of the high- risk AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, in an official Union language determined by the Member State concerned. Upon a reasoned request from a national competent authority, providers shall also give that authority access to the logs automatically generated by the high- risk AI system, to the extent such logs are under their control by virtue of a contractual arrangement with the user or otherwise by law.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1975 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Upon a reasoned request by a national supervisory authority or a national competent authority or, where applicable, by the Board or the Commission, providers and, where applicable, users shall also give them access to the logs automatically generated by the high-risk AI system, to the extent such logs are under their control by virtue of a contractual arrangement with the user or otherwise by law.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1980 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25
Authorised representatives 1. Prior to making their systems available on the Union market, where an importer cannot be identified, providers established outside the Union shall, by written mandate, appoint an authorised representative which is established in the Union. 2. The authorised representative shall perform the tasks specified in the mandate received from the provider. The mandate shall empower the authorised representative to carry out the following tasks: (a) keep a copy of the EU declaration of conformity and the technical documentation at the disposal of the national competent authorities and national authorities referred to in Article 63(7); (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 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; (c) cooperate with competent national authorities, upon a reasoned request, on any action the latter takes in relation to the high-risk AI system.rticle 25 deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2004 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 5
5. Importers shall provide the national supervisory authority and the national competent authorities, upon a reasoned request, with all the 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 by that national competent authorityem, 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 the national supervisory authority and the national competent authority takes in relation to that system.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2036 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Users of high-risk AI systems shall ensure that natural persons assigned to ensure or entrusted with human oversight for high-risk AI systems are competent, properly qualified and trained, free from external influence and neither seek nor take instructions from anybody. They shall have the necessary resources in order to ensure the effective supervision of the system in accordance with Article 14.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2056 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. Users shall monitor the operation of the high-risk AI system on the basis of the instructions of use. When they have reasons to consider that the use in accordance with the instructions of use may result in the AI system presenting a risk within the meaning of Article 65(1) they shall immediately inform the provider or distributor and suspend the use of the system. They shall also immediately inform the provider or distributor when they have identified any serious incident or any malfunctioning, including near misses, within the meaning of Article 62 and interrupt the use of the AI system. In case the user is not able to reach the provider, Article 62 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2060 #

2021/0106(COD)

Prior to putting into service or use an AI system at the workplace, users shall consult workers representatives, inform the affected employees that they will be subject to the system and obtain their consent.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2063 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Users of high-risk AI systems shall comply with the registration obligations referred to in Article 51.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2072 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Users of high-risk AI systems referred to in Annex III that make decisions or assist in making decisions related to an affected person, shall inform them that they are subject to the use of the high-risk AI system. This information shall include the type of the AI system used, its intended purpose and the type of decisions it makes.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2078 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 a (new)
Article 29 a Fundamental rights impact assessment for a high-risk AI system 1. Prior to putting a high-risk AI system into use, as defined in Article 6(2), the user shall conduct an assessment of the system’s impact in the context of use. This assessment shall consist of, but not limited to, the following elements: (a) a clear outline of the intended purpose for which the system will be used; (b) a clear outline of the intended geographic and temporal scope of the system’s use; (c) verification that the use of the system is compliant with Union and national law; (d) categories of natural persons and groups likely to be affected by the use of the system; (e) the foreseeable direct and indirect impact on fundamental rights of putting the high-risk AI system into use; (f) any specific risk of harm likely to impact marginalised persons or vulnerable groups; (g) the foreseeable impact of the use of the system on the environment, including, but not limited to, energy consumption; (h) any other negative impact on the protection of the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU; (i) in the case of public authorities, any other impact on democracy, rule of law and allocation of public funds; and (j) detailed plan on how the risk of harm or the negative direct and indirect impact on fundamental rights identified will be mitigated. 2. If a detailed plan to mitigate the risks outlined in the course of the assessment in paragraph 1 cannot be identified, the user shall refrain from putting the high-risk AI system into use and inform the provider, the national supervisory authority and market surveillance authority without undue delay. Market surveillance authorities or, where relevant, national supervisory authorities, pursuant to their capacity under Articles 65, 67 and 67a, shall take this information into account when investigating systems which present a risk at national level. 3. The obligations as per paragraph 1 apply for each new deployment of the high-risk AI system. 4. In the course of the impact assessment, the user shall notify the national supervisory authority, the market surveillance authority and the relevant stakeholders. and involve representatives of the foreseeable persons or groups of persons affected by the high-risk AI system, as identified in paragraph 1, including but not limited to: equality bodies, consumer protection agencies, social partners and data protection agencies, with a view to receiving input into the impact assessment. The user must allow a period of six weeks for bodies to respond. 5. The user shall publish the results of the impact assessment as part of the registration of use pursuant to their obligation under Article 51(2). 6. Where the user is already required to carry out a data protection impact assessment pursuant to Article 29(6), the impact assessment outlined in paragraph 1 shall be conducted in conjunction to the data protection impact assessment.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2079 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 a (new)
Article 29 a Fundamental rights impact assessment for high-risk AI systems 1. Prior to putting a high-risk AI system as defined in Article 6(2) into use, users shall conduct an assessment of the systems’ impact in the specific context of use. This assessment shall include, at a minimum, the following elements: (a) a clear outline of the intended purpose for which the system will be used; (b) a clear outline of the intended geographic and temporal scope of the system’s use; (ba) categories of natural persons and groups likely to be affected by the use of the system; (c) verification that the use of the system is compliant with relevant Union and national law, and with fundamental rights law; (d) the foreseeable direct or indirect impact on fundamental rights of putting the high-risk AI system into use; (e) any specific risk of harm likely to impact marginalised persons or vulnerable groups; (f) the foreseeable impact of the use of the system on the environment including, but not limited to, energy consumption; (g) any other negative impact on the protection of the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU; (h) in the case of public authorities, any other impact on democracy, rule of law and allocation of public funds; and (i) a detailed plan as to how the harms and the negative direct or indirect impact on fundamental rights identified will be mitigated. 2. If a detailed plan to mitigate the risks outlined in the course of the assessment outlined in paragraph 1 cannot be identified, the user shall refrain from putting the high-risk AI system into use and inform the provider and the relevant national competent authorities without undue delay. Market surveillance authorities, pursuant to Articles 65 and 67, shall take this information into account when investigating systems which present a risk at national level. 3. The obligation outlined under paragraph 1 applies for each new use of the high-risk AI system. 4. In the course of the impact assessment, the user shall notify relevant national competent authorities and relevant stakeholders and involve representatives of the persons or groups of persons that are reasonably foreseeable to be affected by the high-risk AI system, as identified in paragraph 1, including but not limited to: equality bodies, consumer protection agencies, social partners and data protection agencies, with a view to receiving input into the impact assessment. The user must allow a period of six weeks for bodies to respond. 5. The user that is a public authority shall publish the results of the impact assessment as part of the registration of use pursuant to their obligation under Article 51(2).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2092 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 8
8. Notifying authorities shall make sure that conformity assessments are carried out in a proportionate and timely 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 the AI system in question.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2094 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 3
3. Where the conformity assessment body concerned cannot provide an accreditation certificate, it shall provide the notifying authority with all the documentary evidence necessary for the verification, recognition and regular monitoring of its compliance with the requirements laid down in Article 33. For notified bodies which are designated under any other Union harmonisation legislation, all documents and certificates linked to those designations may be used to support their designation procedure under this Regulation, as appropriate.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2096 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 3
3. The notification referred to in paragraph 2 shall include full details of the conformity assessment activities, the conformity assessment module or modules and the artificial intelligence technologies concerned, as well as the relevant attestation of competence.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2098 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 4
4. The conformity assessment body concerned may perform the activities of a notified body only where no objections are raised by the Commission or the other Member States. within onetwo weeks of the validation of the notification where it includes an accreditation certificate referred to in Article 31(2), or within two months of athe notification where it includes documentary evidence referred to in Article 31(3).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2100 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Where objections are raised, the Commission shall without delay enter into consultation with the relevant Member States and the conformity assessment body. In view thereof, the Commission shall decide whether the authorisation is justified or not. The Commission shall address its decision to the Member State concerned and the relevant conformity assessment body.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2104 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 4
4. Notified bodies shall be independent of the provider of a high-risk AI system in relation to which it performs conformity assessment activities. Notified bodies shall also be independent of any other operator having an economic interest in the high-risk AI system that is assessed, as well as of any competitors of the provider. This shall not preclude the use of assessed AI systems that are necessary for the operations of the conformity assessment body or the use of such systems for personal purposes.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2110 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1
1. Where a notifying authority has suspicions or has been informed that a notified body no longer meets the requirements laid down in Article 33, or that it is failing to fulfil its obligations, that authority shall without delay investigate the matter with the utmost diligence. In that context, it shall inform the notified body concerned about the objections raised and give it the possibility to make its views known. If the notifying authority comes to the conclusion that the notified body investigation no longer meets the requirements laid down in Article 33 or that it is failing to fulfil its obligations, it shall restrict, suspend or withdraw the notification as appropriate, depending on the seriousness of the failure. It shall also immediately inform the Commission and the other Member States accordingly.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2112 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission shall ensure that all confidentialsensitive information obtained in the course of its investigations pursuant to this Article is treated confidentially.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2119 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 1
Conformity assessment bodies established under the law of a third country with which the Union has concluded an agreement in this respect may be authorised to carry out the activities of notified Bodies under this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2127 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1 a (new)
When AI systems are intended to be deployed at the workplace, harmonised standards shall be limited to technical specifications and procedures.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2159 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 not 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2164 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the conformity assessment procedure based on internal control referred to in Annex VI;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2168 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) 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.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2173 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
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 not applied or has applied only in part harmonised standards referred to in Article 40, or where such harmonised standards do not exist and common specifications referred to in Article 41 are not available, the provider shall follow the conformity assessment procedure set out in Annex VII.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2176 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
For the purpose of the conformity assessment procedure referred to in Annex VII, the provider may choose any of the notified bodies. However, when the system is intended to be put into service by law enforcement, immigration or asylum authorities as well as EU institutions, bodies or agencies, the market surveillance authority referred to in Article 63(5) or (6), as applicable, shall act as a notified body.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2178 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Without prejudice to paragraph 1, if the provider has applied harmonised standard referred to in Article 40, or where applicable, common specifications referred to in Article 41, it shall follow the conformity assessment procedure based on internal control referred to in Annex VI.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2179 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. In the following cases, the compliance of the high-risk AI system with requirements laid down in Chapter 2 of this Title shall be assessed following the conformity assessment procedure based on the assessment of the quality management system and the assessment of the technical documentation, with the involvement of a notified body, referred to in Annex VII: (a) where harmonised standards, the reference number of which has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, covering all relevant safety requirements for the AI system, do not exist; (b) where the harmonised standards referred to in point (a) exist but the manufacturer has not applied them or has applied them only in part; (c) where one or more of the harmonised standards referred to in point (a) has been published with a restriction; (d) when the provider considers that the nature, design, construction or purpose of the AI system necessitate third party verification.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2182 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 for the involvement of a notified body. 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2197 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. The specific interests and needs of the small-scale providers shall be taken into account when setting the fees for third-party conformity assessment under this Article, reducing those fees proportionately to their size and market size.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2205 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 6
6. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts to amend paragraphs 1 and 2 in order to subject high-risk AI systems referred to in points 2 to 8 of Annex III to the conformity assessment procedure referred to in Annex VII or parts thereof. The Commission shall adopt such delegated acts taking into account the effectiveness of the conformity assessment procedure based on internal control referred to in Annex VI in preventing or minimizing the risks to health and safety and protection of fundamental rights posed by such systems as well as the availability of adequate capacities and resources among notified bodies.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2215 #
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2224 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 1
1. The provider shall draw up a written EU declaration of conformity for each high-risk AI system and keep it at the disposal of the national competent authorities for 10 years after the AI system has been placed on the market or put into service. The EU declaration of conformity shall identify the AI system for which it has been drawn upsupervisory authority and the national competent authorities after the high-risk AI system has been placed on the market or put into service for the entire lifecycle of the high- risk AI system. A copy of the EU declaration of conformity shall be given to the national supervisory authority and the relevant national competent authorities upon request.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2226 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 2
2. The EU declaration of conformity shall state that the high-risk AI system in question meets the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, including the requirements related to the respect of the Union data protection acquis. The EU declaration of conformity shall contain the information set out in Annex V and shall be translated into an official Union language or languages required by the Member State(s) in which the high-risk AI system is placed on the market or made available.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2230 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 1
1. The CE marking shall be affixed visibly, legibly and indelibly for high-risk AI systems before the high-risk AI system is placed on the market. 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. It may be followed by a pictogram or any other marking indicating a special risk or use.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2236 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Where high-risk AI systems are subject to other Union legislation which also provides for the affixing of the CE marking, the CE marking shall indicate that the high-risk AI system also fulfil the requirements of that other legislation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2238 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
The provider shall, for the entire lifecycle of the AI system or for a period ending 10 years after the AI system has been placed on the market or put into service, whichever is the longest, keep at the disposal of the national competent authorities:
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2242 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
The provider shall, for a period ending 10 years after the AI system has been placed on the market or put into service, keep at the disposal ofthe entire lifecycle of the AI system, keep at the disposal of the national supervisory authority and the national competent authorities:
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2248 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 1
Before placing on the market or putting into service a high-risk AI system referred to in Article 6(2), the provider or, where applicable, the authorised representative shall register that system in the EU database referred to in Article 60, in accordance with Article 60(2).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2255 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Before putting into service or using a high-risk AI system in accordance with Article 6(2), the user shall register in the EU database referred to in Article 60.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2258 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 a (new)
Article 51 a Legal representative 1. Where an operator pursuant to Article 2 is established outside the Union, they shall designate, in writing, a legal representative in the Union. 2. The legal representative shall reside or be established in one of the Member States where the activities pursuant to Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 1a, are taking place. 3. The operator shall provide its legal representative with the necessary powers and resources to comply with its tasks under this Regulation and to cooperate with the competent authorities. 4. The legal representative shall, where appropriate, also carry out the following compliance tasks: (a) keep a copy of the EU declaration of conformity and the technical documentation at the disposal of the national supervisory authority and the national competent authorities and national authorities referred to in Article 63(7); (b) provide a national supervisory authority or 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 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; (c) cooperate with the national supervisory authority or the national competent authorities, upon a reasoned request, on any action the latter takes in relation to the high-risk AI system; (d) where applicable, comply with the registration obligations as referred into Article 51. 5. The legal representative shall be mandated to be addressed, in addition to or instead of the operator, by, in particular, national supervisory authority or the national competent authorities and affected persons, on all issues related to ensuring compliance with this Regulation. 6. The legal representative may be held liable for infringements of this Regulation, without prejudice to any liability of or legal actions against the operator, user or provider.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2262 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1
1. Providers shall ensure that AI systems intended to interact with natural persons are designed and developed in such a way that natural persons are informed that they are interacting with an AI system, unless this is obvious from the circumstances and the context of use. This obligation shall not apply to AI systems authorised by law to detect, prevent, investigate and prosecute criminal offences, unless those systems are available for the public to report a criminal offence.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2265 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 2
2. Users of an emotion recognition system or a biometric categorisation system shall inform of the operation of the system the natural persons exposed thereto. This obligation shall not apply to AI systems used for biometric categorisation, which are permitted by law to detect, prevent and investigate criminal offences.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2274 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
However, the first subparagraph shall not apply where the use is authorised by law to detect, prevent, investigate and prosecute criminal offences or it is necessary for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of the arts and sciences guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, and subject to appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of third parties.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2296 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 1
1. AI regulatory sandboxes 1. established by one or more Member States competentNational supervisory authorities or the European Data Protection Supervisor may establish AI regulatory sandboxes that shall provide a controlled environment that facilitatesing the development, testing and validation of innovative AI systems for a limited time before their placement on the market or putting into service pursuant to a specific plan. This shall take place under the direct supervision and guidance by the competent authorities with a view to ensuring compliance with the requirements of this Regulation and, where relevant, other Union and Member States legislation supervised within the sandbox.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2301 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. National supervisory authorities may establish AI regulatory sandboxes jointly with other national supervisory authorities.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2307 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 2
2. Member StatesThe national supervisory authority shall ensure that to the extent the innovative AI systems involve the processing of personal data or otherwise fall under the supervisory remit of other national authorities or competent authorities providing or supporting access to data, the national data protection authorities and those other national, the national data protection authorities are associated to the operation of the AI regulatory sandbox.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2316 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 3
3. The AI regulatory sandboxes shall not affect the supervisory and corrective powers of the competent authorities. Any significant risks to fundamental rights, health and, safety and fundamental rightsor the environment identified during the development and testing of such systems shall result in immediate mitigation and, failing that, in the suspension ofand adequate mitigation. Where such mitigation proves to be ineffective, the development and testing process shall be suspended without delay until such mitigation takes place.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2317 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 3
3. The AI regulatory sandboxes shall not affect the supervisory and corrective powers of the competent authorities. Any significant risks to health and safety and, fundamental rights and the environment identified during the development and testing of such systems shall result in immediate mitigation and, failing that, in the suspension ofand adequate mitigation. Where such mitigation proves to be ineffective, the development and testing process shall be suspended without delay until such mitigation takes place.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2328 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 5
5. Member States’ competentThe national supervisory authoritiesy that haves established the AI regulatory sandboxes shall coordinate their activities and cooperate within the framework of the European Artificial Intelligence Board. They shall submit annual reports to the Board and the Commission on the results ofrom the implementation of those schemes, including good practices, incidents, lessons learnt and recommendations on their setup and, where relevant, on the application of this Regulation and other Union legislation supervised within the sandbox. Those reports or abstracts thereof shall be made available to the public in order to further enable innovation in the Union.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2345 #
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2369 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 a (new)
Article 54 a Promotion of AI research and development in support of socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes 1. Member States shall promote research and development of AI solutions which support socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes, including but not limited to development of AI-based solutions to increase accessibility for persons with disabilities, tackle socio- economic inequalities, and meet sustainability and environmental targets, by: (a) providing relevant projects with priority access to the AI regulatory sandboxes to the extent that they fulfil the eligibility conditions; (b) earmarking public funding, including from relevant EU funds, for AI research and development in support of socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes; (c) organising specific awareness raising activities about the application of this Regulation, the availability of and application procedures for dedicated funding, tailored to the needs of those projects; (d) where appropriate, establishing accessible dedicated channels, including within the sandboxes, for communication with projects to provide guidance and respond to queries about the implementation of this Regulation. 2. Without prejudice to Article 55 a (new)1(a), Member States shall ensure that relevant projects are led by civil society and social stakeholders that set the project priorities, goals, and outcomes.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2373 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member StatesThe national supervisory authority shall undertake the following actions:
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2395 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – title
Establishment of the European Artificial Intelligence Board
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2399 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 1
1. An independent ‘European Artificial Intelligence Board’ (the ‘Board’) is hereby established as a body of the Union and shall have legal personality.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2401 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. The Board shall monitor and ensure the effective and consistent application, and contribute to the effective and consistent enforcement, of this Regulation throughout the Union, including with regard to cases involving two or more Member States as set out in Article 59b.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2413 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
(c a) contribute to the effective cooperation with the competent authorities of third countries and with international organisations.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2428 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – title
Structure and independence of the Board
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2437 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 FRA. Other national authorities may be invited to the meetings, where the issues discussed are of relevance for them.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2440 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. The Board shall be represented by its Chair.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2441 #

2021/0106(COD)

1 b. The Board shall act independently when performing its tasks or exercising its powers pursuant to Articles 58.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2442 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 1 c (new)
1 c. The Board shall take decisions by a simple majority of its voting members, unless otherwise provided for in this Regulation. Each national supervisory authority and the EDPS shall have one vote.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2443 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 2
2. The Board shall adopt its rules of procedure by a simple two-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 questionvoting members and organise its own operational arrangements.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2449 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. The Board may establish sub- groups as appropriate for the purpose of examining specific questions.In any case, the Board shall establish the following permanent sub-groups: a) for the purpose of examining the question of the proper governance of AI systems with indeterminate use; b) for the purpose of examining the question of the proper governance of research and development activities on the topic of AI.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2450 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. The Board shall elect a Chair and two deputy Chairs from among its voting members by simple majority. The term of office of the Chair and of the deputy Chairs shall be three years, renewable once.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2454 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 3
3. The BoardChair shall be chaired by the Commission. The Commission shall have the following tasks: - convene the meetings of the Board and prepare theits agenda in acc; - ensure the timely perfordmance withof 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; - notify Member States and the Commission of any recommendations adopted by the Board.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2458 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. The secretariat of the Board shall have the necessary human and financial resources to be able to perform its tasks pursuant to this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2460 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. The Commission shall provide administrative and analytical support for the activities of the Board pursuant to this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2466 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 4
4. The Board may invite external experts and observers to attend its meetings and may hold exchanges winational authorities, such as national equality bodies, to its meetings, where the interested thirssues discussed parties to inform its activities to ane of relevance for them. The Board may also invite, where appropriate, extent. To that end the Commission may facilitate exchanges between the Board and other Union bodies, offices, agencies and advisory groupsrnal experts, and observers and interested third parties, including stakeholders, such as those referred to in Article 58, paragraph 1c, to attend its meetings and may hold exchanges with them.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2469 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. The Board shall cooperate with Union institutions, bodies, offices, agencies and advisory groups and shall make the results of that cooperation publicly available.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2485 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
When providing advice and assistance to the Commission and the national supervisory authorities in the context of Article 56(2), the Board shall in particular:
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2489 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point -a (new)
(-a) issue opinions, recommendations or written contributions with a view to ensuring the consistent implementation of this Regulation;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2490 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point -a a (new)
(-a a) examine, on its own initiative or on request of one of its members, any question covering the application of this Regulation and issue guidelines, recommendations and best practices with a view to ensuring the consistent implementation of this Regulation;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2492 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) collect and share expertise and best practices among Member Statesin implementation of this Regulation;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2500 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) contribute to uniform administrative practices in the Member States, including for the functioning of the regulatory sandboxes, as referred to in Article 53;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2503 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c – introductory part
(c) issue opinions, recommendations or written contributions on matters related to the implementation of this Regulation, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, in particular
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2504 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c – introductory part
(c) issue opinions, recommendations or written contributions on matters related to the implementation of this Regulation, after consulting relevant stakeholders, in particular
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2514 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) encourage, facilitate and support the drawing up of codes of conduct intended to foster the voluntary application to AI systems of those codes of conduct in close cooperation with relevant stakeholders in accordance with Article 69;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2518 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)
(c b) cooperate with the European Data Protection Board and with the FRA to receive guidance in relation to the respect of fundamental rights, in particular the right to non-discrimination and to equal treatment, the right to privacy, confidentiality of communications and the protection of personal data;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2527 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c c (new)
(c c) promote public awareness and understanding of the benefits, risks, rules and safeguards and rights in relation to the use of AI systems;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2530 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c d (new)
(c d) promote the cooperation and effective bilateral and multilateral exchange of information and best practices between the national supervisory authorities;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2532 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c e (new)
(c e) promote common training programmes and facilitate personnel exchanges between the national supervisory authorities and, where appropriate, with the national supervisory authorities of third countries or with international organisations;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2537 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c f (new)
(c f) advise the Commission on the possible amendment of the Annexes by means of delegated act in accordance with Article 73, in particular the annex listing high-risk AI systems;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2542 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c g (new)
(c g) ensure that the national supervisory authorities actively cooperate in the implementation of this Regulation;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2550 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 a (new)
When acting in the context of Article 59c on cases involving two or more Member States, the Board shall adopt binding decisions for national supervisory authorities.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2551 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 b (new)
The Board shall organise consultations with stakeholders twice a year. Such stakeholders shall include representatives from industry, start-ups and SMEs ,organisations from the civil society organisations such as NGOs, consumer associations, the social partners and academia, to assess the evolution of trends in technology, issues related to the implementation and the effectiveness of this Regulation, regulatory gaps or loopholes observed in practice.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2556 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Title VI – Chapter 2 – title
2 nNational competent authorities and national supervisory authorities
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2561 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 2
2. Each Member State shall designate a national supervisory authority among the national competent authorities. The national supervisory authority shall act as notifying authority and market surveillance authority unless a Member State has organisational and administrative reasons to designate more than one authority.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2569 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that the national competent authorities are provided with adequate technical, financial and human resources, premises and infrastructure necessary to fulfil their tasks under this Regulation. In particular, national competent authorities shall have a sufficient number of personnel permanently available whose competences and expertise shall include an in-depth understanding of artificial intelligence technologies, data and data computing, personal data protection, fundamental rights, health and safety risks and knowledge of existing standards and legal requirements. Member States shall assess and update competence and resource requirements referred to in this paragraph on an annual basis.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2583 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 6
6. The Commission and the Board shall facilitate the exchange of experience between national competent authorities.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2588 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 7
7. National competent authorities may provide guidance and advice on the implementation of this Regulation, including to small-scale providers. Whenever national competent authorities intend to provide guidance and advice with regard to an AI system in areas covered by other Union legislation, the guidance shall be drafted in consultation with the competent national authorities under that Union legislation shall be consulted, as appropriate. Member States may also establish one central contact point for communication with operators, as appropriate.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2595 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 a (new)
Article 59 a Independent national superviosry authority 1. Each Member State shall establish or designate a single national supervisory authority within 3 months after the entering into force of this Regulation. 2. The national supervisory authority shall act as the lead authority and be responsible for ensuring the effective coordination between the national competent authorities regarding the implementation of this Regulation. It shall represent its Member State on the Board, in accordance with Article 57. 3. Each national supervisory authority shall act with complete independence in performing its tasks and exercising its powers in accordance with this Regulation. 4. The members of each national supervisory authority shall, in the performance of their tasks and exercise of their powers in accordance with this Regulation, remain free from external influence, whether direct or indirect, and shall neither seek nor take instructions from any other body. 5. Members of each national supervisory authority shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties and shall not, during their term of office, engage in any incompatible occupation, whether gainful or not. 6. Each Member State shall ensure that each national supervisory authority is provided with the human, technical and financial resources, premises and infrastructure necessary for the effective performance of its tasks and exercise of its powers, including those to be carried out in the context of mutual assistance, cooperation and participation in the Board. 7. Each Member State shall ensure that each national supervisory authority chooses and has its own staff which shall be subject to the exclusive direction of the member or members of the supervisory authority concerned. 8. Each Member State shall ensure that each national supervisory authority is subject to financial control which does not affect its independence and that it has separate, public annual budgets, which may be part of the overall state or national budget. 9. Each member of the national supervisory authority shall have the qualifications, experience and skills, in particular an in-depth understanding of artificial intelligence technologies, data and data computing, personal data protection, fundamental rights, health and safety risks and knowledge of existing standards and legal requirements, to perform their duties and exercise their powers. 10. The duties of a member of the national supervisory authority shall end in the event of the expiry of the term of office, resignation or compulsory retirement, in accordance with the law of the Member State concerned. 11. A member of the national supervisory authority shall be dismissed only in cases of serious misconduct or if the member no longer fulfils the conditions required for the performance of the duties. 12. Member States shall make publicly available and communicate to the Commission and the Board, the national supervisory designation, and information on how it can be contacted, by [three months after the entry into force of this Regulation]. 13. For the purposes of the consistent application of the Regulation and for reasons of necessary cooperation with the market surveillance authorities, each national supervisory authority shall have at least one staff member from the market surveillance authority posted as a liaison officer to the national supervisory authority.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2600 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 b (new)
Article 59 b Tasks of the national supervisory authority 1. Without prejudice to other tasks set out under this Regulation, each national supervisory authority shall on the territory of its Member State: (a) monitor and enforce the application of this Regulation, in particular as to the upholding of the principles of article 4a, fundamental rights of individuals and the Union values, as enshrined in Article 2 TEU; (b) promote public awareness and understanding of the risks, rules, safeguards and rights in relation to use of AI systems; (c) promote the awareness of operators of their obligations under this Regulation; (d) monitor operators’ data governance and management practices, in particular in relation to training, validation and testing datasets; (e) upon request, provide information to affected persons concerning the exercise of their rights under this Regulation and, if appropriate, cooperate with the supervisory authorities in other Member States to that end; (f) handle complaints lodged by an affected person, organisation or association in accordance with Articles 68a and 68b, and investigate, to the extent appropriate, the subject matter of the complaint and inform the complainant of the progress and the outcome of the investigation within a reasonable period, in particular if further investigation or coordination with another national supervisory authority or national competent authority is necessary; (g) assist small-scale providers and users in accordance with Article 55; (h) cooperate with, including by sharing information and providing mutual assistance to, other national supervisory authorities and national competent authorities with a view to ensuring the consistency of application and enforcement of this Regulation; (i) conduct investigations on the application of this Regulation, including on the basis of information received from another national supervisory authority, national competent authority or other public authority; (j) cooperate with other competent authorities in their fields of competence, as necessary; (k) monitor relevant developments, insofar as they have an impact on the protection of fundamental rights and the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, in particular the development of technologies and commercial practices; (l) contribute to the activities of the Board; 2. National supervisory authorities may establish regulatory sandboxes in accordance with Article 53. 3. Each national supervisory authority shall facilitate the submission of complaints referred to in point (f) of paragraph 1 by measures such as a complaint submission form which can also be completed electronically, without excluding other means of communication. 4. The performance of the tasks of each national supervisory authority shall be free of charge for the affected person.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2601 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 c (new)
Article 59 c Cooperation and consistency In order to contribute to the consistent application of this Regulation throughout the Union, the national supervisory authorities shall cooperate with each other and, where relevant, with the market surveillance authorities and the Commission, in order to reach consensus.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2602 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 d (new)
Article 59 d Cooperation mechanism in cases involving two or more Member States 1. Each national supervisory authority shall perform its tasks and powers conferred to it in accordance with this Regulation, on the territory of its own Member State. 2. In the event of a case involving two or more national supervisory authorities, the national supervisory authority of the Member State where the provider or the user of the concerned AI system is established, or where the legal representative resides, shall be considered to be the lead national supervisory authority. 3. In case it is not clear which national supervisory authority should act as the lead authority pursuant to paragraph 2, the Board shall issue a binding decision according to Article 59e. 4. In cases referred to in paragraph 2, the relevant national supervisory authorities shall cooperate and exchange all relevant information in due time. 5. The national supervisory authorities shall, where appropriate, conduct joint operations, including joint investigations, in which members or staff of the national supervisory authorities of other Member States are involved. 6. In case of a serious disagreement between two or more national supervisory authorities, the national supervisory authorities shall notify the Board and communicate without delay all relevant information related to the case to the Board for a binding decision.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2603 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 e (new)
Article 59 e Binding decisions by the Board 1. In order to ensure the correct and consistent application of this Regulation in individual cases, the Board shall adopt a binding decision in the following cases: (a) where there are conflicting views on which of the national supervisory authorities concerned would be the lead authority pursuant to Article 59c; (b) where, in a case referred to in Article 59c(4), there is a serious disagreement between national supervisory authorities concerned regarding a matter involving two or more Member States; (c) where, in a case referred to in Article 67a, a national supervisory authority of a Member State finds that although an AI system is in compliance with this Regulation, it presents a risk to the compliance with obligations under Union or national law intended to protect fundamental rights, the principles of Article 4a, the values as enshrined in Article 2 TEU, the environment, or to other aspects of public interest protection; 2. The decisions referred to in paragraph 1, point (a) shall be adopted within one week from the referral of the subject- matter, by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Board. 3. The decisions referred to in paragraph 1, points (b) and (c) shall be adopted within one month from the referral of the subject-matter, by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Board. That period may be extended by a further month on account of the complexity of the subject- matter. The decision referred to in paragraph 1, points (b) and (c) shall be reasoned and addressed to the lead national supervisory authority and all the national supervisory authorities concerned and be binding on them. 4. Where the Board has been unable to adopt a decision within the periods referred to in paragraph 3, it shall adopt its decision within two weeks following the expiration of the second month referred to in paragraph 2 by a simple majority of the members of the Board. Where the members of the Board are split, the decision shall by adopted by the vote of its Chair. 5. The national supervisory authorities concerned shall not adopt a decision on the subject matter submitted to the Board under paragraph 1, points (b) and (c) during the periods referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4. 6. The Chair of the Board shall notify, without undue delay, the decision referred to in paragraph 1 to the national supervisory authorities concerned. It shall also inform the Commission thereof. The decision shall be published on the website of the Board without delay after the national supervisory authorities have been notified.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2609 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Title VII
EU DATABASE FOR STAND-ALONE HIGH-RISK AI SYSTEMS
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2613 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 60 – title
EU database for stand-alone high-risk AI systems
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2617 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 60 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall, in collaboration with the Member States, set up and maintain a EU database containing information referred to in paragraph 2 and 2a concerning high-risk AI systems referred to in Article 6(2) which are registered in accordance with Article 51, as well as users of any AI systems by public authorities and Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2622 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 60 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. The data listed in Annex VIII, point (2), shall be entered into the EU database by the users, including those who are or who act on behalf of public authorities or Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies. The Commission shall provide them with technical and administrative support.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2625 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 60 – paragraph 3
3. Information contained in the EU database shall be accessible to the public, user-friendly and machine-readable.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2629 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 60 – paragraph 4
4. The EU database shall contain personal data only insofar as necessary for collecting and processing information in accordance with this Regulation. That information shall include the names and contact details of natural persons who are responsible for registering the system and have the legal authority to represent the provider or the user.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2633 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 60 – paragraph 5
5. The Commission shall be the controller of the EU database. It shall also ensure to providers adequate technical and administrative support.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2641 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 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. Post-market monitoring must include continuous analysis of the AI environment, including other devices, software, and other AI systems that will interact with the AI system.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2651 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 62 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Providers and, where users have identified a serious incident or malfunctioning, users of high-risk AI systems placed on the Union market shall report any serious incident or any malfunctioning of those systems which constitutes a breach of obligations under Union law intended to protect fundamental rights to the market surveillance authorities of the Member States where that incident or breach occurred and to the affected persons and, where the incident or breach occurs or is likely to occur in at least two Member States, to the Commission.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2652 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 62 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Providers of high-riskand, where users have identified a serious incident or malfunctioning, users of AI systems placed on the Union market shall report any serious incident or any malfunctioning, including near misses, of those systems which constitutes a breach of obligations under Union law intended to protect fundamental rights toto the national supervisory authorities and the market surveillance authorities of the Member States where that incident or breach occurred and, where relevant, to the Commission and to the affected persons.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2660 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 linkwhen an AI system is involved in an incident or malfunctioning, including near misses, and, in any event, not later than 15 day72 hours after the providers or, where applicable, the user becomes aware of the serious incident or of the malfunctioning.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2667 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 62 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. The market surveillance authorities shall take appropriate measures within 7 days from the date it received the notification referred to in paragraph 1. Where the infringement takes place or is likely to take place in other Member States, the market surveillance authority shall notify the Commission, the Board and the relevant national competent authorities of these Member States.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2670 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 62 – paragraph 3
3. For high-risk AI systems referred to in point 5(b) of Annex III which are placed on the market or put into service by providers that are credit institutions regulated by Directive 2013/36/EU and for high-risk AI systems which are safety components of devices, or are themselves devices, covered by Regulation (EU) 2017/745 and Regulation (EU) 2017/746, the notification of serious incidents or malfunctioning for the purposes of this Regulation shall be limited to those that that constitute a breach of obligations under Union law intended to protect fundamental rights and the environment.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2677 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 5
5. For AI systems listed in point 1(a) in so far as the systemsthat are used for law enforcement purposes, points 6 and 7 of Annex III, Member States shall designate as market surveillance authorities for the purposes of this Regulation either the competent data protection supervisory authorities under Directive (EU) 2016/680, or Regulation 2016/679 or the national competent authorities supervising the activities of the law enforcement, immigration or asylum authorities putting into service or using those systems.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2678 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 5
5. For AI systems listed in point 1(a) in so far as the systems are used for law enforcement purposes, points 6 and 7 of Annex III, Member States shall designate as market surveillance authorities for the purposes of this Regulation either the competent data protection supervisory authorities under Directive (EU) 2016/680, or Regulation 2016/679 or the national competent authorities supervising the activities of the law enforcement, immigration or asylum authorities putting into service or using those systems.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2682 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 64 – paragraph 1
1. Access to data and documentation iIn the context of their activities, the national supervisory authorities, the market surveillance authorities, or the Commission, shall be granted full access to the training data sets, and where applicable, validation and testing datasets used by the provider or, where relevant, the user, including through application programming interfaces (‘API’) or other appropriate technical means and tools enabling remote access.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2690 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 64 – paragraph 2
2. Where necessary to assess the conformity of the high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2 and upon a reasoned request, the market surveillance authoritiesnational supervisory authority, the market surveillance authorities or, where applicable, the Commission shall be granted access to the source code of the AI system.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2697 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 64 – paragraph 3
3. National public authorities or bodies, which supervise or enforce the respect of obligations under Union law protecting fundamental rights in relation to the use of high-risk AI systems referred to in Annex III shall have the power to request and access any documentation created or maintained under this Regulation when access to that documentation is necessary for the fulfilment of the competences under their mandate within the limits of their jurisdiction. The relevant public authority or body shall inform the market surveillance authority of the Member State concerned of any such request.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2698 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 64 – paragraph 4
4. By 3 months after the entering into force of this Regulation, each Member State shall identify the public authorities or bodies referred to in paragraph 3 and make a list publicly available on the website of the national supervisory authority. Member States shall notify the list to the Commission and all other Member States and keep the list up to date.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2700 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 64 – paragraph 5
5. Where the documentation referred to in paragraph 3 is insufficient to ascertain whether a breach of obligations under Union law intended to protect fundamental rights has occurred, the public authority or body referred to paragraph 3 may make a reasoned request to the market surveillance authoritynational supervisory authority, the market surveillance authority, or where applicable the Commission, to organise testing of the high- risk AI system through technical means. The market surveillance authoritynational supervisory authority, the market surveillance authority or where applicable the Commission shall organise the testing with the close involvement of the requesting public authority or body within reasonable time following the request.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2704 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – title
Procedure for dealing with AI systems presenting a risk at national level
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2705 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 1
1. AI systems presenting a risk shall be understood as a product presenting a risk defined in Article 3, point 19 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 insofar as risks to the health or safety or to the protection of fundamental rights of persmeans an AI system having the potential to affect adversely fundamental rights, health and safety of persons in general, including in the workplace, protection of consumers, the environment, public security, the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU and other public interests, that are protected by the applicable Union harmonisation legislation, to a degree which goes beyond that considered reasonable and acceptable in relation to its intended purpose or under the normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use of the system concerned, including the duration of use and, where applicable, its putting into service, installations are concernednd maintenance requirements.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2708 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 1
1. AI systems presenting a risk shall be understood as a product presenting a risk defined in Article 3, point 19 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 insofar as risks toAI systems having the potential to affect adversely the fundamental rights of persons, their health or safety or to, as well as AI systems having the protecntion of fundamental rights of persons are concernedal to breach the principles defined in Art. 4a or the Union values as enshrined in Article 2 TEU.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2714 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Where the market surveillance authority of a Member State has sufficient reasons to consider that an AI system presents a risk as referred to in paragraph 1to the health and safety of persons, they shall carry out an evaluation of the AI system concerned in respect of its compliance with all the requirements and obligations laid down in this Regulation. When risks to the protection of fundamental rights are present, the market surveillance authority shall also inform the relevant national public authorities or bodies referred to in Article 64(3). The relevant operators shall cooperate as necessary with the market surveillance authorities and the other national public authorities or bodies referred to in Article 64(3).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2717 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Where, in the course of that evaluation, the market surveillance authority or, where relevant, the national public authority referred to in Article 64(3) 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 compliance, 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 prescribe, and in any case no later than 15 working days.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2719 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Where the national supervisory authority has sufficient reasons to consider that an AI system presents a risk to the protection of fundamental rights, the principles as defined in Art 4a or the Union values, as enshrined in Article 2 TEU, they shall carry out an evaluation of the AI system concerned in respect of its compliance with all the requirements and obligations laid down in this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2720 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Where, in the course of that evaluation, the market surveillance authority or, where relevant, the national supervisory 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 compliance, 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 prescribe, and in any case no later than 15 working days. The market surveillance authority shall inform the relevant notified body accordingly. Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 shall apply to the measures referred to in the first subparagraph.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2721 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 3
3. Where the market surveillance authority or, where relevant, the national supervisory authority, considers that non- compliance is not restricted to its national territory, it shall inform the Board, the Commission and the other Member States’ competent authorities of the results of the evaluation and of the actions which it has required the operator to take.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2724 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 5
5. Where the operator of an AI system does not take adequate corrective action within the period referred to in paragraph 2b, the market surveillance authority or, where relevant, the national supervisory authority, shall take all appropriate provisional measures to prohibit or restrict the AI system's being made available on its national market or put into service, to withdraw the productAI system from that market or to recall it. That authority shall immediately inform the Commission and, the oBoard and ther Member States, without delay’ market surveillance authorities, of those measures.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2725 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 5
5. Where the operator of an AI system does not take adequate corrective action within the period referred to in paragraph 2, the market surveillance authority shall take all appropriate provisional measures to prohibit or restrict the AI system's being made available on its national market or put into service, to withdraw the productAI system from that market or to recall it. That authority shall immediately inform the Commission, the Board and the other Member States, without delay, of those measures.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2728 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 6 – point a
(a) a failure of the AI system to meet requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2and obligations set out in this Regulation;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2733 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 7
7. The market surveillance authorities of the Member States other than the market surveillancer, where applicable, the national supervisory authorityies of the other Member State initiating the procedures shall without delay inform the Commission and the other Member States, the Board and the authority initiating the procedure 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2736 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 8
8. Where, within three months of receipt of the information referred to in paragraph 5, no objection has been raised by either a Member Statemarket surveillance authority, a national supervisory authority, or the Commission in respect of a provisional measure taken by a Member Statemarket surveillance authority or a national supervisory authority , that measure shall be deemed justified. This is without prejudice to the procedural rights of the concerned operator in accordance with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2745 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 66 a (new)
Article 66 a Requests for Commission intervention 1. Where market surveillance authorities have reasons to suspect that the infringement of a provider or of a user of a high-risk AI system to this Regulation is liable to compromise the health or safety or fundamental of affected persons, the environment and the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU amount to a widespread infringement or a widespread infringement with a Uniondimension or affects or is likely affect at least 45 million citizens in the Union. The market surveillance authority may request the Commission to take the necessary investigatory and enforcement measures to ensure compliance with this Regulation. Such request shall set out the reasons for the Commission to intervene. 2. Prior to requesting the Commission to intervene, the market surveillance authority shall notify the Board which shall issue within 7 days a non-binding opinion on the request for the Commission to intervene. The market surveillance authority shall take into account the non-binding opinion of the Board before sending its request to the Commission.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2747 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 67 – title
Compliant AI systems which present a risk to the health and safety
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2749 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 67 – paragraph 1
1. Where, having performed an evaluation under Article 65, in full cooperation with the relevant national public authority referred to in Article 64(3),the market surveillance authority of a Member State finds that although an AI system is in compliance with this Regulation, it presents a risk to the health or safety of persons, to the compliance with obligations under Union or national law intended to protect fundamental rights, environment, European values as enshrined in Article 2 TEU or to other aspects of public interest protection, it shall require the relevant operator to take all appropriate measures to ensure that the AI system concerned, when placed on the market or put into service, no longer presents that risk, 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 prescribe.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2750 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 67 – paragraph 1
1. Where, having performed an evaluation under Article 65, the market surveillance authority of a Member State finds that although an AI system is in compliance with this Regulation, it presents a risk to the health or safety of persons, to the compliance with obligations under Union or national law intended to protect fundamental rights or to other aspects of public interest protection, it shall require the relevant operator to take all appropriate measures to ensure that the AI system concerned, when placed on the market or put into service, no longer presents that risk, 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 prescribe.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2754 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 67 – paragraph 3
3. The Member Statemarket surveillance authority shall immediately inform the Commission, the Board and the other Member States’ market surveillance authorities. That information shall include all available details, in particular the data necessary for the identification of the AI system concerned, the origin and the supply chain of the AI system, the nature of the risk involved and the nature and duration of the national measures taken.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2759 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 67 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall without delay enter into consultation with the Member Statmarket surveillance authorities 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2761 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 67 – paragraph 5
5. The Commission shall address its decision to the Member Statemarket surveillance authorities and communicate it to them and to the relevant operators.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2765 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 67 a (new)
Article 67 a Compliant AI systems which present a risk to the fundamental rights 1. Where, having performed an evaluation under Article 65, the national supervisory authority of a Member State finds that although an AI system is in compliance with this Regulation, it presents a risk to the compliance with obligations under Union or national law intended to protect fundamental rights, the principles of Article 4a, the values as enshrined in Article 2 TEU, the environment, or to other aspects of public interest protection, it shall require the relevant operator to take all appropriate measures to ensure that the AI system concerned, when placed on the market or put into service, no longer presents that risk, 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 prescribe. 2. The provider or other relevant operators shall ensure that corrective action is taken in respect of all the AI systems concerned that they have made available on the market throughout the Union within the timeline prescribed by the national supervisory authority of the Member State referred to in paragraph 1. 3. The national supervisory authority shall immediately inform the Board, the Commission and the market surveillance authority. That information shall include all available details, in particular the data necessary for the identification of the AI system concerned, the origin and the supply chain of the AI system, the nature of the risk involved and the nature and duration of the national measures taken. 4. The Board shall without delay enter into consultation with the relevant operator and shall evaluate the national measures taken. On the basis of the results of that evaluation, the Board shall decide whether the measure is justified or not and, where necessary, propose appropriate measures. 5. The Board shall address its decision to the national supervisory authority and to the relevant operators.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2773 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 a (new)
Article 68 a Right to lodge a complaint 1. Affected persons, affected by an AI system falling within the scope of this Regulation, shall have the right to lodge a complaint against the providers or users of such AI system, with the national supervisory authority of the Member State where they have their habitual place of residence or place of work or where the alleged infringement took place, if they consider that their fundamental rights, health or safety have been breached. 2. Affected persons shall have a right to be heard in the complaint handling procedure and in the context of any investigations conducted by the national supervisory authority as a result of their complaint. 3. The national supervisory authority with which the complaint has been lodged shall inform the complainants about the progress and outcome of their complaint. In particular,the national supervisory authority shall take all the necessary actions to follow up on the complaints it receives and, within three months of the reception of a complaint, give the complainant a preliminary response indicating the measures it intends to take and the next steps in the procedure, if any. 4. The national supervisory authority shall take a decision on the complaint, without delay and no later than six months after the date on which the complaint was lodged.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2775 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 a (new)
Article 68 a Commission fees 1. The Commission shall charge fees to market surveillance authorities when the Commission initiates proceedings in accordance with Article 68a(1)(c). 2. The overall amount of the fee shall cover the estimated costs the Commission incurs in relation to proceedings carried out under this Regulation, in particular costs related to the investigation and enforcement measures pursuant to Chapter 4 of Title VIII. 3. The Commission shall lay down in a delegated act, adopted pursuant to Article 73, the detailed methodology and procedures for:(a) the determination of the estimated costs referred to in paragraph 2and the necessary payment modalities. 4. The fees charged pursuant to paragraph 1 shall constitute external assigned revenue in accordance with Article 21(5) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council. 5. The Commission shall report annually to the European Parliament and to the Council on the overall amount of the costs incurred for the fulfilment of the tasks under this Regulation and the total amount of the fees charged in the preceding year.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2778 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 b (new)
Article 68 b Representation of affected persons 1. An affected person shall have the right to mandate a not-for-profit body, organisation or association that has been properly constituted in accordance with the law of a Member State, has statutory objectives which are in the public interest, and is active in the field of the protection of rights and freedoms of affected persons, with regard to the protection of their fundamental rights, to lodge the complaint on their behalf, to exercise the rights referred to in Article 68a on his or her behalf, and to exercise the right to receive compensation referred to in Article 70a and 71 on his or her behalf. 2. Any body, organisation or association referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, independently of an affected person’s mandate, has the right to lodge, in that Member State, a complaint with the national supervisory authority which is competent pursuant to Article 68a, if it considers that the rights of a affected persons under this Regulation have been infringed as a result of them being subject to AI systems.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2781 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 b (new)
Article 68 b Representation of affected persons or groups of persons 1. Without prejudice to Directive 2020/1828/EC, the person or groups of persons harmed by AI systems shall have the right to mandate a not-for-profit body, organisation or association which has been properly constituted in accordance with the law of a Member State, has statutory objectives which are in the public interest, and is active in the field of the protection of rights and freedoms impacted by AI to lodge the complaint on his, her or their behalf, to exercise the rights referred to in this Regulation on his, her or their behalf. 2. Without prejudice to Directive 2020/1828/EC, the body, organisation or association referred to in paragraph 1 shall have the right to exercise the rights established in this Regulation independently of a mandate by a person or groups of person if it considers that a provider or a user has infringed any of the rights or obligations set out in this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2783 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 c (new)
Article 68 c Amendment to Directive 2020/1828/EC on Representative Actions for the Protection of the Collective Interests of Consumers The following is added to Annex I of Directive 2020/1828/EC on Representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers: “Regulation xxxx/xxxx of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence act) and amending certain union legislative acts”.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2785 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 d (new)
Article 68 d Reporting of breaches and protection of reporting persons Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council shall apply to the reporting of breaches of this Regulation and the protection of persons reporting such breaches.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2797 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 70 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. National supervisory authorities, national competent authorities and notified bodies involved in the application of this Regulation shall respect the confidentiality of information and data obtained in carrying out their tasks and activities in such a manner as to protect, in particular:
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2806 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 70 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. The Commission, the Board, national supervisory authorities, national competent authorities and notified bodies involved in the application of this Regulation shall put in place adequate cybersecurity and organisational measures to protect the security and confidentiality of the information and data obtained in carrying out their tasks and activities.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2809 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 70 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Without prejudice to paragraphs 1 and 1a, information exchanged on a confidential basis betweenamong the national competentsupervisory authorities and between, national competent authorities and the Commission shall not be disclosed without the prior consultation of the originating national competent authority and the user when high-risk AI systems referred to in points 1, 6 and 7 of Annex III are used by law enforcement, immigration or asylum authorities, when such disclosure would jeopardise public and national security interests.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2812 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 70 a (new)
Article 70 a Administrative fines 1. Each national supervisory authority shall ensure that the imposition of administrative fines pursuant to this Article in respect of infringements of this Regulation shall in each individual case be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. 2. When deciding whether to impose an administrative fine and deciding on the amount of the administrative fine in each individual case due regard shall be given to the following: (a) the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement taking into account the nature, scope or purpose of the processing concerned as well as, where appropriate, the number of affected persons and the level of harm suffered by them; (b) the intentional or negligent character of the infringement; (c) any action taken by the operator to mitigate the harm suffered by the users or the affected persons; (d) the degree of responsibility of the operator taking into account the technical and organisational measures implemented by them; (e) any relevant previous infringements by the operator; (f) the degree of cooperation with the national supervisory authority, in order to remedy the infringement and mitigate the possible adverse effects of the infringement, including compliance with any of the measures previously ordered by the national supervisory authority with regard to the same subject matter (g) the manner in which the infringement became known to the national supervisory authority, in particular whether, and if so to what extent, the operator notified the infringement; (h) adherence to approved codes of conduct or approved certification mechanisms; and (i) any other aggravating or mitigating factor applicable to the circumstances of the case, such as financial benefits gained, or losses avoided, directly or indirectly, from the infringement. 3. If an operator, intentionally or negligently, infringes several provisions of this Regulation, the total amount of the administrative fine shall not exceed the amount specified for the gravest infringement. 4. The non-compliance of the AI system with the prohibition of the artificial intelligence practices referred to in Article 5 shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 50 000 000 or, if the offender is a company, up to 10% of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher. 5. The non-compliance of the AI system with the requirements laid down in Article10 shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 40 000 000 EUR or, if the offender is company, up to 8 % of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher. 6. 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 30 000 000 EUR or, if the offender is a company, up to 6 % of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher. 7. The supply of incorrect, incomplete or misleading information to notified bodies and national competent authorities in reply to a request shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 20 000000 EUR or, if the offender is a company, up to 4 % of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher. 8. Without prejudice to the corrective powers of national supervisory authorities, each Member State may lay down the rules on whether and to what extent administrative fines may be imposed on public authorities and bodies established in that Member State. 9. The exercise by the national supervisory authority of its powers under this Article shall be subject to appropriate procedural safeguards in accordance with Union and Member State law, including effective judicial remedy and due process. 10. Where the legal system of the Member State does not provide for administrative fines, this Article may be applied in such a manner that the fine is initiated by the national supervisory authority and imposed by competent national courts, while ensuring that those legal remedies are effective and have an equivalent effect to the administrative fines imposed by national supervisory authorities. In any event, the fines imposed shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Those Member States shall notify to the Commission the provisions of their laws which they adopt pursuant to this paragraph by [3 months after entry into force] and, without delay, any subsequent amendment law or amendment affecting them.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2819 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 1
1. In compliance with the terms and conditions laid down in this Regulation, Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties, including administrative fines, applicable to infringements of this Regulation, in particular for infringements which are not subject to administrative fines pursuant to Article70a, and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are properly and effectively implemented. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate, and dissuasive. They shall take into particular account the interests of small-scale providers and start-up and their economic viability.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2824 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 2
2. The Member States shall notify the Commission[by 3 months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation] the Commission and the Board of those rules and of those measures and shall notify it, without delay, of any subsequent amendment affecting them.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2825 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 2
2. TWithin [three months following the entry into force of this Regulation], the Member States shall notify the Commission of those rules and of those measures and shall notify it, without delay, of any subsequent amendment affecting them.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2828 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. The non-compliance of the AI system with the prohibition of the practices referred to in Article 5 shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 50 000 000 EUR or, if the offender is a company, up to 10% of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2829 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 3
3. The following infringements shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 30 000 000 EUR or, if the offender is company, up to 6 % of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher: (a) non-compliance with the prohibition of the artificial intelligence practices referred to in Article 5; (b) non-compliance of the AI system with the requirements laid down in Article 10.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2832 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The following infringementsnon-compliance of the AI system with the requirements laid down in Article 10 shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 340 000 000 EUR or, if the offender is a company, up to 68 % of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher: .
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2836 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) non-compliance with the prohibition of the artificial intelligence practices referred to in Article 5;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2844 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) non-compliance of the AI system with the requirements laid down in Article 10.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2846 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 4
4. 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 20 000 000 EUR or, if the offender is a company, up to 4 % of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2849 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 4
4. 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 230 000 000 EUR or, if the offender is a company, up to 46 % of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2854 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 5
5. The supply of incorrect, incomplete or misleading information to notified bodies and national competent authorities in reply to a request shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 10 000 000 EUR or, if the offender is a company, up to 2 % of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2858 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 5
5. The supply of incorrect, incomplete or misleading information to notified bodies and national competent authorities in reply to a request shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 120 000 000 EUR or, if the offender is a company, up to 24 % of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2861 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 6
6. When deciding on the amount of the administrative fine in each individual case, all relevant circumstances of the specific situation shall be taken into account and due regard shall be given to the following: (a) the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement and of its consequences; (b) whether administrative fines have been already applied by other market surveillance authorities to the same operator for the same infringement. (c) the size and market share of the operator committing the infringement;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2865 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 6 – point c
(c) the size and market share of the operator committing the infringement;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2875 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 7
7. Each Member State shall lay down rules on whether and to what extent administrative fines may be imposed on public authorities and bodies established in that Member State.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2877 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 8
8. Depending on the legal system of the Member States, the rules on administrative fines may be applied in such a manner that the fines are imposed by competent national courts of other bodies as applicable in those Member States. The application of such rules in those Member States shall have an equivalent effect.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2885 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement and of its consequences, including to affected persons;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2886 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(a a) any action taken by the Union institution, agency or body to mitigate the harm;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2892 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) the manner in which the infringement became known to the European Data Protection Supervisor, in particular whether, and if so, to what extent, the Union institution, agency or body notified the infringement.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2894 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The following infringementsnon-compliance with the prohibition of the artificial intelligence practices referred to in Article 5 shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 1 000 000 EUR; 2a. The non-compliance of the AI system with the requirements laid down in Article 10 shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 5700 000 EUR: .
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2896 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The following infringementsnon-compliance with the prohibition of the artificial intelligence practices referred to in Article 5 shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 51 000 000 EUR:
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2899 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) non-compliance with the prohibition of the artificial intelligence practices referred to in Article 5;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2900 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) non-compliance with the prohibition of the artificial intelligence practices referred to in Article 5;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2902 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) non-compliance of the AI system with the requirements laid down in Article 10.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2903 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) non-compliance of the AI system with the requirements laid down in Article 10.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2905 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. The non-compliance of the AI system with the requirements laid down in Article 10 shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 700 000 EUR.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2909 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 2500 000 EUR.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2911 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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 2500 000 EUR.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2912 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 5
5. The rights of defense of the parties concerned shall be fully respected in the proceedings. They shall be entitled to have access to the European Data Protection Supervisor’s file, subject to the legitimate interest of individuals or undertakings in the protection of their personal data or business secrets.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2913 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 5
5. The rights of defense of the parties concerned shall be fully respected in the proceedings. They shall be entitled to have access to the European Data Protection Supervisor’s file, subject to the legitimate interest of individuals or undertakings in the protection of their personal data or business secrets.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2915 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 6
6. Funds collected by imposition of fines in this Article shall be the income ofcontribute to the general budget of the Union.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2916 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. The European Data Protection Supervisor shall, on an annual basis, notify the Board of the fines it has imposed pursuant to this Article.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2917 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 73 – paragraph 2
2. The delegation of power referred to in Article 4, Article 7(1), Article 11(3), Article 43(5) and (6, Article 48(5) and Article 48(5)68a shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from [entering into force of the Regulation].
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2921 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 73 – paragraph 3
3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 4, Article 7(1), Article 11(3), Article 43(5) and (6, Article 48(5) and Article 48(5)68a may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2932 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 73 – paragraph 5
5. Any delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 4, Article 7(1), Article 11(3), Article 43(5) and (6) and, Article 48(5) and 68d shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed by either the European Parliament or the Council within a period of three months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by three months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2943 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 83
AI systems already placed on the market or put into service 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. The requirements laid down in this Regulation shall be taken into account, where applicable, in the evaluation of each large-scale IT systems established by the legal acts listed in Annex IX to be undertaken as provided for in those respective acts. 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.rticle 83 deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2953 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 83 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The requirements laid down in this Regulation shall be taken into account, where applicable,apply in the evaluation of each large-scale IT systems established by the legal acts listed in Annex IX to be undertaken as provided for in those respective acts.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2960 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2965 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall assess the need for amendment of the list in Annex III, including the extension of existing area headings or addition of new area headings, the list of prohibited practices in Article 5, and the list of AI systems requiring additional transparency measures, once a year following the entry into force of this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2971 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall assess the need for amendment of the list in Annex III once a yearannually following the entry into force of this Regulation and following a recommendation of the Board.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2975 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) the state of penalties, and notably administrative fines as referred to in Articles 71(1),0a and 71 applied by national supervisory authoritites and Member States to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2985 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 – paragraph 6
6. In carrying out the evaluations and reviews referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 the Commission shall take into account the positions and findings of the Board, of the European Parliament, of the Council, and of equality bodies and other relevant bodies or sources, and shall consult relevant external stakeholders, in particular those potentially affected by the AI system, as well as stakeholders from academia and civil society.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2990 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 – paragraph 7
7. The Commission shall, if necessary, submit appropriate proposals to amend this Regulation, in particular taking into account developments in technology, the effect of AI systems on health and safety, fundamental rights, the environment, equality, and accessibility for persons with disabilities, and in the light of the state of progress in the information society.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2997 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 – paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. To guide the evaluations and reviews referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4, the Board shall undertake to develop an objective and participative methodology for the evaluation of risk level based on the criteria outlined in the relevant articles and inclusion of new systems in: the list in Annex III, including the extension of existing area headings or addition of new area headings; the list of prohibited practices in Article 5; and the list of AI systems requiring additional transparency measures.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3010 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNIQUES AND APPROACHESreferred to in Article 3, point 1 (a) Machine learning approaches, including supervised, unsupervised and reinforcement learning, using a wide variety of methods including deep learning; (b) Logic- and knowledge-based approaches, including knowledge representation, inductive (logic) programming, knowledge bases, inference and deductive engines, (symbolic) reasoning and expert systems; (c) Statistical approaches, Bayesian estimation, search and optimization methods.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3012 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNIQUES AND APPROACHESreferred to in Article 3, point 1 (a) Machine learning approaches, including supervised, unsupervised and reinforcement learning, using a wide variety of methods including deep learning; (b) Logic- and knowledge-based approaches, including knowledge representation, inductive (logic) programming, knowledge bases, inference and deductive engines, (symbolic) reasoning and expert systems; (c) Statistical approaches, Bayesian estimation, search and optimization methods.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3042 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – title
INDICATIVE LIST OF HIGH-RISK AI SYSTEMS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 6(2)
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3053 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 1 – introductory part
1. Biometric identification and categorisation of natural personsAI systems which use biometric or biometrics-based data:
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3058 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
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;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3060 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a
(a) AI systems intended tothat are or may be used for the ‘real-time’ and ‘post’ remote biometric identification of natural persons, including in workplaces, in educational settings and in border surveillance, or for the provision of public or essential services;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3067 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a a (new)
(a a) AI systems that are or may be used for the detection of a person’s presence, in workplaces, in educational settings, and in border surveillance, including in the virtual / online version of these spaces, on the basis of their biometric or biometrics-based data;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3075 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a b (new)
(a b) AI systems that are or may be used for monitoring compliance with health and safety measures or inferring alertness /attentiveness for safety purposes, on the basis of biometric or biometrics-based data;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3080 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a c (new)
(a c) AI systems that are or may be used to diagnose or support diagnosis of medical conditions or medical emergencies on the basis of biometric or biometrics-based data;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3099 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b
(b) AI systems intended to be used for the purpose of assessing students in educational and vocational training institutions and for assessing participants in tests commonly required for admission to educational institutions. or monitoring of students during exams, for determining learning objectives, and for allocating personalised learning tasks to students;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3115 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b
(b) AI intended to be used for making decisions on promotion and termination of work-related contractual relationships,affecting the initiation, establishment, implementation, promotion and termination of an employment relationship, including AI systems intended to support collective legal and regulatory matters, particularly for task allocation and for monitoring and evaluating performance and behavior of persons or in matters of training or further education in such relationships.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3149 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point a
(a) AI systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities for making individual risk assessments of natural persons in order to assess the risk of a natural person for offending or reoffending or the risk for potential victims of criminal offences;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3157 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b
(b) AI systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities as polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of a natural person;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3160 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b
(b) AI systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities as polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of a natural person;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3165 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c
(c) AI systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities or on their behalf to detect deep fakes as referred to in article 52(3) and in point 8a(a) and (b) of this Annex;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3170 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point d
(d) AI systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities or on their behalf for evaluation of the reliability of evidence in the course of investigation or prosecution of criminal offences;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3178 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point e
(e) AI systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities for predicting the occurrence or reoccurrence of an actual or potential criminal offence based on profiling of natural persons as referred to in Article 3(4) of Directive (EU) 2016/680 or assessing personality traits and characteristics or past criminal behaviour of natural persons or groups;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3193 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point a
(a) AI systems intended to be used by competent public authorities as polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of a natural person;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3194 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point a
(a) AI systems intended to be used by competent public authorities as polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of a natural person;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3197 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b
(b) AI systems intended to be used by competent public authorities to assess a risk, including a security risk, a risk of irregular immigration, or a health risk, posed by a natural person who intends to enter or has entered into the territory of a Member State;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3200 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b
(b) AI systems intended to be used by competent public authorities to assess a risk, including a security risk, a risk of irregular immigration, or a health risk, posed by a natural person who intends to enter or has entered into the territory of a Member State;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3209 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point d
(d) AI systems intended to assist competent public authorities for the examination of applications for asylum, visa and residence permits and associated complaints with regard to the eligibility of the natural persons applying for a status.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3210 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point d
(d) AI systems intended to assist competent public authorities for the examination of applications for asylum, visa and residence permits and associated complaints with regard to the eligibility of the natural persons applying for a status.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3238 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 8 a (new)
8 a. Other applications: (a) AI systems intended to be used to generate, on the basis of limited human input, complex text content that would falsely appear to a person to be human- generated and authentic, such as news articles, opinion articles, novels, scripts, and scientific articles, except where the content forms part of an evidently artistic, creative or fictional and analogous work; (b) AI systems intended to be used to generate or manipulate audio or video content that appreciably resembles existing natural persons, in a manner that significantly distorts or fabricates the original situation, meaning, content, or context and would falsely appear to a person to be authentic, except where the content forms part of an evidently artistic, creative or fictional cinematographic and analogous work.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3244 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a
(a) its intended purpose or reasonably foreseeable use, the person/s developing the system, the date and the version of the system;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3246 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a
(a) its intended purpose or reasonably foreseeable use, the person/s developing the system the date and the version of the system;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3251 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b
(b) how the AI system interacts or can be used to interact with hardware or software, including other AI systems, that isare not part of the AI system itself, where applicable;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3269 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point g
(g) the validation and testing procedures used, including information about the validation and testing data used and their main characteristics; metrics used to measure accuracyperformance, robustness, cybersecurity and compliance with other relevant requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2 as well as potentially discriminatory impacts; test logs and all test reports dated and signed by the responsible persons, including with regard to pre-determined changes as referred to under point (f).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3273 #

2021/0106(COD)

3 a. A description of the appropriateness of the performance metrics for the specific AI system;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3274 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)
3 a. A description of the appropriateness of the performance metrics for the specific AI system.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3275 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 3 b (new)
3 b. Detailed information about the carbon footprint and the energy efficiency of the AI system, in particular with regard to the development of hardware, computational resources, as well as algorithm design and training processes;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3276 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 3 c (new)
3 c. Information about the computational resources required for the functioning of the AI system and its expected energy consumption during its use;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3289 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex VIII – title
INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED UPON THE REGISTRATION OF HIGH- RISK AI SYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 5160
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3292 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex VIII – paragraph 1
The following information shall be provided and thereafter kept up to date with regard to high-risk AI systems to be registered in accordance with Article 5160.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3298 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex VIII – point 3
3. Name, address and contact details of the authorisedlegal representative, where applicable;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3310 #

2021/0106(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex VIII – point 12 a (new)
12 a. The list of users of the AI systems
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 53 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
(15) Articles 19a and 29a of Directive 2013/34/EU apply to large undertakings that are public-interest entities with an average number of employees in excess of 500, and to public-interest entities that are parent undertakings of a large group with an average number of employees in excess of 500 on a consolidated basis, respectively. In view of the growth of users’ needs for sustainability information, additional categories of undertakings should be required to report such information. It is therefore appropriate to require all large undertakings and all undertakings listed on regulated markets, except micro undertakings, to report detailed sustainability information. In addition, all undertakings that are parent unand small and medium-sized undertakings operating in high-risk economic sectors, to report dertakings of large groups should prepare sustainability reporting at group leveliled sustainability information.
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 54 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
(16) The requirement that also large non-listed undertakings and small and medium-sized undertakings operating in high-risk economic sectors should disclose information on sustainability matters is mainly driven by concerns about the impacts and accountability of such undertakings, including through their value chain. In this respect, all large undertakings , and small and medium-sized undertakings operating in high-risk economic sectors should be subject to the same requirements to report sustainability information publicly. In addition, financial market participants also need information from those large non-listed undertakings.
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 55 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18 a (new)
(18 a) Environmental, social and employee matters, respect for human rights, anti-corruption and bribery matters are not contingent on the size of an undertaking. Therefore, SMEs which are operating in economic sectors determined to be high risk should also be required to disclose information on sustainability matters, irrespective of whether or not they are listed on regulated markets.
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 58 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
(27) To ensure consistency with international instruments such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, the due diligence disclosure requirements should be specified in greater detail than is the case in Article 19a(1), point (b), and Article 29a(1), point (b) of Directive 2013/34/EU. The disclosure requirements related to the due diligence requirements in this Directive will need to be adapted once the upcoming directive on sustainable corporate governance and due diligence has been adopted so that the requirements in this Directive are aligned with those in the upcoming directive. Due diligence is the process that undertakings carry out to identify, prevent, mitigate and remediate the principal actual and potential adverse impacts connected with their activities and identifies how they address those adverse impacts. Impacts connected with an undertaking’s activities include impacts directly caused by the undertaking, impacts to which the undertaking contributes, and impacts which are otherwise linked to the undertaking’s value chain. The due diligence process concerns the whole value chain of the undertaking including its own operations, its products and services, its business relationships and its supply chains. In alignment with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, an actual or potential adverse impact is to be considered principal where it measures among the greatest impacts connected with the undertaking’s activities based on: the gravity of the impact on people or the environment; the number of individuals that are or could be affected, or the scale of damage to the environment; and the ease with which the harm could be remediated, restoring the environment or affected people to their prior state.
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 62 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
(8) The ultimate beneficiaries of better sustainability reporting by undertakings are individual citizens and savers. Savers who want to invest sustainably will have the opportunity to do so, while all citizens should benefit from a stable, sustainable and inclusive economic system. To realise these benefits, the sustainability information disclosed in undertaking’s annual reports first has to reach two primary groups (‘users’). The first group of users consists of investors, including asset managers, who want to better understand the risks and opportunities that sustainability issues pose to their investments and the impacts of those investments on people and the environment. The second group of users consists of organisations, including non- governmental organisations and social partners, that wish to better hold undertakings to account for their impacts on people and the environment, or wish to exchange with undertakings during the elaboration of those reports. Other stakeholders may also make use of sustainability information disclosed in annual reports. The business partners of undertakings, including customers, may rely on this information to understand, and where necessary report on, the sustainability risks and impacts through their own value chains. Policy makers and environmental agencies may use such information, in particular on an aggregate basis, to monitor environmental and social trends, to contribute to environmental accounts, and to inform public policy. Few individual citizens and consumers directly consult undertaking’s reports, but they may use such information indirectly such as when considering the advice or opinions of financial advisers or non-governmental organisations. Many investors and asset managers purchase sustainability information from third party data providers, who collect information from various sources, including public corporate reports.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 63 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8 a (new)
(8a) The market for sustainability information is rapidly growing, and the role of data providers is gaining in importance with the new obligations that investors and asset managers need to fulfil. With the increased availability of disaggregated data, sustainability information should come at a more reasonable cost. The amended Directive 2013/34 is expected to increase the comparability of data and harmonise standards. It is expected that the practices of data providers should converge and that expertise will grow in this area, with a vast potential for job creation. In the event that the review of this Directive concludes that the practices of data providers remain fragmented, rules should be introduced in order to further standardise those practices and increase their reliability.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 64 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 37 a (new)
(37 a) The Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 49 to establish and amend the list of high-risk sectors of economic activity set out in Article 2, point 20a. That list should take into account the work of the Platform on Sustainable Finance established in accordance with Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 and the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, including for mining, quarrying, extractive industries, agriculture, forestry, construction, transportation, electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply, clothing and footwear, finance and international shipping, and health, social, elder cares. The list of sectors taken into account in this definition should take account of correspondence with the NACE classification1a. _________________ 1aStatistical classification of economic activities in the European Union, NACE Rev. 2.
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 65 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10 a (new)
(10a) The European Green Deal will require behavioural change to achieve its objectives. Consequently, there is a need to move from corporate short-termism, to more sustainable, longer-term decision- making. As a study for DG Justice and Consumers in July 2020 revealed, one of the root causes of corporate short-termism is the regulatory framework19a. Though not sufficient on its own, enhanced sustainability reporting can be an important incentive for more sustainable corporate decision-making and governance. Sustainability reporting is also essential to keep track of the progress made in implementing the European Green Deal. _________________ 19a Study on Directors Duties and Sustainable Corporate Governance, prepared for DG Justice and Consumers in July 2020
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 66 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 43
(43) Sustainability reporting standards should specify the information that undertakings should disclose on social factors, including employee factors and human rights. Such information should cover the impacts of undertakings on people, including on human health. The information that undertakings disclose about human rights should include information about forced labour in their value chains where relevant. Reporting standards that address social factors should specify the information that undertakings should disclose with regard to the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights that are relevant to businesses, including equal opportunities for all and working conditions. The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan adopted in March 2021 calls for stronger requirements on undertakings to report on social issues. The reporting standards should also specify the information that undertakings should disclose with regard to the human rights, fundamental freedoms, democratic principles and standards established in the International Bill of Human Rights and other core UN human rights conventions, the United Nation Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, the fundamental conventions and governance conventions of the International Labour Organisation, particularly on child and forced labour and freedom of association and collective bargaining, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), European Social Charter, the OECD Guidelines for multinational enterprises, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 73 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 48
(48) Directive 2013/34/EU does not require that the financial statements or the management report are provided in a digital format, which hinders the findability accessibility and usability of the reported information. Users of sustainability information increasingly expect such information to be findable and machine- readable in digital formats and published under open data principles. Digitalisation creates opportunities to exploit information more efficiently and holds the potential for significant cost savings for both users and undertakings. Undertakings should therefore be required to prepare their financial statements and make publicly available their management report in XHTML format in accordance with Article 3 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/815,63 and to mark- up sustainability information, including the disclosures required by Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852, in accordance with that Delegated Regulation. A digital taxonomy to the Union sustainability reporting standards will be necessary to allow for the information reported to be tagged in accordance with those standards. These requirements should feed into the work on digitalisation announced by the Commission in its Communication A European strategy for data64 and in the Digital Finance Strategy for the EU.65 These requirements also complement the creation of a European single access point for public corporate information as envisaged in the capital markets union action plan, which also considers the need for structured data. _________________ 63 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/815 of 17 December 2018 supplementing Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards on the specification of a single electronic reporting format (OJ L 143, 29.5.2019, p. 1). 64 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single- market/en/european-strategy-data 65 https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2009 24-digital-finance-proposals_en
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 73 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
(15) Articles 19a and 29a of Directive 2013/34/EU apply to large undertakings that are public-interest entities with an average number of employees in excess of 500, and to public-interest entities that are parent undertakings of a large group with an average number of employees in excess of 500 on a consolidated basis, respectively. In view of the growth of users’ needs for sustainability information, additional categories of undertakings should be required to report such information. It is therefore appropriate to require all large undertakings and all undertakings listed on regulated markets, except micro undertakings, to report detailed sustainability information. In addition, all undertakings that are parent unand small and medium-sized undertakings operating in high-risk economic sectors, to report dertakings of large groups should prepare sustainability reporting at group leveliled sustainability information.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 75 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 2 – point 17
(17) ‘sustainability matters’ means refers to environmental, social and employee matters, respect for human rights, anti- corruption and anti-bribery matters (sustainability factors), as defined in Article 2, point (24) of Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 of the European Parliament and of the Council\*4, and governance factorswell as proportionate and commensurate due diligence by undertakings to identify, prevent, mitigate, remediate, and communicate on adverse impacts on human rights, labour rights, including trade unions rights, the environment and good governance in relation to their own activities, their value chains and business relationships, with reference to applicable legal duties, standards and guidance;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 75 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
(16) The requirement that also large non-listed undertakings, and small and medium-sized undertakings operating in high-risk economic sectors, should disclose information on sustainability matters is mainly driven by concerns about the impacts and accountability of such undertakings, including through their value chain. In this respect, all large undertakings, and small and medium-sized undertakings operating in high-risk economic sectors, should be subject to the same requirements to report sustainability information publicly. In addition, financial market participants also need information from those large non-listed undertakings.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 76 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 2 – point 20 a (new)
(20 a) ‘high-impact undertakings’ means undertakings active in one or more of the following high-impact sectors mining, quarrying, extractive industries, agriculture, forestry, construction, transportation, electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply, clothing and footwear, finance and international shipping, and health, social, elder cares. A high-impact sector is a sector that is associated, as a result of its business and value chain characteristics, with a high likelihood of actual or potential severe impacts on the environment, good governance, social or human rights, due to factors including their size, business and value chain characteristics.. The list of sectors taken into account in this definition should take account of correspondance with the NACE classification. The list of high-impact sectors should be reviewed every three years by the European Commission and modified, as appropriate, through a Delegated Act. This review should take into account existing EU sector-specific legislation and sector-specific disclosures in recognized international reporting frameworks such as Global Reporting Initiative standards which address sector- specific environmental and social negative impacts;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 77 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 2 – point 20 b (new)
(20 b) ‘severe impacts’ are adverse impacts on people and the environment connected to the undertaking’s value chain by its own operations, its products and services, its business relationships, its subsidiaries, and its supply chain, based on the gravity of the impact on the sustainability matter, the number of individuals that are or could be affected, or the scale of damage to the environment and the ease with which the harm could be remediated, restoring the environment or affected people to their prior state, cause the greatest harm relative to other impacts the undertaking has identified;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 78 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 1
1. Large undertakings governed by the law of a Member State or established in the territory of the Union, including non-EU companies with substantial business in the EU, and, as of 1 January 2026, all publicly listed small and medium- sized undertakings which are undertakings referred to in Article 2, point (1), point (a), as well as high-risk non-listed small and medium-sized undertakings, shall include in the management report information necessary to understand the undertaking’s impacts on sustainability mattersfactors, due diligence, and information necessary to understand how sustainability matters, as defined in art 19a (17), affect the undertaking’s development, performance and position.
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 80 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e – point i
(i) the due diligence process implemented with regard to sustainability matters in line with, the EU Directive on Sustainable Corporate Governance, national legislation, and the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights and the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 81 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e – point ii
(ii) the principal actual or potential adverse impacts connected with the undertaking’s value chain, including its own operations, its products and services, its business relationships and its supply chain;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 82 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e – point iii
(iii) anyll actions taken, and the result of such actions, to prevent, mitigate or remediate actual or potential adverse impacts and the effectiveness of their results;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 83 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e – point iii a (new)
(iii a) the structure of the undertaking’s value chain including through a disaggregated mapping of its own operations, subsidiaries, suppliers and business relationships;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 84 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e – point iii b
(iii b) the above disclosure requirement does not exclude any additional communication as required in line with EU Directive on Sustainable Corporate Governance;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 87 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 7 – subparagaph 1
7. An undertaking which is a subsidiary undertaking shall be exempted from the obligations set out in paragraphs 1 to 4 if that undertaking and its subsidiary undertakings are included in the consolidated management report of a parent undertaking, drawn up in accordance with Articles 29 and 29aare included in the consolidated management report of apparent undertaking, if this report is drawn up in accordance with Articles 29 and 29a and if information required by Article 19b is reported on country-by-country basis. An undertaking that is a subsidiary undertaking from a parent undertaking that is established in a third country shall also be exempted from the obligations set out in paragraphs 1 to 4 where that undertaking and its subsidiary undertakings are included in the consolidated management report of that parent undertaking and where the consolidated management report is drawn up in a manner that may be considered equivalent, in accordance with the relevant implementing measures adopted pursuant to Article 23(4), point (i), of Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council*6, to the manner required by the sustainability reporting standards referred to in Article 19b of this Directive.
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 88 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 49 to establish and amend the list of high-risk sectors of economic activity set out in Article 2, point (20a). That list shall take into account the work of the Platform on Sustainable Finance established in accordance with Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 and the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, including for mining, quarrying, extractive industries, agriculture, forestry, construction, transportation, electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply clothing and footwear, finance and international shipping and health, social, elder cares. The list of sectors taken into account in this definition shall take account of correspondence with the NACE classification1a. _________________ 1aStatistical classification of economic activities in the European Union, NACE Rev. 2.
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 89 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19b – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b – point ii
(ii) information that undertakings shall report that is specific to the sector in which they operate, with particular attention paid to high-risk business sectors.
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 90 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19b – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 – point a a (new)
(aa) specify the information that undertakings are to disclose about human rights, including information about the identification and assessment of actual and potential consequences for fundamental human rights and decent working conditions that the company has either caused or contributed to, or that are directly linked to the company’s business activities, products or services through supply chains or business partners; the implementation of appropriate measures to stop, prevent or limit negative consequences and monitoring of implementation and results of the measures implemented; communicating with affected stakeholders and licensees about how negative consequences have been handled and arrangements for or cooperation on recovery and compensation where this is required, with reference to: (i) democratic principles and standards established in the International Bill of Human Rights and other core UN human rights conventions, the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and the ILO fundamental conventions and governance conventions, the ECHR, the European Social Charter, the OECD Guidelines for multinational enterprises, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and contained the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights; (ii) any material risk of involving labour, child labour, forced labour, gross, systematic or widespread human rights violations, in particular.
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 90 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
(18) Considering the growing relevance of sustainability-related risks and taking into account that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) listed on regulated markets comprise a significant proportion of all listed undertakings in the Union, in order to ensure investor protection it is appropriate to require that also those SMEs disclose information on sustainability matters. The introduction of this requirement will help to ensure that financial market participants can include smaller listed undertakings in investment portfolios on the basis that they report the sustainability information that financial market participants need. It will therefore help to protect and enhance the access of smaller listed undertakings to financial capital, and avoid discrimination against such undertakings on the part of financial market participants. The introduction of this requirement is also necessary to ensure that financial market participants have the information they need from investee undertakings to be able to comply with their own sustainability disclosure requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) 2019/2088. SMEs listed on regulated markets should, however, be provided with sufficient time to prepare for the application of the requirement to report sustainability information, due to their smaller size and more limited resources, and taking account of the difficult economic circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic. They should also be given the possibility to report according to standards that are proportionate to the capacities and resources of SMEs. Non- listed SMEs can alsoeither choose to use these proportionate standards on a voluntary basis, or report according to the standards applicable to large undertakings. The SME standards will set a reference for undertakings that are within the scope of the Directive regarding the level of sustainability information that they could reasonably request from SME suppliers and clients in their value chains.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 92 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18 a (new)
(18a) Environmental, social and employee matters, respect for human rights, anti-corruption and bribery matters are not contingent on the size of an undertaking. Therefore, SMEs which are operating in economic sectors determined to be high risk should also be required to disclose information on sustainability matters, irrespective of whether or not they are listed on regulated markets.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 93 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19b – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 – point b – point ii
(ii) working conditions, including secure and adaptable employment, wages, social dialogue, collective bargaining and the involvement of workers, respect for trade union rights, respect for the right of workers to be informed and consulted in accordance with international European and national labour law, where applicable respect for the right of workers to elect worker board level representatives, ,work- life balance, and a healthy, safe and well- adapted work environment;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 95 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19b – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 – point b – point iii
(iii) respect for the human rights, fundamental freedoms, democratic principles and standards established in the International Bill of Human Rights and other core UN human rights conventions, the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and the ILO fundamental conventionand governance conventions, the European Convention of Human Rights, the European Social Charter, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the EU labour law acquis.
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 96 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
(20) Article 23(4), first subparagraph, point (i), and Article 23(4), fourth subparagraph of Directive 2004/109/EC empower the Commission to adopt measures to set up a mechanism for the determination of equivalence of information required under the Directive, and for the establishment of general equivalence criteria regarding accounting standards, respectively. Article 23(4), third subparagraph, of Directive 2004/109/EC also empowers the Commission to take the necessary decisions on the equivalence of accounting standards that are used by third-country issuers. In order to reflect the inclusion of the sustainability requirements in Directive 2004/109/EC, the Commission should be empowered to establish a mechanism for the determination of equivalence of sustainability reporting standards applied by third-country issuers of securities. For the same reason, the Commission should also be empowered to take the necessary decisions on the equivalence of sustainability reporting standards that are used by third-country issuers. Those amendments will ensure consistent equivalence regimes for sustainability reporting obligations and for financial reporting obligations regarding the annual financial report.deleted
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 98 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19b – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 – point b – point iii a (new)
(iii a) the undertaking’s value chain linked to severe actual and potential impacts, including sector-specific information on suppliers, types of products and services supplied, and on sourcing and traceability of commodities and materials associated with high likelihood of actual or potential adverse impacts on sustainability matters.
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 98 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
(21) Articles 19a(3) and 29a(3) of Directive 2013/34/EU currently exemptallow all subsidiary undertakings from the obligation to report their non- financial information where such undertakings and their subsidiary undertakings are included inthrough the consolidated management report of their parent undertaking, provided this includes all the required non-financial information. It is necessary, however to ensure that sustainability information is easily accessible for users, and to bring transparency about which is the parent undertaking of the exempted subsidiary undertaking which is reporting at consolidated level. It is therefore necessary to require those subsidiary undertakings to publish the consolidated management report of their parent undertaking and to include a reference in their management report to the fact that they are exempted from reporting sustainability information. That exemption should also apply where the parent undertaking reporting at consolidated level is a third country undertaking reporting sustainability information in accordance with the requirements of this Directive or in a manner equivalent to EU sustainability reporting standardsdrafting their own sustainability information report.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 99 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19b – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 – point b – point iii b (new)
(iii b) workers in the value chain, including: - sector-specific data on workers in the value chains associated with high likelihood of actual or potential adverse impacts, corresponding to the data concerning the undertaking’s workforce; - information on impacts on human rights, including forced labour, child labour, privacy, freedom of expression, access to clean water and sanitation, adequate housing and freedom of association and collective bargaining; - information on protection of labour costs, payment times and cancellations in purchasing policies and practices.
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 100 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19b – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 – point b – point iii c (new)
(iii c) affected communities, including information on: - human rights impact assessments carried out by the undertaking; - respect for indigenous peoples’ rights and implementation of the undertaking’s policy on Free Prior and Informed Consent - health, safety and security of person; - freedom of assembly and freedom of expression- human rights impacts related to land and access to water economic impacts on communities.
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 101 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19b – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 – point b – point iii d (new)
(iii d) consumers and end users, including information on: - privacy and freedom of expression; - health, safety and security of person; - impacts related to marketing and advertising.
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 101 #

2021/0104(COD)

(22) Article 23 of Directive 2013/34/EU exempts parent undertakings from the obligation to prepare consolidated financial statements and a consolidated management report where those undertakings are subsidiaries of another parent undertaking that complies with that obligation. It should be specified, however, that the exemption regime for consolidated financial statements and consolidated management reports operates independently from the exemption regime for consolidated sustainability reporting. An undertaking can therefore be exempted from consolidated financial reporting obligations but not exempted from consolidated sustainability reporting obligations where its ultimate parent prepares consolidated financial statements and consolidated management reports in accordance with Union law, or in accordance with equivalent requirements if the undertaking is established in a third country, but does not prepare consolidated sustainability reporting in accordance with EU law, or in accordance with equivalent requirements if the undertaking is established in a third country.deleted
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 102 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19b – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 – point c – point ii
(ii) business ethics and corporate culture, including anti-corruption and anti- bribery programmes, assessment of corruption risks, and whistleblowing systems and results;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 106 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
(24) The list of sustainability matters on which undertakings are required to report should be as coherent as possible with the definition of ‘sustainability factors’ laid down in Regulation (EU) 2019/2088. That list should also correspond to the needs and expectations of users and undertakings themselves, who often use the terms ‘environmental’, ‘social’ and ‘governance’ as a means to categorise the three main sustainability matters. The list of sustainability factors laid down in Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 does not explicitly include governance matters. The definition of sustainability matters in Directive 2013/34/EU should therefore be based on the definition, indicators and methodologies of ‘sustainability factors’ laid down in Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 and the associated delegated acts, but with the addition of governance matters.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 107 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19d – paragraph 1
1. Undertakings subject to Article 19a shall prepare their financial statements and their management report in a open data and machine-readable single electronic reporting format in accordance with Article 3 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/815*15 and shall mark-up their sustainability reporting, including the disclosures laid down in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852, in accordance with that Delegated Regulation.
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 108 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 1
1. Parent undertakings of a large group shall include in the consolidated management report information necessary to fully understand the group's and its subsidiaries’ and business relationships impacts on sustainability matters, and information necessary to understand how sustainability matters affect the group's development, performance and position. The report shall explain the impact of each subsidiary on sustainability factors.
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 109 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e – point i
(i) the due diligence process implemented with regard to sustainability matters in line with, the EU Directive on Sustainable Corporate Governance, national legislation, and the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights and the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 110 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e – point iii a (new)
(iii a) the structure of the undertaking’s value chain including through a disaggregated mapping of its own operations, subsidiaries, suppliers and business relationships;
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 111 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 14 – point e
Directive 2006/43/EC
Article 28 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
The audit report shall be signed and dated by the statutory auditor. Where an audit firm carries out the statutory audit and, where applicable, the assurance of sustainability reporting, the audit report shall bear the signature of at least the statutory auditor(s) carrying out the statutory audit and the assurance of sustainability reporting on behalf of the audit firm. Where more than one statutory auditor or audit firm have been simultaneously engaged, the audit report shall be signed by all statutory auditors or at least by the statutory auditors carrying out the statutory audit and the assurance of sustainability reporting on behalf of every audit firm. In exceptional circumstances Member States may provide that such signature(s) need not be disclosed to the public if such disclosure could lead to an imminent and significant threat to the personal security of any person.; If an undertaking works with statutory auditors, audit firms or independent assurance services firms in the design, implementation or assessment of their due diligence process, that undertaking should not in addition request assurance of sustainability reporting from the same entity.
2021/12/16
Committee: AFET
Amendment 112 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 26
(26) Articles 19a(1) and 29a(1) of Directive 2013/34/EU require undertakings to disclose information about five reporting areas: business model, policies (including due diligence processes implemented), the outcome of those policies, risks and risk management, and key performance indicators relevant to the business. Article 19a(1) of Directive 2013/34/EU does not contain explicit references to other reporting areas that users of information consider relevant, some of which align with disclosures included in international frameworks, including the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. Disclosure requirements should be specified in sufficient detail to ensure that undertakings report information on their resilience to risks related to sustainability matters. In addition to the reporting areas identified in Articles 19a(1) and 29a(1) of Directive 2013/34/EU, undertakings should therefore be required to disclose information about their business strategy and the resilience of the business model and strategy to risks related to sustainability matters, any plans they may have to ensure that their business model and strategy are compatible with the transition to a sustainable and climate- neutral economy; whether and how their business model and strategy take account of the interests of stakeholders; any opportunities for the undertaking arising from sustainability matters; the implementation of the aspects of the business strategy which affect, or are affected by sustainability matters; any sustainability targets set by the undertaking and the progress made towards achieving them; the role of the board and management with regard to sustainability matters; the principal actual and potential adverse impacts connected with the undertaking’s activities; a due diligence strategy for identifying actual or potential adverse impacts and addressing them; and how the undertaking has identified and evaluated the information that they report on. Once the disclosure of elements such as targets and the progress towards achieving them is required, the separate requirement to disclose the outcomes of policies is no longer necessary.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 115 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
(27) To ensure consistency with international instruments such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, the due diligence disclosure requirements should be specified in greater detail than is the case in Article 19a(1), point (b), and Article 29a(1), point (b) of Directive 2013/34/EU. Due diligence is the process that undertakings carry out to identify, prevent, mitigate and remediate the principal actual and potential adverse impacts connected with their activities and identifies how they address those adverse impacts. Impacts connected with an undertaking’s activities include impacts directly caused by the undertaking, impacts to which the undertaking contributes, and impacts which are otherwise linked to the undertaking’s value chain. The due diligence process concerns the whole value chain of the undertaking including its own operations, its products and services, its business relationships and its supply chains. In alignment with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, an actual or potential adverse impact is toshould be considered principal where it measures among the greatest impacts connected with the undertaking’s activitiesadverse based on: the gravity of the impact on people or the environment; the number of individuals that are or could be affected, or the scale of damage to the environment; and the ease with which the harm could be remediated, restoring the environment or affected people to their prior state.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 132 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
(34) The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) is a non-profit association established under Belgian law that serves the public interest by providing advice to the Commission on the endorsement of international financial reporting standards. EFRAG has established a reputation as a European centre of expertise on corporate reporting, and is well placed tocan foster coordination between European sustainability reporting standards and international initiatives that seek to develop standards that are consistent across the world. In March 2021, a multi- stakeholder task force set up by EFRAG published recommendations for the possible development of sustainability reporting standards for the European Union. Those recommendations contain proposals to develop a coherent and comprehensive set of reporting standards, covering all sustainability matters from a double-materiality perspective. Those recommendations also contain a detailed roadmap for developing such standards, and proposals for mutually reinforcing cooperation between global standard- setting initiatives and standard-setting initiatives of the European Union. In March 2021, the EFRAG President published recommendations for possible governance changes to EFRAG if it were to be asked to develop technical advice about sustainability reporting standards. These recommendations include offsetting up within EFRAG a new sustainability reporting pillar while not significantly modifying the existing financial reporting pillar. When adopting sustainability reporting standards, the Commission should take account of technical advice that EFRAG will develop. In order to ensure high-quality standards that contribute to the European public good and meet the needs of undertakings and of users of the information reported, EFRAG’s technical advice should be developed with proper due process, public oversight and transparency, accompanied by cost benefit analyses, and be developed with the expertise of relevant stakeholdby an independent body constituted of a balanced representation of relevant stakeholders, including civil society organisations and social partners. To ensure that Union sustainability reporting standards take account of the views of the Member States of the Union, before adopting the standards the Commission should consult the Member State Expert Group on Sustainable Finance referred to in Article 24 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 on EFRAG’s technical advice. The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) plays a role in drafting regulatory technical standards pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 and there needs to be coherence between those regulatory technical standards and sustainability reporting standards. According to Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council54 , ESMA also plays a role in promoting supervisory converge in the enforcement of corporate reporting by issuers whose securities are listed on EU regulated markets and who will be required to use these sustainability reporting standards. Therefore, ESMA should be required to provide an opinion on EFRAG’s technical advice. This opinion should be provided within two months from the date of receipt of the request from the Commission. In addition, the Commission should consult the European Banking Authority, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, the European Environment Agency, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, the European Central Bank, the Committee of European Auditing Oversight Bodies and the Platform on Sustainable Finance to ensure that the sustainability reporting standards are coherent with relevant Union policy and legislation. Where any of those bodies decide to submit an opinion, they shall do so within two months from the date of being consulted by the Commission. _________________ 54 Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/77/EC (OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 84).
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 154 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 44
(44) Users need information about governance factors, including information on the role of an undertaking’s administrative, management and supervisory bodies, including with regard to sustainability matters, the composition of such bodies, including the gender balance of company boards and related policies for increasing diversity, and an undertaking’s internal control and risk management systems, including in relation to the reporting process. Users also need information about undertakings’ corporate culture and approach to business ethics, including anti-corruption and anti-bribery, and about their political engagements, including lobbying activities. Information about the management of the undertaking and the quality of relationships with business partners, including payment practices relating to the date or period for payment, the rate of interest for late payment or the compensation for recovery costs referred to in Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council62 on late payment in commercial transactions, helps users to understand an undertaking’s risks as well as its impacts on sustainability matters. Every year, thousands of businesses, especially SMEs, suffer administrative and financial burdens because they are paid late, or not at all. Ultimately, late payments lead to insolvency and bankruptcy, with destructive effects on entire value chains. Increasing information about payment practices should empower other undertakings to identify prompt and reliable payers, detect unfair payment practices, access information about the businesses they trade with, and negotiate fairer payment terms. _________________ 62 Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ L 48, 23.2.2011, p. 1).
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 155 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 44 a (new)
(44a) Diversity on company boards contributes to better decision-making, corporate governance and resilience in undertakings. Workers' representatives as well as more women on boards would promote the sustainable development of undertakings.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 156 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 44 b (new)
(44b) Fair tax policies are an integral part of an undertaking's corporate social responsibility. It is therefore relevant that undertakings should disclose their policies in this field. Specifically relevant are an undertaking's policies regarding potentially harmful tax regimes as can be indicated using the hallmarks laid out in Annex IV of the Council Directive (EU) 2018/822 amending Directive 2011/16/EU. These hallmarks, as well as international standards on tax reporting, such as those developed by the Global Reporting Initiative, should be used to develop delegated acts further specifying the sustainability reporting standards on fair taxation practices.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 158 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 45
(45) The reporting standards should promote a more integrated view of all the information published by undertakings in the management report to provide users of that information with a better understanding of the development, performance, position and impact of the undertaking. Those standards should distinguish as necessary between information that undertakings should disclose when reporting at individual level and the additional information that undertakings should disclose when reporting at consolidated level. Those standards should also contain guidance for undertakings on the process carried out to identify the sustainability information that should be included in the management report.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 159 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 45 a (new)
(45a) Member States should ensure that sustainability reporting is done in compliance with workers’ rights to information and consultation, in accordance with Directive 2002/14/EC and, where applicable, in accordance with Directive 2009/38/EC, Directive 2001/86/EC or Directive 2003/72/EC. Member States may decide that workers’ rights to information and consultation apply with respect to the workers of companies other than those referred to in Article 3(1) of Directive 2002/14/EC.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 163 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 46 a (new)
(46a) Sector specific standards should be in particular developed for the extractive industry, as defined in Article 41 (1) of Directive 2013/34/EU, and the logging of forests. Those standards should be consistent with the project level reporting requirements foreseen in Chapter 10 of Directive 2013/34/EU, and should require the publication of contracts and other relevant documents upon which these projects are based, as well as information on payments to Governments and joint ventures.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 182 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 54
(54) Statutory auditors or audit firms already verify the financial statements and the management report. The assurance of sustainability reporting by the statutory auditors or audit firms would help to ensure the connectivity between, and consistency of, financial and sustainability information, which is particularly important for by users of sustainability information. However, there is a risk of further concentration of the audit market, which could risk the independence of auditors and increase audit or assurance fees. It is therefore desirable to offer undertakings a broader choice of independent assurance service providers for the assurance of sustainably reporting. Member States should therefore be allowed to accredit independent assurance services providers in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council66 to provide an opinion on sustainability reporting, which should be published together with the management report. Member States should set out requirements that ensure consistent outcomes in the assurance of sustainability reporting carried out by different assurance service providers. Therefore, all independent assurance services providers should be subject to requirements that are consistent with those set out in Directive 2006/43/EC as regards the assurance of sustainability reporting. This will also guarantee a level playing field among all persons and firms allowed by Member States to provide the opinion on the assurance of sustainability reporting, including statutory auditors. If an undertaking seeks the opinion of an accredited independent assurance services provider other than the statutory auditor on its sustainability reporting, it should not in addition need to request this opinion from the statutory auditor. Likewise, an undertaking should not seek the opinion of the same audit firm or equivalent for both the fulfilment of its due diligence obligations, and the assurance of sustainability disclosures as set out in this directive. _________________ 66 Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93 (OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 30).
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 185 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 57
(57) It should be ensured that the requirements imposed on auditors as regards their work on the statutory audit and the assurance of sustainability reporting are consistent. It should therefore be laid down that, where the opinion on sustainability reporting is given by the statutory auditor or audit firm carrying out the statutory audit of financial statements, the key audit partners are actively involved in conducting the assurance of sustainability reporting. When carrying out the assurance of sustainability reporting, statutory auditors should be required to devote sufficient time to the engagement and assign sufficient resources and expertise to enable them to carry out their duties appropriately. Finally, the client account record should specify the fees charged for the assurance of sustainability reporting and the audit file should include information related to the assurance of sustainability reporting.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 196 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 71
(71) Member States are invited to assess the impact of their transposition act on SMEs in order to ensure that they are not disproportionately affected, giving specific attention to micro-enterprises and to the unnecessary administrative burden, and to publish the results of such assessments. Member States should consider introducing measures to support SMEs in applying the voluntary simplified reporting standards.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 202 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 1 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
(ba) legal entities such as foundations and legal arrangements similar to trusts as referred to in Directive 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a. _________________ 1a Directive (EU)2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC(Text with EEA relevance)
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 207 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 2 – point 17
(17) ‘sustainability matters’ means sustainability factors as defined in Article 2, point (24) of Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 of the European Parliament and of the Council\*4, including the underlying methodologies and indicators pertaining to environmental matters set out in that regulation, as well as the delegated acts pursuant to it, and governance factors;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 213 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 2 – point 20 a (new)
(20a) 'high-risk sectors' are those business sectors in which there is a high risk for adverse impacts on the environment, good governance, social or human rights, due to factors including their size, business and value chain characteristics.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 228 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 1
1. Large undertakings and, as of 1 January 2026, small and medium-sized undertakings which are undertakings referred to in Article 2, point (1), point (a), and small and medium-sized undertakings operating in high-risk sectors, shall include in the management report information necessary to understand the undertaking’s impacts on sustainability matters, and information necessary to understand how sustainability matters affect the undertaking’s development, performance and position.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 230 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 1a (new)
1a. In accordance with applicable EU and national legislation and practice, the appropriate workers' representative bodies shall be consulted, at the beginning of the reporting period and 30 days prior to the submission of the report to the auditor, on the design of the reporting system, the indicators included, the methodology put in place to gather and verify sustainability information, and on the potential or actual sustainability impacts identified. A report on this consultation should be presented to the administrative, management and supervisory bodies or the audit committee of the supervisory board. Where the workers or their representatives provide a written opinion, it shall be appended to the sustainability report. Workers' representatives shall be provided with the resources necessary to enable them to exercise the rights foreseen in this paragraph.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 241 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 2 – point a – subpoint ii a (new)
(iiia) the plans of the undertaking to ensure that corporate strategies, goals and measures are consistent with securing employment and promoting decent work conditions, as evidenced by collective bargaining agreements and workers rights of information, consultation and where applicable worker board level representation;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 246 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 2 – point a – subpoint v
(v) how the undertaking’s strategy has been implemented with regard to sustainability matters and associated targets;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 249 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) a description of the targetsime-bound targets and progress previously made and envisaged to be made towards achieving those targets, and corresponding evidence related to sustainability matters set by the undertaking, any potential or actual adverse impacts, and of the progress the undertaking has made towards achieving those targets;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 254 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) a description of the role of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies with regard to sustainability matters, as well as their composition and expertise, the stakeholders they consult with on sustainability matters, their decision- making processes, and whether incentives linked to sustainability matters are offered to members of these bodies;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 259 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) a description of the undertaking’s policies in relation to sustainability matters, including in relation to potential and actual adverse impacts;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 262 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19 a – paragraph 2 – point e – subpoint i
(i) the due diligence process and strategy, pursuant to applicable EU and national legislation, and the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights and the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, implemented with regard to sustainability matters;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 267 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 2 – point e – subpoint ii
(ii) the principalmapping process of actual or potential adverse impacts connected with the undertaking’s value chain, including its own operations, its products and services, its business relationships, its subsidiaries and its supply chain, including the persons adversely impacted, and how these have been identified and prioritised;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 271 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 2 – point e – subpoint iii
(iii) anyll actions taken, and the result of such actions, to prevent, mitigate, cease, or remediate actual or potential adverse impacts, and the evaluation of the effectiveness of actions taken, as well as alert mechanisms established;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 275 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a, paragraph 2, point e, subpoint iii a (new)
(iii a) The above disclosure requirement does not exclude any additional communication as required in line with EU Directive XXX on Sustainable Corporate Governance
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 283 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 2
Undertakings shall add to the management report a description of the process used by their audit committee to ensure the independence of the statutory auditor or audit firm carrying out the assurance of the sustainability reporting.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 290 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 3
Where appropriate, tThe information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall contain information about the undertaking’s value chain, including the undertaking’s own operations, assets, products and services, its business relationships and its supply chain.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 302 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1
[...]deleted
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 307 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
The consolidated management report of thea parent undertaking referred to in subparagraph 1 shall be published in accordance with Article 30, in the manner prescribed by the law of the Member State by which the undertaking that is exempted from the obligations set outwhich meets the requirements referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 is governed.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 311 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 3
The Member State by which the undertaking that is exempted from the obligations set outwhich meets the requirements referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 is governed, may require that the consolidated management report referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph iss are published in an official language of the Member State or in a language customary in the sphere of international finance, and that any necessary translation into those languages is certified.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 314 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 4
The management report of an undertaking that is exempted from the obligations set outwhich meets the requirements referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 shall contain all of the following information:
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 315 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 7 – point a
(a) the name and registered office of the parent undertaking that reports information at group level in accordance with Articles 29 and 29a, or in a manner that may be considered equivalent, in accordance with the implementing measures adopted pursuant tofor each entity which shall also be named, in accordance with Articles 23(4), point (i) of Directive 2004/109/EC, to the manner required by the sustainability reporting standards referred to in Article 19b9 and 29a;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 318 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19a – paragraph 7 – point b
(b) the fact that the undertaking is exempted from the obligations set out in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Article.deleted
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 322 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – introductory part
(4) the following Articles 19b, 19 c a, 19c and 19d are inserted:
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 328 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19b – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(a a) by 31 October 2022, the Commission shall adopt delegated acts specifying a list of high-risk business sectors, taking into account relevant international standards and scientific and technical knowledge. The list shall include but shall not be limited to the mining industry, extractive industry, agriculture, clothing and textiles, financial and insurance services, energy, water supply and management, construction, and transportation.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 333 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19b – paragraph 1 – point b – subpoint ii
(ii) information that undertakings shall report that is specific to the sector in which they operate, with particular attention paid to high-risk business sectors.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 344 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19b – paragraph 2
2. The sustainability reporting standards referred to in paragraph 1 shallwill ensure the quality and relevance of reported information, by requireing that the information to be reported is understandable, relevant, representative, verifiable, reliable, comparable, and is represented in a faithful manner. When possible and relevant this information should be measurable and science-based, and it shall be understandable in the absence of contextual information.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 357 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19b – paragraph 2 – point a – subpoint i
(i) climate change mitigation, including greenhouse gas emissions and related targets for their reduction;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 371 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19b – paragraph 2 – point a – subpoint iv
(iv) resource use and transition to a circular economy;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 376 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19b – paragraph 2 – point a – subpoint v
(v) pollution prevention and control;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 381 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19b – paragraph 2 – point a – subpoint vi
(vi) the protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 387 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19b – paragraph 2 – point b – subpoint i a (new)
(i a) workforce composition, including diversity and gender-equality, the gender pay-gap, the management-to-worker pay ratio, use of contingent labour, trade union representation and collective bargaining, and consultation and dialogue with trade unions and employee representatives in line with all applicable legislation;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 400 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Directive 2013/34/EU
(iii) respect for the human rights, fundamental freedoms, democratic principles and standards established in the International Bill of Human Rights and other core UN human rights conventions, the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and the ILO fundamental conventions andand governance conventions, the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Social Charter, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and EU legislation on labour and the rule of law.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 402 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19b – paragraph 2 – point b – subpoint iii a (new)
(iii a) workers in the value chain and affected communities, including human rights impacts, forced labour, child labour, privacy, freedom of expression, association and assembly, health and safety of workers, access to adequate water, sanitation and housing, and respect for the rights of indigenous peoples and free, prior and informed consent;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 410 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19b – paragraph 2 – point c – subpoint i
(i) the role and expertise of the undertaking’s administrative, management and supervisory bodies, including with regard to sustainability matters, and their composition and the due diligence process and strategy, and their composition, including the presence of trade union and workers representatives;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 414 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19b – paragraph 2 – point c – subpoint i a (new)
(i a) incentives offered to members of these bodies which are linked to sustainability matters and associated targets, including in terms of remuneration;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 416 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19b – paragraph 2 – point c – subpoint ii
(ii) business ethics and corporate culture, including anti-corruption and anti- bribery, and whistleblowing systems;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 420 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19b – paragraph 2 – point c – subpoint iii
(iii) political engagements of the undertaking, including its lobbying activities and costs, political donations, and potential conflicts of interest;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 425 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19b – paragraph 2 – point c – subpoint v
(v) the undertaking’s internal control and risk management systems, including in relation to the undertaking’s reporting and decision-making process.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 426 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Directive 2013/34/EU
(v a) the undertaking's fair taxation policy, including its policy on the use of tax incentives and third countries to achieve a reduction in tax payments;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 434 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19b – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) the work of global standard-setting initiatives for sustainability reporting, and existing standards and frameworks for natural capital accounting, responsible business conduct, corporate social responsibility including fair tax policies, and sustainable development;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 439 #

2021/0104(COD)

(h a) Council Directive (EU) 2018/822 amending Directive 2011/16/EU14a _________________ 14a Council Directive (EU) 2018/822 of 25 May 2018 amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation in relation to reportable cross-border arrangements
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 446 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 19 c a (new)
Article 19 c a Sustainability reporting related to Regulation (EU) 2020/852 1. Any undertaking which is subject to an obligation to publish non-financial information pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 shall include information on how and to what extent the undertaking’s activities are associated with economic activities that do not qualify as environmentally sustainable under Articles 3 and 9 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852. 2. In particular, non-financial undertakings shall disclose the following: (a) the proportion of their turnover derived from products or services associated with, and the proportion of their capital expenditure and the proportion of their operating expenditure related to assets or processes associated with, economic activities that do not meet the substantial contribution criteria but do meet the Do No Significant Harm criteria specified in relevant Delegated Acts under Articles 10 to 15 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 or that are not covered by the scope of these Delegated Acts; (b) the proportion of their turnover derived from products or services associated with, and the proportion of their capital expenditure and the proportion of their operating expenditure related to assets or processes associated with economic activities that do neither meet the substantial contribution criteria nor the Do No Significant Harm criteria specified in relevant Delegated Acts under Articles 10 to 15 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852. 3. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 49 to supplement paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article to specify the content and presentation of the information to be disclosed pursuant to those paragraphs, including the methodology to be used in order to comply with them, taking into account the specificities of both financial and non-financial undertakings and the technical screening criteria established pursuant to this Regulation. The Commission shall adopt that delegated act by 31 October 2022.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 463 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point a – subpoint g
(g) a description of the diversity policy applied in relation to the undertaking's administrative, management and supervisory bodies with regard to gender and other aspects such as, age, or educational and professional backgrounds, the objectives of that diversity policy, how it has been implemented and the results in the reporting period. If no such policy is applied, the statement shall contain an explanation as to why this is the case.;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 469 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 1a (new)
1 a. In accordance with applicable EU and national legislation and practice, the appropriate workers’ representative bodies shall be consulted, at the beginning of the reporting period and 30 days prior to the submission of the consolidated report to the auditor, on the design of the reporting system, the indicators included, the methodology put in place to gather and verify sustainability information, and on the potential or actual sustainability impacts identified. A report on this consultation should be presented to the administrative, management and supervisory bodies or the audit committee of the supervisory board. Where the workers or their representatives provide a written opinion, it shall be appended to the consolidated sustainability report. Workers’ representatives shall be provided with the resources necessary to enable them to exercise the rights foreseen in this paragraph.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 479 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 2 – point a – subpoint iii a (new)
(iii a) the plans of the group to ensure that corporate strategies, goals and measures are consistent with securing employment and promoting decent work conditions;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 484 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 2 – point a – subpoint v
(v) how the group’s strategy has been implemented with regard to sustainability matters and associated targets;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 488 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) a description of the targetsime-bound targets and progress previously made and envisaged to be made towards achieving those targets, and corresponding evidence related to sustainability matters set by the group, any potential or actual adverse impacts and of the progress of the undertaking towards achieving them;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 492 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 29c – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) a description of the role of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies with regard to sustainability matters, as well as their composition and expertise, the stakeholders they consult with on sustainability matters, their decision- making processes and whether incentives linked to sustainability matters are offered to members of these bodies;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 494 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) a description of the group’s policies in relation to sustainability matters, including in relation to potential and actual adverse impacts;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 498 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 2 – point e – subpoint i
(i) the due diligence process and strategy, pursuant to applicable EU and national legislation, and the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights and the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, implemented with regard to sustainability matters;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 503 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 2 – point e – subpoint ii
(ii) the principalmapping process of actual or potential adverse impacts connected with the group’s value chain, including its own operations, its products and services, its business relationships, its subsidiaries and its supply chain, including the persons adversely impacted, and how these have been identified and prioritised;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 506 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 2 – point e – subpoint iii
(iii) anyll actions taken, and the result of such actions, to prevent, mitigate, cease or remediate actual or potential adverse impacts, and the evaluation of the effectiveness of actions taken, as well as alert mechanisms established;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 510 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 29 – paragraph 2 – point e – subpoint iii a (new)
(iii a) The above disclosure requirement does not exclude any additional communication as required in line with EU Directive XXX on Sustainable Corporate Governance.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 515 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 2
Parent undertakings shall add to the management report a description of the process used by their audit committee to ensure the independence of the statutory auditor or audit firm carrying out the assurance of the sustainability reporting.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 523 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 3
The information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall include information about the group’s value chain, including its own operations, its assets, its products and services, its business relationships and its supply chain, where appropriate.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 528 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 4
4. Parent undertakings shall report the information referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3 in accordance with the sustainability reporting standards referred to in Article 19b and they shall provide separate information per entity.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 535 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1
7. A parent undertaking which is also a subsidiary undertaking shall be exempted from the obligation set out in paragraphs 1 to 4 if that exempted parent undertaking and its subsidiaries are included in the consolidated management report of another undertaking, drawn up in accordance with Article 29 and this Article. A parent undertaking that is a subsidiary undertaking from a parent undertaking that is established in a third country shall also be exempted from the obligations set out in paragraphs 1 to 4 where that undertaking and its subsidiary undertakings are included in the consolidated management report of that parent undertaking and where the consolidated management report is drawn up in a manner that may be considered equivalent, in accordance with the relevant implementing measures adopted pursuant to Article 23(4)(i) of Directive 2004/109/EC, to the manner required by the sustainability reporting standards referred to in Article 19b of this Directive.deleted
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 536 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
The consolidated management report of thea parent undertaking referred to in subparagraph 1 shall be published in accordance with Article 30, in the manner prescribed by the law of the Member State by which the parent undertaking that is exempted from the obligations set outwhich meets the requirements referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 is governed.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 542 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 3
The Member State by which the parent undertaking that is exempted from the obligations set outwhich meets the requirements referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 is governed may require that the consolidated management report referred to in in the first subparagraph of this paragraph iss are published in its official language or in a language customary in the sphere of international finance, and that any necessary translation into those languages is certified.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 544 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 4
The consolidated management report of a parent undertaking that is exempted from the obligations set outwhich meets the requirements referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 shall contain all of the following information:
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 545 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 7 – point a
(a) the name and registered office of the parent undertaking that reports information at group level in accordance with Articles 29 and this Article, or in a manner that may be considered equivalent, in accordance with the relevant implementing measures adopted pursuant to Article 23(4)(i) of Directive 2004/109/EC, to the manner required by the sustainability standards adopted pursuant tofor each entity which shall also be named in accordance with Articles 29 and this Article 19b;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 546 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 7 – point b
(b) the fact that the undertaking is exempted from the obligations set out in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Article.;deleted
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 548 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 30 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that undertakings publish online within a reasonable period of time, which shall not exceed 12 months after the balance sheet date, the duly approved annual financial statements and the management report in the format prescribed by Article 19d of this Directive where applicable, together with the opinions and statement submitted by the statutory auditor or audit firm referred to in Article 34 of this Directive, as laid down by the laws of each Member State in accordance with Chapter 3 of Directive (EU) 2017/1132 of the European Parliament and of the Council*16.’
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 549 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 30 – paragraph 1
Member States may, however, exempt undertakings from the obligation to publish the management report where a copy of all or part of any such report can be easily obtained upon request at a price not exceeding its administrative cost.’deleted
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 550 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a
The exemption laid down in the third subparagraph shall not apply to undertakings subject to Articles 19a and 29a.’;deleted
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 553 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point a – point ii
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – point aa
(aa) where applicable, express an opinion based on a limitedreasonable assurance engagement as regards the compliance of the sustainability reporting with the requirements of this Directive, including the compliance of the sustainability reporting with the reporting standards adopted pursuant to Article 19b, the process carried out by the undertaking to identify the information reported pursuant to those reporting standards, and the compliance with the requirement to mark- up sustainability reporting in accordance with Article 19d, and as regards the compliance with the reporting requirements of Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852.;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 566 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 – point b
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 49 – paragraph 3a (new)
3a. When adopting delegated acts pursuant to Articles 19b and 19c, the Commission shall take into consideration technical advice from EFRAG, provided such advice has been developed by an independent technical advisory body composed of a balanced representation of preparers, investors, civil society organisations and trade unions, with expertise on all matters outlined in articles 19a and 19b, with proper due process, public funding, public oversight and transparency and with the expertise of relevant stakeholders, and is accompanied by cost-benefit analyses that include analyses of the impacts of the technical advice on sustainability matters. Participation in the independent technical advisory body should not be conditional on any financial contribution.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 583 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Directive 2013/34/EU
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – point f
(f) the level of cooperation of the natural person or legal entity responsible with the competent authority and with stakeholders;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 598 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Directive 2006/43/EC
Article 26a – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 48a, thelimited assurance standards rbeferred to in paragraph 1ore 1 October 2023, and reasonable assurance standards before 1 January 2026, in order to set out the procedures that the auditor shall perform in order to draw its conclusions on the assurance of sustainability reporting, including engagement planning, risk consideration and response to risks and type of conclusions to be included in the audit report.
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 601 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 14 – point e
Directive 2006/43/EC
Article 28 – paragraph 4
The audit report shall be signed and dated by the statutory auditor. Where an audit firm carries out the statutory audit and, where applicable, the assurance of sustainability reporting, the audit report shall bear the signature of at least the statutory auditor(s) carrying out the statutory audit and the assurance of sustainability reporting on behalf of the audit firm. Where more than one statutory auditor or audit firm have been simultaneously engaged, the audit report shall be signed by all statutory auditors or at least by the statutory auditors carrying out the statutory audit and the assurance of sustainability reporting on behalf of every audit firm. In exceptional circumstances Member States may provide that such signature(s) need not be disclosed to the public if such disclosure could lead to an imminent and significant threat to the personal security of any person. If an undertaking seeks the opinion of statutory auditors, audit firms or independent assurance services firms in their due diligence obligations, processes and strategy, the same entity will not be used to provide assurance of the undertaking's sustainability reporting and disclosures.;
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 606 #

2021/0104(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 a (new)
Article 4 a Review The Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the implementation of this Directive, including, among other aspects, its effectiveness, the convergence of reporting practices, the convergence of the practices of data providers, and the level of guidance and methods provided. The report shall be published by 1 January 2028
2021/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 1 #

2020/2273(INI)

Draft opinion
Citation 1 a (new)
– having regard to the reports of 24 January 2018 and 15 July 2020, of the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, respectively presenting framework principles on human rights and the environment and being entitled ‘Human rights depend on a healthy biosphere’,
2021/02/05
Committee: AFET
Amendment 2 #

2020/2273(INI)

Draft opinion
Citation 1 b (new)
– having regard to the ‘Leaders’ Pledge for Nature’ entitled "United to Reverse Biodiversity Loss by 2030 for Sustainable Development", adopted by political leaders participating in the United Nations Summit on Biodiversity of 30 September 2020,
2021/02/05
Committee: AFET
Amendment 3 #

2020/2273(INI)

Draft opinion
Citation 1 c (new)
– having regard to the study of April 2020 of the European Parliament's Policy Department for External Relations on "Biodiversity as a Human Right and its implications for the EU’s External Action" (PE 603.491) requested by the European Parliament's Subcommittee on Human Rights,
2021/02/05
Committee: AFET
Amendment 4 #

2020/2273(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas current negative trends in biodiversity and ecosystems will undermine progress towards 80 % of the assessed targets for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) related to poverty, hunger, health, water, cities, climate, oceans and land; whereas the EU has a great responsibility to play a global leadership role on biodiversity as a human right at the multilateral level as well as bilaterally and unilaterally;
2021/02/05
Committee: AFET
Amendment 5 #

2020/2273(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas the COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect the health and livelihoods of people around the world; whereas the destruction of natural habitats, in particular tropical forests which are exceptional reserves of biodiversity, lead to an increase of areas of contact between humans and wildlife and could be a factor favourable to the future emergence and spread of viral diseases;
2021/02/05
Committee: AFET
Amendment 6 #

2020/2273(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital A c (new)
Ac. whereas the CBD serves as the basis for defining policies aimed at protecting biodiversity from a human right perspective, and for extending the scope of international obligations on biodiversity in relation to human rights; whereas the work of the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment paves the way to the shaping of a legal frame of human rights obligations relating to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity;
2021/02/05
Committee: AFET
Amendment 7 #

2020/2273(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital A d (new)
Ad. whereas the EU and its Member States have to comply with their international obligations on biodiversity and human rights in good faith and with mutual support, alongside their EU law obligations on policy coherence in external action, in line with the obligation under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights to integrate a high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment into the policies of the Union and in accordance with the principle of sustainable development;
2021/02/05
Committee: AFET
Amendment 8 #

2020/2273(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital A e (new)
Ae. whereas the number of environmental and land human rights defenders (HRDs) murdered or subjected of acts of violence, abduction, threats, harassment, intimidation and smear campaigns has increased considerably worldwide in recent years; whereas they often face great adversities and dangers, in some contexts featured by profit-driven exploitation of natural resources coupled with endemic corruption and poverty;
2021/02/05
Committee: AFET
Amendment 9 #

2020/2273(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital A f (new)
Af. whereas at least a quarter of the global land area is estimated to be owned, managed, used or occupied by indigenous peoples and local communities, and is under growing environmental stress, mainly due to agribusiness, resource extraction, commodity production, mining and transport and energy infrastructure;
2021/02/05
Committee: AFET
Amendment 18 #

2020/2273(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. UStresses that biodiversity and human rights are interlinked and interdependent, and recalls the human rights obligations of states to protect the biodiversity on which those rights depend, including by providing for the participation of citizens in biodiversity- related decisions; underlines the need for increased urgent efforts to maintain biodiversity, in particular by taking effective actions to simultaneously protect human rights and conserve and sustainably use nature; calls in this regard for the development of a holistic and human- rights-based EU policy approach aimed at preventing biodiversity loss and degradation; also stresses the need to strengthen international environment and human rights law, environmental legislation and procedural environmental and human rights, in particular by improving access to information, public participation and access to justice, and by supporting the crucial role of local communities, indigenous peoples and environmental human rights defenders in maintaining biodiversity;
2021/02/05
Committee: AFET
Amendment 25 #

2020/2273(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Stresses that the pandemic has demonstrated the importance of the ‘One Health’ principle in policy-making and that transformative changes are needed involving collaboration across disciplines and sectors; calls for an urgent rethinking of how to align the EU current policies and how to strengthen human rights within the alignment;
2021/02/05
Committee: AFET
Amendment 32 #

2020/2273(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses that measures to protect biodiversity must be integrated into all economic sectors and reiterates its call on the Commission to urgently present a proposal for an EU legal framework based on mandatory due diligence that ensures sustainable and deforestation-free value chains; underlines the need to strengthen the access to remedy for victims of corporate abuses, when encouraging the adoption of National Action Plans and in support to environmental and indigenous human rights defenders;
2021/02/05
Committee: AFET
Amendment 44 #

2020/2273(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission to mainstream biodiversity as a human right in EU external action and promote ambitious biodiversity-related policies in international fora, in accordance with the European Green Deal and the new EU Biodiversity Strategy; also calls on the Commission to deal with cooperation issues related to the conservation of biodiversity and respect for international environmental and human rights obligations in a common and consistent way, in particular through EU international comprehensive and sectoral agreements and political dialogues with partner countries; urges the Commission, in this regard, to make the most of human rights and sustainable development impact assessments and related recommendations; also calls on the Commission to draw up guidelines on the human right to a clean, healthy, safe and sustainable environment; calls on the EEAS to support the Commission in mainstreaming biodiversity as a human right in external action arising from the Green Deal and the new EU biodiversity strategy;
2021/02/05
Committee: AFET
Amendment 48 #

2020/2273(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Regrets that marine plastic pollution has increased tenfold since 1980, affecting at least 267 species; calls on the Union to lead negotiations for an international agreement for plastic-free oceans by 2030; also calls on a transformation of fisheries in order to promote ocean biodiversity;
2021/02/05
Committee: AFET
Amendment 55 #

2020/2273(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Calls on the Commission to include explicit consideration of biodiversity as a human right in human rights dialogues and as part of the human rights component of policy dialogues, including as part of the practice of handing over 'an individual cases list' of human rights violations committed against human rights defenders or other individuals, as well as during visits to third-country human rights institutions, with a view to supporting integrated programming of external assistance and protection of human rights defenders; calls on the EEAS to ensure that EU Delegations offer a point of contact for NGOs, indigenous peoples’ and biodiversity defenders;
2021/02/05
Committee: AFET
Amendment 23 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 47 a (new)
— Whereas a number of Member States have launched new “Digital Nomad Visas” which aim at facilitating the residence of remote workers or remote self-employed persons;
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 26 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 47 b (new)
— Whereas Covid19 has transformed the way the world works and in lieu has created a situation for many European workers and self-employed persons to work remotely;
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 27 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 47 c (new)
— whereas as noted in the European Parliament report on fair working conditions, rights and social protection for platform workers – new forms of employment linked to digital development (2019/2186(INI)), the misclassification of some platform workers as self-employed causes uncertainty and deprives workers of their access to employment rights, social protection, entitlements and the application of relevant rules;
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 79 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that the creation of a Union-wide talent pool for third-country nationals who wish to apply for work with a view to migrating legally to a Member State, as well as for employers to search for potential employees in third countries, would be an essential tool for achieving the purpose of the proposed act and calls on the Commission to include the creation of such a talent pool in its proposal and create a framework for the validation and recognition of skills and qualifications, based on objective and uniform criteria;
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 87 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Supports the Commission’s statement in its communication of 23 September 2020 on a New Pact on Migration and Asylum regarding the enhancement of short-term mobility as a complement to legal pathways, especially for the purposes of research or study in order to improve upstream cooperation with third countries, for example to stem irregular migratory flows, and asks the Commission to explore this direction further;
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 98 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes Directive (EU) 2021/...15 , but 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 criteria; _________________ 15EUT number of 2016/0176 COD to be inserted.;
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 106 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that the Union is in need of more self-employed people and entrepreneurs in order to remain competneeds to boost its culture of entrepreneurship to remain relevant and competitive in the global market, increasing the economy’s agility, robustness, stability, and growth while creating new economic activity and employment opportunitives; calls on the Commission to include in its proposal an admission scheme for entry and residence of self- employed people and entrepreneurs, in particular those whorking to establish small and medium- sized enterprises and start-ups, based on objective and uniform criteria;
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 110 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Recognises that the increased emergence of gig work over the past years has however resulted in the major exploitation of workers who are often forced to declare themselves as self- employed persons rather than employees of a business and that this is not only detrimental to the rights of workers themselves but in consequence devalues the notion of “self-employed persons”; welcomes the Commission’s intention to present a proposal for a legislative initiative to improve the working conditions of platform workers by the end of 2021, as announced in the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan and preceded by a two-stage consultation of the social partners; Emphasises that any proposal in this regard must seek to combat the exploitation of platform and gig workers as consequences of the misclassification of platform workers as self-employed persons;
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 112 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Encourages the European Commission to evaluate different schemes across the European Union which cater to remote workers, such as so called “nomad visa schemes” and youth mobility schemes in order to attract more diverse talent to the European Union;
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 124 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that one of the objectives of Directive 2011/98/EU is to simplify and harmonise the rules concerning permits currently applicable in the Member States, while also promoting equal treatment; further notes that this objective has not been fully achieved, with some of the provisions being implemented in different ways across the Union; requests the Commission to take the necessary steps to ensure that theall Member States implement thate Directive fully; furthermore considers that thate Directive should be amended to allow applications for a single permit to be lodged either from within both a Member State andor from a third country, and, that in order to reach a broader category of workers, the scope and the application of the Directive should be expanded; calls on the Commission to further simplify and harmonise the rules, to clearlyas well as to regulate the procedure for obtaining an entry visa so as to, thus avoiding applicants having to submit the documents needed to obtain a single permit twice, and to reduce dependency of workers from risks of exploitation; calls on the Commission to include such amendments in its proposal;
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 133 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Requests that the Commission includes in its proposal the establishment of a transnational advisory service network, to be managed by the Commission, for legally migrating third- country workers, with each Member State designating a lead authority to process applications and to coordinate the advice and information provided to third-country nationals applying for work in the Union; insists that the lead authorities should be responsible for the sharing of information among Member States on third-country workerlabour migration rules and should act as contact points for the talent pool; asks that the lead authorities be responsible also for close coordination with one another with regard to applications lodged for a single permit to reside and work in accordance with Directive 2011/98/EU in order to avoid double submissions;
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 135 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Encourages Member States to adopt a naming and shaming approach to enterprises which exploit third country nationals for human capital;
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 149 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11 a. Calls on the Commission to improve the regulation on private agencies involved in international recruitment;
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 165 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14 a. Calls on the European Commission to issue new proposals on the employment of asylum seekers while awaiting a decision on their asylum claim, thus reducing the negative impacts of forced inactivity until the finalisation of their asylum procedure;
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 166 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)
14 b. Encourages the European Commission to conduct a study on the issue of third country nationals turnover rates within the European Union, in order to better understand the reasons behind departure from a Member State within the first three years of arrival, resulting in a high cost base for employers, diminishing competitiveness and increasing the cost of living;
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 167 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 c (new)
14 c. Encourages the European Commission to conduct a study on the impact of increased economic migration into the Union on the housing market, with the aim of creating a set of recommendations that ensure the housing market is not disproportionately affected and remains affordable to all;
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 171 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – Recommendation 1 – title
Recommendation 1 (on the establishment of a Union-wide talent pool for legally migrating third-country nationals)
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 176 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – Recommendation 1 – indent 1
- The European Parliament considers that the legislative act to be adopted should establish a Union-wide talent pool for third-country nationals who wish to apply for work in and migrate legally to a Member State, as well as for Union-based employers to search in third countries for potential employees, and should facilitate the admission and free movement of third- country workers. The European Parliament considers that such a Union-wide talent pool should establish synergies with the existing framework and the legislative act should therefore amend Regulation (EU) 2016/589 in order to expand the current scope of the EURES Portal, established by that Regulation;
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 187 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – Recommendation 2 – indent 1
- It is a pressing need for the Union to improve its attractiveness for all skilledallow the admission of third- country workers, not only for highly-across all skilled workerlevels. With the revision of the Directive (EU) [EU BLUE CARD], the Union has taken further steps to achieve that goal for highly-skilled third- country workers. However, it is imperative to achieve that goal for third- country workers in jobs considered to be low- and medium- skilled third-country workers in order to fill vacancies and improve matching on the Member States’ labour markets, further enhancing the Union’s economic competitiveness.
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 192 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – Recommendation 2 – indent 2
- To properly address that issue, the European Parliament calls on the Commission to, within the legislative act to be adopted, include provisions setting up an admission scheme with conditions of entry and residence for low- and medium- skilled third-country workers. The scheme should ensure equal treatment in coherence with the existing EU acquis on labour migration, and include the creation of a framework within which third-country workers are able to have their skills and qualifications properly recognised and validated for use on the Member States’ labour markets.
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 196 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – Recommendation 3 – indent 1
- Traditionally, a work permits has only been issuedare issued in the place where the third- country national already has an employment contract or a firmn offer of employment. However, the European Parliament is of the view that the basis for issuing work permits could be improved and developed further. Along the same lines, the Commission has stated that its objective is to encourage more people to become entrepreneurs, thereby improving Europe’s economic performance1 . Third- country nationals working as entrepreneurs or as self-employed people might experience that the environment in their country of origin is not conducive for their start-up or for their efforts as entrepreneurs. Through a Union-wide admittance scheme such third-country nationals could be giMember state regulations regarding self-employment and entrepreneurship of third-country nationals vary across the Union. EU levenl an opportunity to migrate legally to the Union and establish themselves andction should promote a favourable environment for entrepreneurship of their businessed-country nationals. _________________ 1 https://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/sme- strategy/start-up-procedures_en
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 200 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – Recommendation 3 – indent 2 a (new)
- - However in order to respect the growing spirit of entrepreneurship which the union must foster, it is imperative that the European Commission takes a firm stand to make a distinction between entrepreneurship, self-employed persons and persons who are engaged in gig work and are forced and exploited by their employers to declare themselves as self- employed persons, which results in a deprivation of workers access to employment rights, social protections, entitlements and the application of relevant rules.
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 210 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – Recommendation 5 – title
Recommendation 5 (on the simplification and improvement of Directive 2011/98/EU)
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 214 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – Recommendation 5 – indent 1
- The European Parliament is of the view that procedures with respect to Directive 2011/98/EU should be further harmonised for that Directive to be fully efficient, therefore considers that the legislative act to be adopted should amend that Directive in order to allow applications for a single permit to be lodged botheither from within the territory of a Member State and from a third country, while engaging both the Member States and the third countries in a system that shares information on, and coordinates with respect to, the applications lodgedor from a third country. The European Parliament moreover calls for, inter alia, the clear regulation and streamlining of the procedure for applying for an entry visa in order to avoid applicants having to submit the documents needed twice to obtaining a single permit twice, and also requests the Commission to propose changes that would a single permit. Furthermore, requests the Commission to propose changes that would alleviate the difficulties facing third- country nationals holding work permits, when changing employment. This creates an environment where the permit holder is forced to become dependent on the employer. The Commission should therefore analyse the efficiency of permit procedures and reduce unnecessary administrative requirements which obstacles for potential employees, and employers. Requests the Commission to propose changes that would address the lack of implementation of equal treatment provisions in the Directive and persistent labour exploitation, in particular to alleviate the difficulties facing third- country nationals holding worksingle permits when changing or losing employment, thus making the permit holder too dependent on the employer. An effective workplace monitoring and complaints’ mechanisms to protect all migrant workers’ labour rights, which should in particular guarantee effective access to justice and redress and protect workers from retaliation, must be ensured.
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 220 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – Recommendation 6 – title
Recommendation 6 (on the establishment of a Union-wide transnational advisory service network for legally migrating workers)
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 225 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – Recommendation 6 – indent 1
- The European Parliament is of the view that systematic cooperation between and engagement with the authorities of Member States and of third countries is required to enhance legal pathways for labour migration. To achieve that goal, the European Parliament considers that the legislative act to be adopted should establish a transnational advisory service network, managed by the Commission, for third-country workers, with each Member State designating a lead authority to coordinate the advice and information provided to legally migrating third-country nationals applying for work in the Union. The authorities in each Member State should also be responsible for closely coordinating with one another with regard to applications lodged for a single permit to reside and work in the Union in accordance with Directive 2011/98/EU in order to avoid double submissions. That network should also take into account national specificities and different demands of national labour markets.
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 228 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – Recommendation 6 – indent 2
- In addition, each Member State should be responsible for requesting from employersuse information on third-country workers, in full respect of Union data protection law, in order to enable third- country nationals to be connected with the relevant authorities and support services, in order to facilitate the protection and strengthening of the equal rights and treatment of third-country workers. This transnational advisory service network should facilitate the running of the talent pool, as outlined in Recommendation 1.
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 232 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – Recommendation 7 – indent 1
- Promoting professional mobility for legally residing third-country nationals working in a Member State also means protecting them from exploitation. Numerous third-country nationals, in particular low-skilled third- country nationals, hesitate to leave an exploitative employer because it would mean that they would lose their work permit and right to stay in the Union. Holders of a work permit issued under the Directive 2014/36/EU are, in particular, prone to exploitation, seeing how they often tend to work within sectors mainly employing low-skilled workers.
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 235 #

2020/2255(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – Recommendation 7 – indent 2
- Therefore, the European Parliament considers that the legislative act to be adopted should amend Directive 2014/36/EU to allow holders of work permits under that Directive a period of three months to seek new employment after having left their previous employer without having their permit revoked. The European Parliament recommends that the Commission, at the same time, considers other appropriate amendments to that Directive in order to bring it up to date and in line with other more recent Union legal acts dealing with legal migration and further address persistent labour exploitation of seasonal workers.
2021/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1
— having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, and in particular Article 13 and Article 14 thereof,
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 2 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5
— having regard to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984 and in particular Article 3, and the additional protocol thereto,
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 3 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 9 a (new)
- having regard to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance,
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 4 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 13
— having regard to the work of various international human rights mechanisms, including the reports of the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, notably his follow-up to the regional study on the management of the external borders of the European Union and its impact on the human rights of migrants of 8 May 2015, as well as his report on the freedom of association of migrants of May 2020, and of other Special Rapporteurs, the Universal Periodic Review and the work of other treaty bodies,
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 6 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 16 a (new)
- having regard to the Report of the UN Secretary-General: Smuggling of migrants and trafficking in persons in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Libya form September 2020 (S/2020/876) in particular violations faced by migrants and asylum seekers in Libya,
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 7 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 16 b (new)
- having regard to the Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Libya, and the effectiveness of technical assistance and capacity-building measures received by the Government of Libya in particular the paralysis of the state’s security institutions by armed groups and militias,
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 9 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 20 a (new)
- having regard to EU Regulation 656/2014: establishing rules for the surveillance of the external sea borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union,
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 10 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 22 a (new)
- having regard to the Council Conclusions on the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 2020- 2024, and the annexed EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 2020- 2024, as agreed by the Council on 17 November 2020,
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 11 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 22 b (new)
- having regard to the Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council for the EU Gender Action Plan (GAP) III {SWD(2020) 284 final},
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 16 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 29 a (new)
- having regard to the Malta Declaration by the members of the European Council on the external aspects of migration: addressing the Central Mediterranean route of 3 February 2017,
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 21 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas migration is a global phenomenon amplified by globalisation, rising conflicts, inequalities, and climate disruption; whereas gradual, normative development within the modern international human rights framework of the rights of migrants, independently of their legal status, represents a source of progress and collective pride for humanity; whereas migrants remain and - in particular - forcibly displaced persons, however, among the most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups worldwide and continue to face violations of their rights; whereas migration continues to be for many individuals a human journey marred by suffering, discrimination and violence; whereas the European Union, as a historic region of both emigration and immigration and, as a community united by founding values of human dignity, freedom and human rights and as one of the worlds’ largest donors promoting sustainable development, supporting displaced persons and working through multilateral forums towards finding durable solutions, has a particular duty to respect, protect and promote the rights of migrants, notably in its external dealings;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 51 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
F a. whereas the EU Gender Action Plan III commits the EU to ensuring that "the human rights of migrant women and girls are fully realised through gender- responsive migration policies, programmes and laws, and gender- responsive migration governance at global, regional and national levels reinforced";
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 56 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H
H. whereas UN human rights experts, NGOs and civil society organisations warned that the COVID-19 pandemic is having serious and disproportionate effects on migrants and their families globally; whereas they have called on states to protect the rights of migrants and their families, regardless of their migration status, both during and after the pandemic;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 61 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that these obligations require not only the abstract recognition of the applicability of the relevant standards, but also an appropriate operationalisation through detailed and specific instruments that allow for effective protection and safeguards in practice as well as through a human rights- based approach to the entire migration policy cycle, from formulation to adoption, implementation, monitoring and evaluation;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 64 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that, in compliance with Article 3(5) and 21 TEU, the EU and, when applying EU law, the Member States, in their external and extraterritorial actions in the areas of migration, borders and asylum, should pay specific attention toall respect the rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, including the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to asylum, human dignity and security, the protection from enforced disappearance, the prohibition of ill- treatment, torture, slavery and forced labour, the right to the protection of personal data, protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition and the obligation to take the interests of the child as a primary consideration, as well as adopting a gender-sensitive approach, and to ensure non-discrimination and procedural guarantees such as the right to an effective remedy and data protection;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 80 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Observes that the Commission has yet to evaluate the impact of the implementation of its successive migration policy frameworks, notably the GAMM and the new Partnership Framework, on the human rights of TCNs as well as the human rights impact of the EU’s cooperation on migration with third countries, including the impact of EU’s support for partner countries’ border and security forces; insists on the need to carry out such an evaluation in a comprehensive, inclusive and public format with a view to ensuring the full human rights compliance of the EU’s external migration policy including with regards to the Facility for Refugees in Turkey in the framework of the EU-Turkey statement and the EUTF;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 85 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Notes with great concern the absence of operational, reporting, monitoring, evaluation and accountability mechanisms at the level of individual cases to track and respond to potential violations, as well as the lack of effective judicial remedies for persons whose rights are allegedly violated as a consequence of EU and EU agencies cooperation with third countries, especially in the case of informal agreements and financial cooperation;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 92 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for the EU to ensure that readmission agreements and agreements for cooperation on border management are only concluded with third countries that explicitly commit to respecting human rights and the rights enshrined in the UN Refugee Convention, and to ensure that such cooperation does not lead to violations of those rights and offers operational means to nullify these agreements, seek effective remedy and ensure accountability should such violations occur;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 95 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Recalls that, in accordance with the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951 (Art. 3) and to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 14) the country of origin shall by no means constitute an obstacle to the application of the right to seek asylum; calls for the EU to ensure that for the purpose of readmission agreements no third country is considered as safe and that all asylum seekers shall enjoy the right to have their applications individually assessed;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 100 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to ensure ex ante risk assessments, performed by independent agencies, on the impact of any formal, informal or financial EU cooperation with third countries on the rights of migrants and refugees, on human rights defenders and civil society in- country working to defend these rights and, to the extent possible, on impact that such cooperation would have on the wider population in the country affected by it, including access to rights, contribution to human security and peace, and sustainable development; calls on the Commission to set implementation guidelines for EU agencies and Member States before entering into cooperation with third countries; calls in this respect for particular vigilance in relation to countries which are are suspected of breaching the rule of law, experiencing ongoing or frozen conflicts and face increased risks of human rights violations, such as Turkey, Libya and Egypt and countries where migrants and refugees are subjected to mistreatment and illegal push backs, such as Tunesia, Algeria, Morocco; calls for a commitment to a conflict-sensitive approach that considers and recognizes the effects of assistance into conflict settings and seeks to minimize harm; urges in that regard the Commission to insist that all migration-related interventions must structure any short- term objectives or projects within longer- term aims that support governance;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 110 #

2020/2116(INI)

8. Calls on the Commission to establish an independent, transparent and effective monitoring mechanism, which entails periodic reports on the implementation of formal, informal and financial agreements with third countries that can potentially impact the rights of migrants and refugees in third countrieand human rights defenders and civil society in-country working to defend these rights, such as migration partnerships, readmission agreements, and international cooperation on migration management and governance, including direct targeting of challenges connected to migration and forced displacement; stresses that such a monitoring mechanism has to be transparent, participatory for civil society and field workers, and publicly available; insists on the need to ensure means for civil society and other interested stakeholders to be able to contribute to the work of the mechanism; insits that such a system should contribute to ensuring accountability for potential human rights vioalations, including unlawful push backs violating the principle of non- refoulement; insists that such a monitoring mechanism will assess the implementation of agreements strictly on the basis of international law, the EU Charter and the Sustainable Development Goals;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 118 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Notes that the implementation and funding of the EU’s external migration policy is assigned to different Commission Directorates-General and mainstreamed across the EU’s migration, asylum, development and foreign policies without a designated lead institutional actor; notes with concern that this blending of executive responsibilities has created a lack of sufficient and coherent oversight of the Commission’s activities that would enable Parliament to exert democratic control over the EU’s external migration policy and exercise budgetary authority over development funds; urges the Commission to designate a single lead institutional interlocutor at Commissioner level on the external dimension of migration;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 125 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Highlights with great concern the practical human rights implications stemming from the increasing number, and hence the extrajudicial nature, of informal arrangements on return and readmission, which are concluded in the absence of due democratic scrutiny and parliamentary oversight and are not subject to judicial scrutiny; calls on the Commission to prioritise the conclusion of formal readmission agreements, thus ensuring full respect for Article 218(6) TEU, and to ensure that formal EU Readmission Agreements (EURAs) exclude the application of informal agreements; believes that Parliament must assess the legality of informal agreements which include commitments on issues that fall within its competencies, such as readmission, and must be ready to undertake further action including suspension if these informal agreements appear to be incompatible with the Treaties;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 129 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Highlights with great concern the increased role of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in practical and operational cooperation with third countries, including on return and readmission, provision of training, operational and technical assistance to authorities of third countries for the purpose of border management and border control, carrying out operations or joint operations at the EU’s external borders or in the territories of third countries, and deploying liaison officers and operational staff in third countries; calls on the Commission to establish an independent, transparent and effective monitoring mechanism on all activities carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, in addition to the internal complaint mechanism in place;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 136 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Recalls that also other EU actors implementing the external migration policy in the context of e.g. EU naval missions, are bound to applicable international law and that forwarding information to authorities of third countries that ultimately result in the unlawful return of migrants and refugees to unsafe countries, can be considered under international law as assisting in human rights violations;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 139 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Recalls that ad hoc Status Agreements, to be approved by the European Parliament, are required for the deployment of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency’s border management teams to a third country where the members of the teams will exercise executive powers; regrets that the two status agreements concluded to date do not include specific measures for the operationalisation of human rights as part of border management, and also fail to clearly regulate accountability for potential human rights violations or ensure that material support and training to third countries is not given to perpetrators of human rights violations, and calls for any future status agreements to include such measures;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 150 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Calls for the extension of the mandate of the Fundamental Rights Agency to allow it to exercise an advisory role in the external dimension of EU asylum and migration policies and its effective and independent involvement in monitoring exercises; calls for the development of relevant tools and guidelines by the Fundamental Rights Agency;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 165 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Notes with concern the increasing recourse since 2016 to enhanced conditionality between development cooperation and migration management, including return and readmission; stresses, however, that according to Article 208 TFEU the primary objective of Union development cooperation policy shall be the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty; calls, therefore, on the Commission to ensure that policies on development cooperation do not contravene the principles enshrined in Article 208 TFEU; stresses that the use of development cooperation as an incentive for migration management undermines meaningful action on the needs of people in developing countries, the rights of refugees and migrants, and their potential impact on regional migration patterns and contribution to local economies, and thus also undermines a wide range of rights stemming from the Sustainable Development Goals; stresses that visa issuing and development programmes should not be subject to cooperation on readmissions; stresses that cooperation and development budget should not be used for the purpose of border management and/or migration control;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 179 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Notes that a complete, public overview of EU funding to third countries to facilitate cooperation on migration issues remains unavailable; calls on the Commission to provide improved transparency, including by establishing a clear overview of the funds used to finance cooperation with third countries in the field of migration management across all its financial instruments and their implementation, including information on the amount, purpose and source of funding as well as detailed information on any other potential support measures provided by EU agencies such as the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, in order to ensure that Parliament can efficiently perform its institutional role of scrutiny of the implementation of the EU budget; stresses to suspend any kind of budgetary support and training to the border authorities of third countries which, in this way, proceed with push backs by proxy in violation of the principle of non- refoulement (for example Libya, Tunisia, Morocco) and of Art.13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 189 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Stresses the importance of allocating a substantial share of future EU funding in the field of migration to civil society and community based groups in third countries for providing assistance and for the protection and monitoring of the rights of migrants, supporting forcibly displaced persons and their host communities, reaping the benefits of well- managed and orderly migration, and of ensuring that a significant part of EU funding is earmarked for the improvement of human rights, international protection, and the future perspective of refugeesolutions for refugees and migrants;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 200 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Notes that the possibilities of mainstreaming migration policy in EU external policy are significantly broadened by the inclusion of migration in the thematic, geographical and rapid response component of the proposed Neighbourhood, Development, International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI); notes with concern, however, that through the ‘rapid response’ component, cooperation with third countries on migration management can be funded without the need for the Commission to publish any programming documents or consult civil society actors, and without the involvement of Parliament, including in the framework of the ‘Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint’, which lacks mechanisms to assess the possible adverse impact of such interventions; insists in this regard on the need to ensure that the 2021- 2027 Multiannual Financial Framework is accompanied by a robust human rights framework for the identification, implementation and monitoring of future migration cooperation programmes, as to link the EU financial disbursement to human rights obligations;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 204 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Calls on the Commission to regularly and publicly report to Parliament on the funding of migration-related cooperation programmes in third countries, the ways in which such funding has been used by partner countries and their human rights impact, including within the framework of the working group on external financial instruments of the Committee on Foreign Affairs;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 205 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Believes that Parliament must make full use of its powers of implementation, scrutiny and budgetary control and auditing procedures before the European Court of Auditors and ensure that EU funding decisions and related allocations comply with the Union’s principles of legality and sound financial management;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 213 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Recalls the commitment of the EU and its Member States under the Global Compact on Refugees to share responsibility for the effective and comprehensive protection of refugees and ease the pressure on host countries; stresses in this regard that the EU and its Member States should increase resettlement pledges and step up to legal pathways and contribute to a more structural and substantial funding of the regioncommunities and countries hosting most refugees, and should not use financial means to shift responsibility for the protection of refugees to third countries; calls on the EU and its Member States for increasing resettlement allocations and for working to prevent forced refugee returns from hosting countries; reiterates the importance of fully implementing the 23 objectives of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration; believes that Parliament must ensure the proper scrutiny of the implementation of both Compacts by the EU;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 217 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Calls for the EU and its Member 23. States to pursue a migration policy that fully reflects the human rights of migrants as enshrined in both international, EU, national and regional law; calls on the EEAS, the Commission and the Member States to engage with third countries on the rights of migrants as an integral dimension of the EU’s human rights policy; insists that the human rights and migration nexus be adequately covered within the framework of bilateral EU human rights dialogues with the relevant countries; calls on the EU Delegations in those countries to monitor closely the rights of immigrants, particularly in countries of transit and other potentially vulnerable groups such as internally displaced persons, as well as social conditions, access to basic services and human security concerns in emigration countries; insists on the proactive engagement of the EU in countries where human rights defenders and civil society and community-based organisations, including those who are protecting the lives of migrants and asylum seekers who are at risk, be it in- or outside the EU, are under threat or are being criminalised for their legitimate work;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 223 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Calls for the EU to carry out a global campaign to support universal ratification of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 protocol; urges Member States to lead by example by adhering to the UN Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers, as one of the core UN human rights conventions;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 224 #

2020/2116(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24 a. Calls for the EU to work together with concerned countries to identify and implement mitigation and adaptation solutions for communities at risk of being uprooted by the global climate crisis, and to promote multilateral cooperation on durable solutions for those who are eventually displaced;
2020/12/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 113 #

2020/2073(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Acknowledges that real time blocking of websites affects the fundamental rights of internet users and service providers; stresses, in this regard, that blocking injunctions must be subject to the principle of proportionality and strike a fair balance between the protection of intellectual property on the one hand, the freedom of expression and information, the freedom to conduct business, as well as the fundamental rights to privacy and to data protection on the other;
2020/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 118 #

2020/2073(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Stresses that real-time blocking may render large quantities of information on the internet inaccessible and must therefore be limited to cases where the unlawfulness of the specific broadcast has been established beyond doubt by an independent judicial body;
2020/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 122 #

2020/2073(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Stresses that the fundamental rights of individuals and consumers and service providers, including the rights to freedom of expression, privacy and protection of personal data, the right to conduct a business and the right to an effective remedy, cannot be undermined by the enforcement of copyright of sports events’ organisers;
2020/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 145 #

2020/2073(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 1 – paragraph 1 – indent 5
- to explore the possibilities of harmoniseing the use of swift and adaptable blocking procedures in the event of repeated violations already established allowing for court-ordered real-time blocking of access to illegal online transmissions of live sport events , based on the model of “live” blocking orders and “dynamic injunctions”;
2020/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 150 #

2020/2073(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 1 – paragraph 1 – indent 7
- to ensure that the measures to be proposed are proportionate and keep the right balance between the need for the enforcement measures to be efficient and the need to protect third party rights, including service providers, fans and consumers whose fundamental rights to freedom of expression and information, privacy and protection of personal data, the right to conduct a business and the right to an effective remedy, cannot be undermined by the enforcement of copyright of sport events’ organisers;
2020/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 162 #

2020/2073(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 2 – paragraph 1 – indent 2
- allow for real-time take down procedures targeting illegal live sport content, provided that a competent judicial body establishes that there are no doubts about the ownership of the right concerned and the fact that the transmission was not authorised;
2020/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 163 #

2020/2073(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 2 – paragraph 1 – indent 3
- ensure that the measures to be taken by intermediaries are effective, justified, proportionate, adequate, taking into account the seriousness and the scale of the infringement, as well as the seriousness of the interference with fundamental rights of service providers and internet users, whilst fully respecting the principles of the Directive on electronic commerce and the future Digital Services Act; make sure, for example, that the blocking of access to, or removal of, illegal content does not require the general monitoring of content, the blocking of entire IP addresses under which different domains can be hosted, or the blocking of an entire platform containing services that are legal, which would be disproportionate, unless the proportion of illegal services on a specific server demonstrates that the availability of legal services is only incidental;
2020/12/15
Committee: JURI
Amendment 50 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 34 a (new)
- having regard to the European Economic and Social Committee Opinion of 19 June 2019 on "Further strengthening the Rule of Law within the Union. State of play and possible next steps" which proposed to create an annual Stakeholders' Forum on fundamental rights and the rule of law;
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 51 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 34 b (new)
- having regard to the conclusions of the Council of the European Union and the Member States meeting within the Council on ensuring respect for the rule of law of 16 December 2014;
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 52 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 34 c (new)
- having regard to the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders of 8 March 1999;
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 54 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU); whereas those values are values which are common to the Member States and to which all Member States have freely subscribed; whereas democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are mutually reinforcing principles;
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 77 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas breaches of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU do not concern solely the individual Member State where the breaches materialise, but also have an impact on other Member States, weaken the cohesion of the European project, the fundamental rights of all Union citizens and mutual trust among the Member States;
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 88 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E
E. whereas a regulation on the protection of the Union’s budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States, once adopted, would become an indispensable tool in safeguarding the rule of law within the Union, if the voting procedure is designed in such a way that this instrument can be used effectively and cannot be blocked by a minority in the Council;
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 97 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas any monitoring mechanism must closely involve stakeholders active in the protection and promotion of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, including civil society, Council of Europe and United Nations bodies, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, national human rights institutions, national parliaments and local authorities as well as national associations which are responsible for the support of the judiciaries in the independent delivery of justice;
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 105 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas institutions shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society at all levels;
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 126 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. warns that the Union is facing an unprecedented and escalating crisis of its founding values, which threatens its long- term survival as a democratic peace project; is gravely concerned by the rise and entrenchment of autocratic and illiberal tendencies, further compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic 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 protection of fundamental rights of all its citizens, the functioning of its single market, the effectiveness of its common policies and its international credibility;
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 138 #

2020/2072(INL)

3. recognises that the Union remains structurally ill-equipped to tackle democratic and, rule of law and fundamental rights violations and 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 field;
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 153 #

2020/2072(INL)

4. welcomes 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 all Union values becomes a permanent and visible part of the Union agenda;
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 171 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. underlines that the Annual Monitoring Cycle must contain country- specific recommendations, with timelines and targets for implementation, to be followed up in subsequent annual or urgent reports; stresses that failures to implement the recommendations must be linked to concrete Union enforcement measures, including financial measures;
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 182 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. points out that the Mechanism should consolidate and supersede existing instruments, in particular the Annual Rule of Law Report, the Commission’s Rule of Law Framework, the Council’s Rule of Law Dialogue and the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), while increasing complementarity and coherence with other available tools, including infringement procedures under Article 258 TFEU, the procedure under Article 7 TEU, budgetary conditionality once in force, and the European Semester; is of the opinion that the Annual Monitoring Cycle can fulfil the objectives of the CVM for Bulgaria and Romania, thus contributing to equal treatment of all Member States; considers that the three institutions should use the findings from the Annual Monitoring Cycle in their assessment for the purposes of triggering Article 7 TEU and Regulation (EU) 2020/xxxx of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the Union's budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States11 ; _________________ 11[instead of xxxx insert final number of 2018/136(COD) in the text and correct OJ reference in footnote] OJ C ..., ....., p. ....
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 188 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. recalls the indispensable role played by civil society, national human rights institutions, human rights defenders, associations which are responsible for the support of the judiciary in the independent delivery of justice and other relevant actors in all stages of the Annual Monitoring Cycle, from providing input to facilitating and contributing to monitor implementation; points out that the accreditation status of national human rights institutions and theexistence, and, where they do exist, the formal and functional independence of national human rights institutions, as also reflected in their accreditation status, and the enabling space for civil society may themselves serve as indicators for assessment purposes; considers that national parliaments must hold public debates and adopt positions on the outcome of the monitoring cycle;
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 201 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. reaffirms the role of Parliament, in accordance with Article 7 TEU, in monitoring compliance with Union values; reiterates the call for Parliament to be present in Article 7 hearings when it is Parliament that initiated the procedurein accordance with the principle of mutual sincere cooperation as enshrined in Article 13(2) TEU; believes that the Mechanism, underpinned by an interinstitutional agreement, will provide the necessary framework for better coordination;
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 214 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. strongly believes that addressing the crisibreaches of Union values, including through the proposed Mechanism, is a precondition for re-establishing mutual trust among Member States, thus enabling the Union as a whole to sustain and further all common policies;
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 217 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. believes that it should be possible for candidate countries to be monitored by the Mechanism on a voluntary basis;
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 230 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – paragraph 4 – point 5
(5) The three institutions agree that an Annual Monitoring Cycle on Union Values is necessary to reinforce the promotion and respect for Union values. The Annual Monitoring Cycle should be comprehensive, objective, impartial, evidence-based and applied equally and fairly to all Member States. The primary objective of the Annual Monitoring Cycle should be to prevent violations of and non- compliance with Union values and to identify positive actions by Member States and national actors including civil society and national human rights institutions to be promoted and supported by the Union, while providing a shared basis for other actions by the three institutions. The three institutions also agree to use this Interinstitutional Agreement to integrate existing instruments and initiatives relating to the promotion of and respect for Union values, in particular the Annual Rule of Law Report, the Council’s Annual Rule of Law Dialogue and the Commission’s Rule of Law Framework, in order to avoid duplication and strengthen overall effectiveness.
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 234 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – paragraph 4 – point 6
(6) The Annual Monitoring Cycle should consist of a preparatory stage, the publication of an annual monitoring report on compliance with all Union values including country-specific recommendations, and a follow-up stage with an implementation and enforcement plan of the recommendations. The Annual Monitoring Cycle should be conducted in a spirit of transparency and openness.
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 247 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 1 – point 1
1. The three institutions hereby agree to coordinate and cooperate with the aim of promoting and strengthening respect forpromote, strengthen and enforce respect for the founding Union values, in accordance with Article 2 TEU, by coordination and cooperation.
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 250 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 2 – point 2
2. The three institutions agree to organise in sincere and mutual cooperation an Annual Monitoring Cycle on Union Values, covering issues and best practices in all areas of Union values. The Monitoring Cycle shall consist of a preparatory stage, the publication of an annual monitoring report on Union values (‘Annual Report’) including country specific reports and recommendations, and a follow- up stage.
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 255 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 2 – point 3 – introductory part
3. The three institutions agree to establish a permanent Interinstitutional Working Group on Union Values (‘Working Group’). The Working Group shall facilitate coordination and cooperation among the three institutions in all stages of the Annual Monitoring Cycle. The Working Group shall invite the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights to participate in its meetings. The Working Group shall also directly consult independent experts on a regular basis, civil society organisations and human rights defenders on a regular basis. The Working Group shall regularly make the reports on its work publicly available.
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 257 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 2 – point 3 a (new)
3a. The Working Group shall upon nomination of the European Parliament and the Council appoint a Panel of Independent Experts as an additional independent instrument in the context of the identification of breaches and best practices for implementation of the Union values enshrined in Art. 2 TUE. The Panel of Independent Experts shall submit its findings in a timely manner to both the Working Group and the Commission.
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 259 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 2 – point 4
4. On an annual basis, the Commission shall organise a targeted stakeholder consultation to collect information for the Annual Report. The stakeholder consultation shall take place in the first quarter of each year. The consultation shall be transparent and based on a clear and rigorous methodology agreed by the Working Group, following a comprehensive and transparent consultation with stakeholders and independent experts. The methodology shall, in any event, encompass in an appropriate form the benchmarks listed in the Annexes to Commission Decisions 2006/928/EC and 2006/929/EC.
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 264 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 2 – point 5
5. The stakeholder consultation shall give an opportunity to civil society organisations, professional associations and networks, Council of Europe bodies, Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and the Member States, including national parliaments and local authorities, civil society organisations, professional associations and networks, Council of Europe bodies and United Nations bodies to contribute to the Annual Report. The Commission shall incorporate the information provided by stakeholders in the Annual Report. The Commission shall publish relevant contributions to the consultation on its website prior to the publication of the Annual Report, subject to the contributors' consent.
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 274 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 2 – point 7
7. Designated representatives of any of the three institutions shall have the possibility to conduct a limited number of fact-finding visits to the Member States for the purpose of obtaining additional information and clarification about the state of Union values in the Member States concerned. The Commission shall incorporate the findings in the Annual Report.
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 277 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 2 – point 8 – introductory part
8. The Commission shall regularly inform the Working Group of the progress made throughout the preparatory stage.
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 280 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 2 – point 9
9. The Commission shall draft the Annual Report based on information gathered during the preparatory stage. The Commission shall issue a reasoned opinion if it decides not to fully incorporate the findings by the Panel of Experts into the Annual Report. The Annual Report should cover both positive and negative developments relating to Union values inenshrined in Article 2 TEU in each of the Member States. The Annual Report shall be impartial, based on objectively compiled evidence and respect equality of treatment between all Member States. The depth of reporting should reflect the gravity of the situation in question.
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 290 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 2 – point 10
10. The Annual Report shall contain recommendations specific to each of the Member States with the aim of strengthening the promotion and protection of Union values. The recommendations shall specify concrete targets and timeframes for implementation. The recommendations shall take account of the diversity of Member States’ political and legal systems. Implementation of the recommendations shall be assessed in subsequent Annual Reports or urgent reports, as appropriate.
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 293 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 2 – point 12
12. No later than two months from its publication date, the European Parliament and the Council shall discuss the content of the Annual Report. The discussions shall be made public. The Parliament and the Council shall adopt positions on the Annual Report by means of resolutions and conclusions. As part of the follow-up, the European Parliament and the Council shall assess and reflect on the extent to which previous recommendations have been implemented by the Member States. The three institutions shall make use of their respective powers under the Treaties with a view to contributing to an effective follow-up. The three institutions shall endeavour to promote debate on the Annual Report in the Member States, in particular in national parliaments.
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 300 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 2 – point 13
13. On the basis of the findings of the Annual Report, the Commission may, either on its own initiative or upon request by the European Parliament or the Council, enter into a dialogue with one or several Member States, including national parliaments and local authorities, with the aim of facilitating implementation of the recommendations. The Commission shall regularly report on the progress of the dialogue to the European Parliament and the Council. The Commission may, at any time, provide technical assistance to the Member States through different activities. The European Parliament shall organise, in cooperation with national parliaments, an interparliamentary debate on the findings of the Annual Report.
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 302 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 2 – point 13 a (new)
13a. The three institutions should consider the findings of the Annual Report when establishing funding priorities. In particular, the Commission shall include targeted support for national actors contributing to the promotion and protection of Union values, such as civil society organisations, when establishing relevant annual work programmes for the disbursement of Union funds under both shared or direct management.
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 305 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 2 – point 14 – introductory part
14. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission under Article 258 TFEU and the right of the European Parliament and the Commission and one third of the Member States to submit to the Council a reasoned proposal in accordance with Article 7(1) TEU, the three institutions agree that the Annual Reports should guide their actions concerning Union values.
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 311 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 2 – point 15
15. Where the situation in one or several Member States portends imminent and serious damage to Union values, the European Parliament or the Council may exceptionallyCommission shall either upon its own initiative or at the request of the Commission toEuropean Parliament or the Council draft an urgent report on the situation. The Commission shall prepare the report in consultation with the Working Group. The Commission shall make the urgent report public no later than two months following a request by the European Parliament or the Council. The findings of the urgent report should be incorporated in the next Annual Report. The urgent report may specify recommendations aimed at addressing the imminent threat to Union values.
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 318 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 3 – point 17
17. Where the Annual Report identifies systemic deficiencies with respect to one or several Union values, the three institutions commit to take appropriate action, without delay, within their respective powers as conferred on them by the Treaties. The three institutions mayshall consider, inter alia, whether Union policies requiring a high level of mutual trust can be sustained in light of systemic deficiencies identified in the Annual Report.
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 320 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 3 – point 19
19. The three institutions agree to use the findings of the Annual Report in their assessment of whether there is a clear risk of a serious breach or existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of Union values under Article 7 TEU. If the Annual Report identifies a risk of a serious breach or a serious breach of Union values in a Member State, the Commission shall activate the instruments at its disposal, including financial measures, to enforce respect for the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU. The European Parliament and Council shall hold a debate about the situation in the Member State and justify in a reasoned opinion, whether or not to activate the instruments at their disposal to enforce respect for the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU.
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 326 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 3 – point 20 – introductory part
20. In order to strengthen the transparency and efficiency of the procedure laid down in Article 7 TEU, the three institutions agree to ensure that theall institution initiating a proposal under Article 7(1) TEU iss are able to participate in the hearings under Article 7(1) TEU where that proposal is presented and isare consulted at all stages during the procedure. The three institutions agree to consult each other regularly in the Working Group regarding existing and potential procedures launched under Article 7 TEU.
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 333 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 3 – point 21
21. The three institutions agree to use the findings of the Annual Report in their assessment of whether there are generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2020/xxxx. If the Annual Report identifies a risk of a or a serious breach of Union values in a Member State, the Commission shall send a written notification to that Member State, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2020/xxxx.
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 337 #

2020/2072(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 3 – point 21 a (new)
21a. The Parliament and the Council may request the Commission to develop and publish specific guidelines and indicators to address relevant horizontal issues that emerge from the Annual Monitoring Cycle.
2020/07/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 14 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 15 a (new)
- having regard to Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision2004/68/JHA,
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 18 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 21 a (new)
- having regard to the Commission’s 2020 Study on the economic, social and human cost of human trafficking; its 2020 Study on reviewing the functioning of Member States’ National and Transnational Referral Mechanisms, its 2020 Study on Data collection on trafficking in human beings, and its 2016 Study on the gender dimension of trafficking in human beings;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 55 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas there are many forms of trafficking, but they are all based on the abuse of the inherent vulnerability of the victims and aimed at the exploitation of human beings;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 65 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Ab. Whereas trafficking is a highly gendered phenomenon and sexual exploitation remains the most prevalent form of trafficking in the EU since 2008;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 70 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)
Ac. whereas societal tolerance of gender inequality and violence against women and girls and the lack of public awareness of the issues surrounding THB perpetuate a permissive environment for THB and a culture of impunity;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 80 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A d (new)
Ad. whereas trafficking in human beings is a complex transnational phenomenon that can be tackled effectively only if the EU institutions, Member States and international organisations work together in a coordinated manner;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 85 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. whereas THB is a crime driven by high demand and profits, estimated at of EUR 29,4 billion a year, according to Europol; whereas differences between legislation in Member States greatly facilitate the activities of organised crime, there is still too low risk of prosecution and a high level of impunity and the sanctions applied to deter this crime are inadequate in comparison with the high profits;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 87 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1a. Whereas law enforcement authorities in the EU have witnessed a considerable increase in intra-EU trafficking and that nearly half (49%) of all victims of trafficking in the EU are EU citizens and more than one third (27%) of all EU victims are trafficked internally within one’s own country;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 104 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the importance of the funding of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF), the Daphne Program and Internal Security Fund (ISF) programmes to continue to be used for projects tackling THB, as well as using other available instruments, such as the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme, EMPACT actions, EU-UN Spotlight Initiative, the EU Trust Fund for Africa, Glo.Act Initiative, the Development Cooperation Instrument and the European Development Fund;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 141 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to monitor the use of digital technologies, internet and social media for THB as the predominant tools used to recruit trafficking victims and to regulate third party responsibility for technology companies hosting exploitative materials;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 163 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Calls on all Member States to ensure that early expert legal intervention and advice is provided to potential victims of THB at the earliest possible moment, including accessible information about their legal rights and options;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 191 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Highlights that while the full impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is not yet measureable, it is nevertheless clear that the crisis disproportionately affects the most vulnerable victims of THB, especially women and children; calls on Member states to ensure effective functioning of NRMs and equivalent systems and that they should be updated to respond to emerging THB trends during the COVID- 19 pandemic;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 220 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Urges the Member States to ensure gender-specific provision of services and supports to victims of THB that is appropriate to their needs, recognizing any needs that may be specific to the form of trafficking to which they have been subjected; Calls on the Member States to address the needs of LGBTI people, as they are highly vulnerable to THB due to the cumulative effect of different types of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 293 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Urges the Member States to adopt comprehensive sexuality education as a key form of prevention of all forms of violence against women and girls including trafficking and sexual exploitation, to include consent and relationships education promoting healthy attitudes of respect and equality in all interactions and the reality of prostitution and THB for sexual exploitation;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 352 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Points to the need to set up national mechanisms for data collection on THB victims in international protection procedures to be able to ensure follow up on identified cases;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 355 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 b (new)
23b. Calls on Member states to extend the International Protection granted to victims of human trafficking to their family members after having assessed the potential involvement of these relatives in the trafficking process;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 356 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 c (new)
23c. Calls on Member states to swift procedures of family reunification of those family members of the victims at risk in the country of origin;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 357 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 d (new)
23d. Is concerned that the recovery and reflection period is linked to cooperation by the victim during the investigation and is granted by law enforcement agencies; deplores that the period does not apply to EU/EEA nationals nor to asylum seekers; calls on the Commission to monitor the implementation of available legal solutions at Member states level, in particular the granting of a recovery and reflection period;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 371 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Calls on Member states to provide more safe and legal routes for migration in order to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable individuals;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 376 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Calls on the Member states to ensure strong child protection measures, presumption of childhood and child age assessment, the protection before and during criminal proceedings, access to unconditional assistance, compensation, non-punishment, assistance and support to the family member of a child victim as well as prevention;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 377 #

2020/2029(INI)

26. Calls on the Member States to focus on identifying child victims and helping them to avail themselves of their rights; recalls the obligation of Member States to pay special attention to child victims of trafficking and to provide special protection to children in criminal procedures, with the best interests of the child being considered paramount at all times; emphasises the need for guardians, including temporary guardians as an emergency measure, to be appointed immediately for child victims;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 391 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Notes with high concern the prevalence of child sexual abuse and normalisation of trafficking and sexual exploitation of children, and calls for the regulation of pornographic sites and hosting platforms to ensure full prevention of the risk of such materials becoming available and normalized;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 437 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
32. Stresses the importance of financial investigation and ‘following the money’ as a key strategy for investigating and prosecuting the organised crime networks that profit from THB; calls on the Commission to assess and promote the use of existing judicial and police cooperation, and the available toolsMember States to launch financial investigations and work with money laundering specialists when starting a new trafficking investigation; calls on Member States to strengthen cooperation in freezing and confiscating the assets of individuals involved in trafficking and providing compensation to victims; calls on the Commission to assess and promote the use of existing judicial and police cooperation, and the available tools, such as mutual recognition of court judgments, joint investigation teams and the European investigation order;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 453 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
33. Recalls the role of EU agencies in the early identification of victims and the fight against THB; calls for more resources for the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Agencies to enable their staff to be trained and capacity-building instruments to be developed in the area of detecting victims, including the appointment of gender- trained agency officers, especially in the Member States faced with increased mixed migratory flows; calls on the Commission to develop guidelines to mainstream gender expertise in the activities of law enforcement authorities across the EU, including by developing sustained programs of improving gender balance in decision-making processes and in the staff of the JHA agencies relevant to trafficking;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 461 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
33a. Encourages Member States to increase exchange of data and information by using Europol’s resources and databases such AP Phoenix, AP Migrant Smuggling and AP Twins;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 476 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)
34a. Calls on the Commission to review implementation of the Anti-Trafficking Directive by Member States and introduce infringement procedures where there has been a lack of effective implementation;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 487 #

2020/2029(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a (new)
35a. Calls on the Commission to review the application of Directive 2004/81/EC on granting residence permits to victims of trafficking who are third country nationals ensuring that victims are not returned upon expiry of reflection period, calls on the Member States to grant that the unconditional access to assistance and support mandated by Directive2011/36/EU is reconciled with Directive 2004/81/EC and its application; calls on the Commission to review Directive 2004/81/EC to ensure that residence permits for trafficked persons are not made conditional to the participation or willingness to participate of the trafficked person in the investigation or criminal proceedings of the case;
2020/11/12
Committee: LIBEFEMM
Amendment 8 #

2020/2026(INL)

Draft opinion
Recital B
B. NPOs play a central role in democracy by exercising public oversight over political power, articulating aspirations present in society to policymakers, carrying out advocacy, contributing to informed policy- making and fostering active citizenship;
2021/10/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 18 #

2020/2026(INL)

Draft opinion
Recital E
E. Restrictions of the space in which they operate have been reported by NPOs throughout the Union, related to the regulatory environment under which they operate, their finances and funding, their right to participation and to an unsafe environment with increasing attacks, including negative discourse stigmatising NPOs; and strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), which contribute to stigmatising NPOs to the point where they cease their critical work;
2021/10/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 43 #

2020/2026(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that, in light of the growing number of threats which transcend national boundaries such as environmental damages, pandemics or, the misuse of digital technologies and the dismantling of the rule of law which is happening in several Member States, the potential of cross- border NPO activities should be unlocked; emphasises that cross-border activities should both mean activities or cooperation carried out in more than one Member State and activities furthering the Union’s objectives or contributing to the promotion and safeguarding of its values;
2021/10/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 51 #

2020/2026(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that NPOs cannot thrive at Union level if the space in which they operate is being restricted in a number of Member States; is aware that the framework for action currently available to independent civil society in some Member States is seriously limited; considers therefore that the setting of common minimum standards will also help to provide a minimum level of protection throughout the Union and to spread best practices;
2021/10/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 74 #

2020/2026(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
10. Calls for the creation of a European Associations’ Authority, tasked with ensuring the implementation of the Statute for European Associations and monitoring the transposition of minimum rules for NPOs as called for in this report; suggests that it could also be the focal point for NPOs that report violations of the minimum standards and rights conferred upon NPOs by Union law; underlines the importance of transparency for this authority and its modus operandi;
2021/10/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 78 #

2020/2026(INL)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Underlines the importance of having a unified EU definition of 'public benefit', which would enable all NPOs operating under the statute equally to enjoy the concomitant advantages.
2021/10/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 86 #

2020/2012(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Underlines that the risk assessment of these technologies in light of ethical principles shall be complementary but not replace the risk assessment on the basis of objective criteria and in line with relevant sector- specific legislation applicable in different fields such, inter alia, as those of health, transport, employment, justice and home affairs, media, education and culture;
2020/05/29
Committee: JURI
Amendment 88 #

2020/2012(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Considers that any artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including the software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies considered as high-risk from a compliance with ethical principles perspective shall not be classified as low- risk from a sector-specific legislation perspective;
2020/05/29
Committee: JURI
Amendment 170 #

2020/2012(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Considers that a common European framework for the governance of these technologies prepared by the European Commission or another relevant institution, body, office or agency of the Union (such as a European Agency for Artificial Intelligence, as called for below) designated for this task should be the basis for this governance in order to ensure a coherent European approach and prevent a fragmentation of the single market;
2020/05/29
Committee: JURI
Amendment 189 #

2020/2012(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Notes that these authorities shall cooperate with the authorities responsible for implementing sectorial legislation in order to identify technologies which are high-risk from an ethical perspective and in order to supervise the implementation of required and appropriate measures where such technologies are identified;
2020/05/29
Committee: JURI
Amendment 216 #

2020/2012(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Calls on the Commission to follow- up on that request, especially in view of the added-value of having a body at Union level coordinating the mandates and actions of each national supervisory authority as referred to in the previous sub- section and drafting a common framework for the governance of the development, deployment and use of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies;
2020/05/29
Committee: JURI
Amendment 334 #

2020/2012(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – point V – indent 3 a (new)
- to draft a common framework for the governance of the development, deployment and use of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies to be implemented by the national supervisory authorities;
2020/05/29
Committee: JURI
Amendment 352 #

2020/2012(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – point VI – indent 4
- to be responsible for establishimplementing standards for the governance of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including by liaising with the maximum possible number of stakeholders and civil society representatives.
2020/05/29
Committee: JURI
Amendment 353 #

2020/2012(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – point VI – indent 4 a (new)
- to cooperate with the authorities responsible for implementing sectorial legislation in order to identify technologies which are high-risk from an ethical perspective and in order to supervise the implementation of required and appropriate measures where such technologies are identified;
2020/05/29
Committee: JURI
Amendment 400 #

2020/2012(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 10
(10) Notwithstanding the risk assessment carried out in relation to compliance with ethical principles, artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including the software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies, should always be assessed as to their risk and subject to corresponding legal obligations on the basis of objective criteria and in line with relevant sector-specific legislation applicable in different fields such as those of health, transport, employment, justice and home affairs, media, education and culture.
2020/05/29
Committee: JURI
Amendment 402 #

2020/2012(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 10 a (new)
(10a) Any artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including the software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies considered as high-risk from a compliance with ethical principles perspective shall not be classified as low risk from a sector- specific legislation perspective.
2020/05/29
Committee: JURI
Amendment 462 #

2020/2012(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 38
(38) The effective application of the ethical principles laid down in this Regulation will largely depend on Member States’ appointment of an independent public authority to act as a supervisory authority. In particular, each national supervisory authority should be responsible for assessing and monitoring the compliance ofidentifying artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies considered a high-risk and for assessing and monitoring the compliance of these technologies in light of the obligations set out in this Regulation.
2020/05/29
Committee: JURI
Amendment 464 #

2020/2012(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 39
(39) Each national supervisory authority shall also carry the responsibility of regulating the governance of these technologies in accordance with a common framework prepared by the European Commission or another relevant institution, body, office or agency of the Union designated for this task. They therefore have an important role to play in promoting the trust and safety of Union citizens, as well as in enabling a democratic, pluralistic and equitable society.
2020/05/29
Committee: JURI
Amendment 467 #

2020/2012(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 39 a (new)
(39a) National supervisory authorities shall cooperate with the authorities responsible for assessing and monitoring artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including the software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies and enforcing their compliance in the light of sectorial legislation in order to identify technologies which are high-risk from an ethical perspective and in order to supervise the implementation of required and appropriate measures where such technologies are identified;
2020/05/29
Committee: JURI
Amendment 483 #

2020/2012(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 46
(46) Action at Union level as set out in this Regulation would be best achieved through the establishment of a European Agency for Artificial Intelligence. Such a body would be essential in coordinating the mandates and actions of the national supervisory authorities in each Member State, outlining objective criteria for the risk assessment of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, drafting a common framework for the governance of the development, deployment and use of these technologies, developing and issuing a certification of compliance with the ethical principles laid down in this Regulation, supporting regular exchanges with concerned stakeholders and civil society, promoting the Union’s approach through international cooperation and ensuring a consistent reply worldwide to the opportunities and risks inherent in these technologies.
2020/05/29
Committee: JURI
Amendment 625 #

2020/2012(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies developed, deployed or used in the Union shall comply with relevant governance standards establishdrafted by the European Commission or another relevant institution, body, office or agency of the Union designated for this task and implemented by the national supervisory authorities referred to in Article 14 in accordance with Union law, principles and values.
2020/05/29
Committee: JURI
Amendment 634 #

2020/2012(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall designate an independent public authority to be responsible for monitoring the application of this Regulation (‘supervisory authority’). In accordance with Article 7(1) and (2), each national supervisory authority shall be responsible for assessing whether artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies, developed, deployed and used in the Union are high-risk technologies in view of the ethical principles set out in this Regulation and, if so, for assessing and monitoring their compliance with the ethicalse principles set out in this Regulation.
2020/05/29
Committee: JURI
Amendment 635 #

2020/2012(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 14 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Each national supervisory authority shall supervise the implementation of the legislation in force and, where applicable, the enforceable sectorial regulations arising when a technology is identified as a high-risk technology in view of the ethical principles set out in this Regulation. For this purpose, the supervisory authorities shall cooperate with the sectorial authorities in charge of assessing and monitoring artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including the software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies and enforcing their compliance in the light of sectorial legislation.
2020/05/29
Committee: JURI
Amendment 187 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
(2) To this end, a comprehensive approach is required with the objective of reinforcing mutual trust between Member States which should bring together policy in the areas of asylum and migration management and towards relations with relevant third countries, recognising that the effectiveness of such an approach depends on all components being jointly addressed and in an integrated manner.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 193 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
(3) This Regulation should contribute to that comprehensive approach by setting out a common framework for the actions of the Union and of the Member States in the field of asylum and migration management policies, by elaborating on the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility in accordance with Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Member States should therefore take all necessary measures, inter alia, to provide access to international protection and adequate reception conditions to those in need, to enable the effective application of the rules on determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection, to return illegally staying third-country nationals, to prevent irregular migration and unauthorised movements between thempromoting safe and legal pathways, and to provide support to other Member States in the form of solidarity contributions, as their contribution to the comprehensive approach.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 201 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4) The common framework should bring together the management of the Common European Asylum System and that of migration policy. The objective of migration policy should be to ensure the efficient management of migration flows, the fair and dignified treatment of third- country nationals residing legallyand the respect of their human rights in Member States and the prevention of, and enhanced measures to combat, illegal migration and migrant smuggling. irregular migration, migrant smuggling and trafficking, through the development of legal pathways. The scope of this Regulation should also include beneficiaries of international protection, resettled or admitted persons, as well as persons granted immediate protection.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 212 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
(5) The common framework is needed in order to effectively address the increasing phenomenon of mixed arrivals of persons in need of international protection and those who are not and in recognition that the challenge of irregular arrivals of migrants in the Union should not have to be assumed by individual Member States alone, but by the Union as a whole. To ensure that Member States have the necessary tools to effectively manage this challenge in addition to applicants for international protection, irregular migrants should also fall within the scope of this Regulation. The scope of this Regulation should also include beneficiaries of international protection, resettled or admitted persons as well as persons granted immediate protection.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 258 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
(12) In order to ensure that the necessary tools are in place to assist Member States in dealing with challenges that may arise due to the presence on their territory of third-country nationals that are vulnerable applicants for international protection, regardless of how they crossed the external borders, the Report should also indicate whether the said Member States are faced with such challenges. Those Member States should alwayso be able to rely on the use of the ‘solidarity pool’ for the relocation of vulnerable personsbinding solidarity contributions foreseen in Article 45 and, if under migratory pressure, on those provided for in Article 51 (3).
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 266 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13 a (new)
(13a) In order to effectively manage the Union's external border, an independent border monitoring mechanism should be set up in view of ensuring its compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as the EU and International law.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 268 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
(14) An effective return policy is an essential element of a well-functioning system of Union asylum and migration management, whereby those who do not have the right to stay on Union territory should return. Given that a significant share of applications for international protection may be considered unfounded, it is necessary to reinforce the effectiveness of the return policy. By increasing the efficiency of returns and reducing the gaps between asylum and return procedures, the pressure on the asylum system would decrease, facilitating the application of the rules on determining the Member State responsible for examining those applications as well as contributing to effective access to international protection for those in need.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 279 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
(15) To strengthen cooperation with third countries in the area of return and readmission of illegally staying third- country nationals, it is necessary to develop a new mechanism, including all relevant EU policies and tools, to improve the coordination of the different actions in various policy areas other than migration that the Union and the Member States may take for that purpose. That mechanism should build on the analysis carried out in accordance with Regulation (EU) 810/2019 of the European Parliament and of the Council38 or of any other information available, and take into account the Union’s overall relations with the third country. That mechanism should also serve to support the implementation of return sponsorship. _________________ 38Regulation (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.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 295 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
(16) In order to ensure a fair sharing of responsibility and a balance of effort between Member States, a binding solidarity mechanism should be established which is effective and ensures that applicants have swift acces, upon arrival and disembarkation, including following search and rescue activities and operations, should be established in order to ensure effective and swift access of applicants to the procedures for granting international protection. Such a mechanism should provide for different types of solidarity measures and should be flexible and able to adapt to the evolving nature of the migratory challenges facing a Member Statetrue solidarity as enshrined in Article 80 of the TFEU, among Member States, with third countries, and towards those seeking asylum according to the procedure foreseen in Article 14 and 45 of this Regulation.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 303 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) Given the need to ensure the smooth functioning of the solidarity mechanism established in this Regulation, a Solidarity Forum comprising the representatives of all Member States should be established and convened by the Commission.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 322 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
(18) Given the specific characteristics of disembarkations arising in the context of search and rescue operations conducted by Member States or private organisations whether under instruction from Member States or autonomously in the context of migration, this Regulation should provide for a specificn effective processdure applicable to people disembarked following those operations irrespective of whether there is a situation of migratory pressure.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 330 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
(19) Given the recurring nature of disembarkations from search and rescue operations on the different migratory routes, the annual Migration Management Report should set out the short-term projections of disembarkations anticipated for such operations and the solidarity response that would be required to contribute to the needs of the Member States of disembarkation. The Commission should adopt an implementing act establishing a pool of solidarity measures (‘the solidarity pool’) with the aim of assisting the Member State of disembarkation to address the challenges of such disembarkations. Such measures should comprise applicants for international protection that are not in the border procedure or measures in the field of strengthening of capacity in the field of asylum, reception and return, or operational support, or measures in the external dimension.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 335 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19 a (new)
(19a) In view of coordinating and optimising all relocation efforts, an EU Relocation Coordinator, to be appointed by the Commission, should assist and supervise the relocation coordination of applicants and beneficiaries found eligible for relocation. The EU Relocation Coordinator should endeavour to prioritise vulnerable persons, in particular unaccompanied minors in the relocation and transfers. The EU Relocation Coordinator should, in cooperation with the Commission and the Asylum Agency, also promote coherent working methods, for the verification of any meaningful links that the persons eligible for relocation might have with Member States of relocation.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 342 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
(20) In order to provide a timely response to the specific situation following disembarkations from search and rescue operations, the Commission, and the EU Relocation Coordinator, with the assistance of Union Agencies, should facilitate the swift relocation and transfer of eligible applicants for international protection who are not in the border procedure. Under the , accoordination of the Commission, the European Union Asylum Agency and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency should draw up the list of eligible persons to be relocated indicating the distribution of those persons among the contributing Member Statesg to Article 14.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 358 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
(22) The overall contribution of each Member State to the solidarity pool should be determined through indications by Member States of the measures by which they wish to contribute. Where Member States contributions are insufficient to provide for a sustainable solidarity response the Commission should be empowered to adopt an implementing act setting out the total number of third- country nationals to be covered by relocation and the share of this number for each Member State calculated according to a distribution key based on the population and the GDP of each Member State. Where the indications from Member States to take measures in the field of capacity or the external dimension would lead to a shortfall of greater than 30% of the total number of relocations identified in the Migration Management Report, the Commission should be able to adjust the contributions of these Member States which should then contribute half of their share identified according to the distribution key either by way or relocation, or when so indicated, through return sponsorship.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 365 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22 a (new)
(22a) Where no meaningful links can be established, the share of solidarity contribution for each Member State shall follow the size of the population, the total GDP and its unemployment rate, according to the latest available Eurostat data.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 369 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
(23) In order to ensure that support measures are available at all times to address the specific situation of disembarkations from search and rescue operations, where the number of disembarkations following search and rescue operation have reached 80% of the solidarity pools for one or more of the benefitting Member States, the Commission should adopt amended implementing acts increasing the total number of contributions by 50%.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 381 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
(24) TheA specific solidarity mechanism should also address the situations of migratory pressure in particular for those Member States which due to their geographical location are exposed to or likely to be exposed towhere one or more Member States, in particular, due to their geographical location and a constant level of arrivals, including after disembarkation and search and rescue activities and operations are under migratory pressure. For this purpose, the Commission should adopt a report identifying whether a Member State is under migratory pressure and setting out the measures that could support that Member State in addressing the situation of migratory pressure.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 392 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
(25) When assessing whether a Member State is under migratory pressure the Commission, based on a broad qualitative and quantitative assessment, should take account of a broad range of factors, including the number of asylum applicants, irregular border crossings, return decisions issued and enforced, and relations with relevant third countriesvulnerabilities of asylum applicants and migrants, irregular border crossings, the capacity of a Member State in managing its asylum and reception caseload. The solidarity response should be designed on a case-by-case basis in order to be tailor- made to the needs of the Member State in question.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 404 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
(26) Only persons who are more likely to have a right to stay in the Union should be relocated. Therefore, the scope of relocation of applicants for international protection should be limited to those who are not subject to the border procedure set out in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedure Regulation].deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 410 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
(27) The solidarity mechanism should include measures to promote a fair sharing of responsibility and a balance of effort between Member States also in the area of return. Through return sponsorship, a Member State should commit to support a Member State under migratory pressure in carrying out the necessary activities to return illegally staying third-country nationals, bearing in mind that the benefitting Member State remains responsible for carrying out the return while the individuals are present on its territory. Where such activities have been unsuccessful after a period of 8 months, the sponsoring Member States should transfer these persons in line with the procedures set out in this Regulation and apply Directive 2008/115/EC; if relevant, Member States may recognise the return decision issued by the benefitting Member State in application of Council Directive 2001/4039 . Return sponsorship should form part of the common EU system of returns, including operational support provided through the European Border and Coast Guard Agency and the application of the coordination mechanism to promote effective cooperation with third countries in the area of return and readmission. _________________ 39Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals, OJ L 149, 2.6.2001, p. 34.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 424 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
(28) Member States should notify the type of solidarity contributions that they will take through the completion of a solidarity response plan. Where Member States are themselves benefitting Member States they should not be obliged to make solidarity contributions to other Member States. At the same time, where a Member State has incurred a heavy migratory burden in previous years, due to a high number of applications for international protection it should be possible for a Member State to request a reduction of its share of the solidarity contribution to Member States under migratory pressure where such contribution consists of relocation or return sponsorship. That reduction should be shared proportionately among the other Member States taking such measures.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 436 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
(29) Where the Migration Management Report identifies needs in a Member State under migratory pressure in the field of capacity measures in asylum, reception and return or in the external dimension, contributing Member States should be able to make contributions to these needs instead of relocation or return sponsorship. In order to ensure that such contributions are in proportion to the share of the contributing Member State the Commission should be able to increase or decrease of such contributions in the implementing act. Where the indications from Member States to take measures in the field of capacity or the external dimension would lead to a shortfall greater than 30% of the required number of persons to be relocated or subject to return sponsorship, the Commission should be able to adjust the contributions of these Member States in order to ensure that they contribute half of their share to relocation or return sponsorship.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 454 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
(30) In order to ensure a comprehensive and effective solidarity response and in order to give clarity to Member States receiving support, the Commission should adopt an implementing act specifying the contributions to be made by each Member State. Such contributions should always be based on the type of contributions indicated by the Member State concerned in the solidarity response plan, except where that Member State failed to submit one. In such cases, the measures set out in the implementing act for the Member State concerned should be determined by the Commission.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 460 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
(31) A distribution key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States should be applied as a point of reference for the operation of the solidarity mechanism enabling the determination of the overall contribution of each Member State.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 465 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
(32) A Member State should be able to take, at its own initiative or at the request of another Member State, other solidarity measures on a voluntary basis to assist that Member State in addressing the migratory situation or to prevent migratory pressure. Those contributions should include measures aimed at strengthening the capacity of the Member State under pressure or at responding to migratory trends through cooperation with third countries. In addition, such solidarity measures should include relocation of third-country nationals that are in the border procedure as well as illegally staying third-country nationals. In order to incentivise voluntary solidarity, where Member States make voluntary contributions in the form of relocation or return sponsorship, those contributions should be taken into account in the implementing act provided for in respect of situations of migratory pressure.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 477 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
(33) The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) has been built progressively as a common area of protection based on the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as supplemented by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967 (‘the Geneva Convention’), thus ensuring that no person is sent back to persecution, in compliance with the principle of non- refoulement. In this respect, and without the responsibility criteria laid down in this Regulation being affected, Member States, all respectings long as they respect human rights and the principle of non- refoulement, are considered as safe countries for third- country nationals.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 484 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
(34) It is appropriate that a clear and workable method for determining the Member State responsible for the examination of an application for international protection should be included in the Common European Asylum System40 . That method should be based on objective, fair criteria both for the Member States and for the persons concerned. It should, in particular, make it possible to determine rapidly the Member State responsible, so as to guarantee effective access to the procedures for granting international protection and not to compromise the objective of the rapid processing of applications for international protection, namely meaningful links. _________________ 40As set out by the European Council at its special meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 497 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
(35) This Regulation should be based on the principles underlying Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council41 while developingand the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility as part of the common framework, in line with Article 80 of TFEU. To that end, athe new solidarity mechanism should enable a strengthened preparedness of Member States to manage migration, to address situations where Member States are faced with migratory pressure and to facilitate regular solidarity support among Member States. _________________ 41Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 31.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 503 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
(37) Persons granted immediate protection pursuant to Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Regulation addressing situations of crisis and force majeure in the field of asylum and migration] should continue to be considered as applicants for international protection, in view of their pending (suspended) application for international protection within the meaning of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedure Regulation]. As such, they should fall under the scope of this Regulation and be considered as applicants for the purpose of applying the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining their applications for international protection or the procedure for relocation as set out in this Regulation.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 510 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
(38) In order to limit unauthorised movements and to ensure that the Member States have the necessary tools to ensure transfers of beneficiaries of international protection who entered the territory of another Member State than the Member State responsible without fulfilling the conditions of stay in that other Member State to the Member State responsible, and to ensure effective solidarity between Member States, this Regulation should also apply to beneficiaries of international protection. Likewise, this Regulation should apply to persons resettled or admitted by a Member State in accordance with Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Union Resettlement Framework Regulation] or who are granted international protection or humanitarian status under a national resettlement scheme.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 537 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 43
(43) In accordance with the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration of Member States when applying this Regulation. In assessing the best interests of the child, Member States should, in particular, take due account of the minor’s well-being and social development, safety and security considerations and the views of the minor in accordance with his or her age and maturity, including his or her background and should follow an independent evaluation of his or her best interest by the relevant child protection authorities. In addition, specific procedural guarantees for unaccompanied minors should be laid down on account of their particular vulnerability.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 554 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 45
(45) In order to prevent that persons who represent a security risk are transferred among the Member States, it is necessary to ensure that the Member State where an application is first registered does not apply the responsibilty criteria or the benefitting Member State does not apply the relocation procedure where there are reasonable grounds to consider the person concerned a danger to national security or public order.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 569 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 47
(47) The definition of a family member in this Regulation should include the sibling or siblings of the applicant, grandparent or grandparents of the applicant. Reuniting siblingsfamily is of particular importance for improving the chances of integration of applicants and hence reducing unauthorised movements. The scope of the definition of family member should also reflect the reality of current migratory trends, according to which applicants often arrive to the territory of the Member States after a prolonged period of time in transit. The definition should therefore include families formed outside the country of origin, but before their arrival on the territory of the Member State. This limited and targeted enlargement of the scope of the definition is expected to reduce the incentive for some unauthorised movements of asylum seekers within the EU.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 574 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48
(48) In order to ensure full respect for the principle of family unity and for the best interests of the child, the existence of a relationship of dependency between an applicant and his or her child, sibling or parent on account of the applicant’s pregnancy or maternity, state of health or old age, should be a binding responsibility criterion. When the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the presence of a family member or relative on the territory of another Member State who can take care of him or her should also become a binding responsibility criterion. In order to discourage unauthorisedonwards movements of unaccompanied minors, which are not in their best interests, in the absence of a family member or a relative, the Member State responsible should be that where the unaccompanied minor’s application for international protection was first registered, unless it is demonstrated that this would notminor is present, unless it is assessed not to be in the best interests of the child. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to another Member State, the transferring Member State should make sure that that Member State will take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure the adequate protection of the child, and. For unaccompanied minors, in particular, the prompt appointment of a representative or representativesguardian tasked with safeguarding respect for all the rights to which they are entitled, as well as prompt access for free legal assistance. When considering or implementing the transfer of a minor, Member States should promote and facilitate the continuity and stability of the support and assistance provided to a minor. Member states should promote and facilitate transnational cooperation between these actors, including sharing of information about the minor, with the informed consent of the minor. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor should be preceded by an individual assessment of his or her best interests by staff with the necessary qualifications and expertise.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 600 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 51
(51) Considering that a Member State should remain responsible for a person who has irregularly entered its territory, it is also necessary to include the situation when the person enters the territory following a search and rescue operation. A derogation from this responsibility criterion should be laid down for the situation where a Member State has relocated persons having crossed the external border of another Member State irregularly or, until the responsibility of another Member state has been determined, for a person who has irregularly entered its territory by land, air and sea, including after disembarkation and following a search and rescue operation. In such a situation, the Member State of relocation should be responsibile if the person applies for international protections and activities.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 605 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 52
(52) Any Member State should be able to derogate from the responsibility criteria in particular on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, in order to bring together family members, relatives or any other family relations and examine an application for international protection registered with it or with another Member State, even if such examination is not its responsibility under the binding criteria laid down in this Regulation.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 611 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 53
(53) In order to ensure that the procedures set out in this Regulation are respected and to prevent obstacles to the efficient application of this Regulation, in particular in order to avoid absconding and unauthorised movements betweenthe Member State and the competent authorities of the Member Sstates, it is necessary to establish clear obligations to be complied with by the applicant in the context of the procedure, of which he or she should be duly informed in a timely manner. Violation of those legal obassisted by the Asylum Agency, shall ensure as soon as possible that the third country national or stateless person who intends to make an appligcations should lead to appropriate and propor to internationatel procedural consequences for the applicant and to appropriate and proportionate consequences in terms of his or her reception conditions. In line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Member State where such an applicant is present should in any case ensure that the immediate material needs of that person are coveredtection fully cooperates in matters covered by this Regulation, informing him or her of his or her rights and obligations.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 622 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 54
(54) In order to limit the possibility for applicants’ behaviour to lead to the cessation or shift of responsibility to another Member State, rules allowing for cessation or shift of responsibility where the person leaves the territory of the Member States for at least three months during examination of the application or absconds to evade a transfer to the Member State responsible for more than 18 months should be deleted. The shift of responsibility when the time limit for sending a take back notification has not been respected by the notifying Member State should also be removed in order to discourage circumventing the rules and obstruction of procedure. In situations where a person has entered a Member State irregularly without applying for asylum, the period after which the responsibility of that Member State ceases and another Member State where that person subsequently applies becomes responsible should be extended, to further incentivise persons to comply with the rules and apply in the first Member State of entry and hence limit unauthorisedonwards movements and increase the overall efficiency of the CEAS.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 634 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 56
(56) In order to guarantee effective protection of the rights of the persons concerned, legal safeguards and the right to an effective remedy in respect of decisions regarding transfers to the Member State responsible should be established, in accordance, in particular, with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In order to ensure that international law is respected, an effective remedy against such decisions should cover both the examination of the application of this Regulation and of the legal and factual situation in the Member State to which the applicant is transferred. The scope of the effective remedy should be limited to an assessment of whether applicants' fundamental rights to respect of family life, the rights of the child, or the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment risk to be infringed upon.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 640 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58
(58) In order to ensure the speedy determination of responsibility, the deadlines for making and replying to requests to take charge, for making take back notifications, as well as for making and deciding on appeals, should be streamlined and shortened.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 656 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 59
(59) Minors and unaccompanied minors shall never be detained. The detention of applicants should be applied in accordance with the underlying principle that a person should not be held in detention for the sole reason that he or she is seeking international protection. Detention should be for as short a period as possible and subject to the principles of necessity and proportionality thereby only being allowed as a measure of last resort. In particular, the detention of applicants must be in accordance with Article 31 of the Geneva Convention. The procedures provided for under this Regulation in respect of a detained person should be applied as a matter of priority, within the shortest possible deadlines. As regards the general guarantees governing detention, as well as detention conditions, where appropriate, Member States should apply the provisions of Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Reception Conditions Directive] also to persons detained on the basis of this Regulation.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 745 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) establishes a sustainable mechanism for solidarity as enshrined in Article 80 of the TFEU;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 766 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) ‘applicant’ means a third-country national or a stateless person who has made an application for international protection in respect of which a decision has not been taken, or has been taken and is either subject to or can still be subject to a remedy in the Member State concerned, irrespective of whether the applicant has a right to remain or is allowed to remain in accordance with Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedure Regulation], including a person who has been granted immediate protection pursuant to Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Regulation addressing situations of crisis and force majeure in the field of asylum and migration], and individuals awaiting an appeal decision;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 780 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – introductory part
(g) ‘family members’ means, insofar as the family already existed before the applicant or the family member arrived on the territory of the Member States, the following members of the applicant’s or beneficiaries' family who are present on the territory of the Member States:
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 784 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – point i
(i) the spousepartner of the applicant or his or her unmarried partner in a stable relationship, where the law or practice of the Member State concerned treats unmarried couples in a way comparable to married couples under its law relating to third-country nationals,beneficiary;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 791 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – point ii
(ii) the minor children of couplepartners referred to in the first indent or of the applicant, on condition that they are unmarriedr beneficiary, and regardless of whether they were born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under national law,
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 797 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – point iii
(iii) where the applicant is a minor and unmarried, the father, mother or another adult responsible for the applicant, whether by law or by the practice of the Member State where the adult is present,
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 801 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – point iv
(iv) where the beneficiary of international protection is a minor and unmarried, the father, mother or another adult responsible for him or her whether by law or by the practice of the Member State where the adult or beneficiary of international protection is present,
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 810 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – point v
(v) the sibling or siblings, and the grandparent or grandparents of the applicant or beneficiary;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 815 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point h
(h) ‘relative’ means the applicant’s adult aunt or uncle, or grandparentcousin who is present in the territory of a Member State, regardless of whether the applicant was born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under national law;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 827 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point k
(k) ‘representativeguardian’ means a person or an organisation appointed by the competent bodies in order to assist and represent an unaccompanied minor in procedures provided for in this Regulation with a view to ensuring the best interests of the child and exercising legal capacity for the minor where necessary;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 831 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point m a (new)
(ma) “Meaningful links” means any of the following: the possession of a diploma or qualification, the lawful presence of relatives, being beneficiary of a sponsorship, strong linguistic and cultural ties, previous legal stays or residence;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 847 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point q
(q) ‘risk of absconding’ means the existence of specific reasons and circumstances in an individual case, which are based on objective criteria clearly defined by national law to believe that an applicant who is subject to a transfer procedure may absconlaw in the light of specific circumstances of the persons involved;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 853 #

2020/0279(COD)

(r) ‘benefitting Member State’ means the Member State benefitting from the solidarity measures in situations of migratory pressure or for, including following disembarkations following and search and rescue activities and operations as set out in Chapters I-III of Part IV of this Regulation;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 861 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point t
(t) ‘sponsoring Member State’ means a Member State that commits to return illegally staying third-country nationals to the benefit of another Member State, providing the return sponsorship referred to in Article 55 of this Regulation;deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 869 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point u
(u) ‘relocation’ means the transfer of a third-country national or a stateless person, or a beneficiary of international protection from the territory of a benefitting Member State to the territory of a contributing Member State;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 870 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point u a (new)
(ua) the EU Relocation Coordinator is the person appointed by the Commission and defined in Article 13a of this Regulation and Article 2 (f) of the Crisis Regulation
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 874 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point v
(v) ‘search and rescue operations’ means operations of search and rescue activities as referred to in the 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue adopted in Hamburg, Germany on 27 April 1979; , and operations as referred to in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 656/20141a; _________________ 1aRegulation (EU) No 656/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing rules for the surveillance of the external sea borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 882 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point w
(w) ‘migratory pressure’ means a situation where there is a large numberone or more Member States face a constant level of arrivals of third- country nationals or stateless persons, or a risk of such arrivals, including where this stems from arrivals following search and rescue operations, as a result of the geographical location of a Member State and the specific developments in third countries which generate migratory movements that place a burden ev, including due to disembarkation in the context of search and rescue operations, which would undermine the efficient functioning of the procedures foreseen oin well-prepared asylum and reception systems and requires immediate acArticle 14 and 45 of this Regulation;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 892 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point z
(z) ‘return decision’ means an administrative or judicial decision or act stating or declaring the stay of a third- country national to be illegalrregular and imposing or stating an obligation to return that respectspursuant to Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council54 ; _________________ 54 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.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 894 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point aa
(aa) ‘illegalrregularly staying third-country national’ means a third-country national who does not fulfil or no longer fulfils the conditions of entry as set out in Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 or other conditions for entry, stay or residence in a Member State.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 913 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) mutually-beneficial partnerships and close cooperation with relevant third countries, including on legal pathways for third-country nationals in need of international protection and for those otherwise admitted to reside legally in the Member States addressing the root causes of irregular migration, supporting partners hosting large numbers of migrants and refugees in need of protection and building their capacities in border, asylum and migration management, preventing and combatting irregular migration and migrant smuggling, and enhancing cooperation on readmission;deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 927 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) full implementation of the common visa policy;deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 933 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) effective management and prevention of irregular migration;deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 945 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) effective management of the Union’s external borders, based on the European integrated border managthrough the creation and development of an adequately resourced independent monitoring mechanism in line with Article 18 and 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of non-refoulement;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 965 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point h
(h) determination of the Member State responsible for the examination of an application for international protection, based on shared responsibility and rules and mechanisms for solidarity, as enshrined in Article 80 the TFEU;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 976 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point j
(j) effective management of the return of illegally staying third-country nationals;deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 985 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point l
(l) measures aimed at reducing and tackling the enabling factors of irregular migration to and illegal stay in the Union, including illegal employment;deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 991 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point m
(m) full deployment and use of the operational tools set up at Union level, notably the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, the Asylum Agency, EU- LISA and Europol, as well as large-scale Union Information Technology systems;deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1023 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. In implementing their obligations, the Member States shall observe the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, as enshrined in Article 80 of the TFEU, and shall take into account the shared interest in the effective functioning of the Union’s asylum and migration management policies. Member States shall:
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1034 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) establish and maintain national asylum and migration management systems that provide access to international and national protection procedures, grant such protection to those who are in need and ensure the dignified return tof those who are illegalrregularly staying;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1047 #

2020/0279(COD)

(b) take all measures necessary and proportionate to reduce and prevent irregular migration to the territories of the Member States, in close cooperation and partnership with relevant third countries, including as regards the prevention and fight against migrant smugglingto ensure genuine and effective access to means of legal entry in cooperation with relevant third countries;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1056 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) provide and invest in adequate reception conditions, including measures to protect those with special needs;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1061 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) apply correctly and expeditiously the rules on the determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection and, where necessary, carry out the transfer to the Member State responsible pursuant to Chapters I-VI of Part III, Chapter I of Part IV;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1071 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) take all reasonable and proportionate measures to prevent and correct unauthorised movements between Member States.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1106 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) relevant reports and analyses from Union agencies, including the Fundamental Rights Agency;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1108 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) information gathered in the course of evaluations undertaken in the Schengen evaluation and monitoring mechanism in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1053/201355 . _________________ 55Council Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013 of 7 October 2013 establishing an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis and repealing the Decision of the Executive Committee of 16 September 1998 setting up a Standing Committee on the evaluation and implementation of Schengen, OJ L 295, 6.11.2013, p. 27.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1111 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
(da) the information provided by competent international organizations and independent monitoring authorities concerning the respect of the principles and obligations at the EU and international level and the protection of the fundamental rights of applicants to international protection;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1135 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 6
6. The Commission shall monitor and provide information on the migratory situation through regular situational reports based on good quality data and information provided by Member States, the External Action Service, the Asylum Agency, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, Europol and the Fundamental Rights Agency and notably the information gathered within the framework of the Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint and its Network, and reports provided by the organizations in Article 6 (2) (da).
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1140 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7
1. basis of the analysis carried out in accordance with Article 25a(2) or (4) of Regulation (EU) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council57 and of any other information available, considers that a third country is not cooperating sufficiently on the readmission of illegally staying third- country nationals, and without prejudice to Article 25(a)(5) of that Regulation, it shall submit a report to the Council including, where appropriate, the identification of any measures which could be taken to improve the cooperation of that third country as regards readmission, taking into account the Union’s overall relations with the third country. 2. it appropriate, it shall also identify in its report measures designed to promote cooperation among the Member States to facilitate tArticle 7 deleted Cooperation with third countries to facilitate return and readmission Where the Commission, on the Whe return of illegal staying third-country nationals. 3. to in paragraph 1, the Commission and the Council, within their respective competencies, shall consider the appropriate actions taking into account the Union’s overall relations with the third country. 4. European Parliament regularly informed of the implementation of this Article. _________________ 57Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 13 July 2009, establishing a Community Code on Visas, OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1. the Commission considers On the basis of the report referred The Commission shall keep the
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1185 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. Where no Member State responsible can be designated on the basis of the criteria listed in this Regulation, the first Member State in whichresponsible for examining the application for international protection was registered shall be responsible for examining itshall be determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 45.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1195 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Where it is impossible for a Member State to transfer an applicant or a beneficiary of international protection to the Member State primarily designated as responsible because there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditionis a real risk of serious violation of fundamental rights for the applicants inor that Member State, resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Unione beneficiary of international protection in that Member State, the determining Member State shall continue to examine the criteria set out in Chapter II of Part III in order to establish whether another Member State can be designated as responsible.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1200 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Where a Member State cannot carry out the transfer pursuant to the first subparagraph to any Member State designated on the basis of the criteria set out in Chapter II of Part III or of the procedure laid down in Chapter I of Part IV, or to the first Member State with which the application was registered, that Member State shall become the Member State responsible.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1204 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. If a security check provided for in Article 11 of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Screening Regulation] has not been carried out, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was registered shall examine whether there are reasonable grounds to consider the applicant a danger to national security or public order of that Member State as soon as possible after the registration of the application, before applying the criteria for determining the Member State responsible pursuant to Chapter II or the clauses set out in Chapter III of Part III. If a security check provided for in Article 11 of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Screening Regulation] has been carried out, but the first Member State in which the application for international protection was registered has justified reasons to examine whether there are reasonable grounds to consider the applicant a danger to national security or public order of that Member State, that Member State shall carry out the examination as soon as possible after the registration of the application, before applying the criteria for determining the Member State responsible pursuant to Chapter II or the clauses set out in Chapter III of Part III. Where the security check carried out in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Screening Regulation] or in accordance with the first and second subparagraphs of this paragraph shows that there are reasonable grounds to consider the applicant a danger to national security or public order of the Member State carrying out the security check, that Member State shall be the Member State responsible.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1216 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. The Member State in which the applicant or a beneficiary of international protection is present shall, however, ensure that the designation of the Member State responsible does not worsen a situation where the fundamental rights of that applicant have been infringed by using a procedure for determining the Member State responsible which takes an unreasonable length of time. If necessary, that Member State must itself examine the application in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article25.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1219 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 5
5. Each Member State shall retain the right to send an applicant to a safe third country, subject to the rules and safeguards laid down in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedure Regulation].deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1223 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9
1. stateless person intends to make an application for international protection, the application shall be made and registered in the Member State of first entry. 2. where a third-country national or stateless person is in possession of a valid residence permit or a valid visa, the application shall be made and registered in the Member State that issued the residence permit or visa. Where a third-country national or stateless person who intends to make an application for international protection is in possession of a residence permit or visa which has expiredArticle 9 deleted Obligations of the applicant Where a third-country national or By derogation from paragraph 1, tThe applicationt shall be made and registered in the Member State where he or she is present. 3. with the competent authorities of the Member States in matters covered by this Regulation, in particular by submitting as soon as possible and at the latest during the interview referred to in Article 12, all the elements and information available to him or her relevant for determining the Member State responsible. Where the applicant is not in a position at the time of the interview to submit evidence to substantiate the elements and information provided, the competent authority may set a time limit within the period referred to in Article 29(1) for submitting such evidence. 4. be present in: (a) paragraphs 1 and 2 pending the determination of the Member State responsible and, where applicable, the implementation of the transfer procedure; (b) (c) the Member State of relocation following a transfer pursuant to Article 57(9). 5. notified to the applicant in accordance with Article 32(2) and Article 57(8), the applicant shall comply with that decision.fully cooperate The applicant shall be required to the Member State referred to in the Member State responsible; Where a transfer decision is
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1254 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10
Consequences of non-compliance 1. to the reception conditions set out in Articles 15 to 17 of Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Reception Conditions Directive] pursuant to Article 17a of that Directive in any Member State other than the one in which he or she is required to be present pursuant to Article 9(4) of this Regulation from the moment he or she has been notified of a decision to transfer him or her to the Member State responsible, provided that the applicant has been informed of that consequence pursuant to Article 8(2), point (b) of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Screening Regulation]. This shall be without prejudice to the need to ensure a standard of living in accordance with Union law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and international obligations. 2. for determining the Member State responsible submitted after expiry of the time limit referred to in Article 9(3) shall not be taken into account by the competent authorities.0 deleted The applicant shall not be entitled Elements and information relevant
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1272 #
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1273 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph -1 (new)
-1. As soon as possible the Member State and the competent authorities of the Member State, assisted by the Asylum Agency, shall ensure that the third country national or stateless person, who intends to make an application to international protection, fully cooperates in matters covered by this Regulation, by informing him or her:
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1281 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) that the right to apply for international protection does not encompass a choice by the applicant in relation to either the Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection or the Member State of relocation;deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1285 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) of the objectives of this Regulation and the consequences of making another application in a different Member State as well as the consequences of leaving the Member State where he or she is required to be present pursuant to Article 9(4), in particular that the applicant shall only be entitled to the reception conditions as set out in Article 10(1);deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1292 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) of the objectives of this Regulation, the criteria and the procedures for determining the Member State responsible, the hierarchy of such criteria in the different steps of the procedure and their duration, including the specific criteria applied by Member states requested or notified in the individual case;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1299 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) of the aim of the personal interview pursuant to Article 12 and the obligation to submit and substantiate orally or through the provision of documents information as soon as possible in the procedure any relevant information that could help to establish the presence of family members, relatives or any other family relations in the Member States, including the means by which the applicant can submit such information, as well as any assistance that the Member State can offer with regard to the tracing of family members or relatives;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1300 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) the applicant shall be informed that his or her absconding may prejudice the conduct of the interview and that, in any case, he or she has the right to ask for the interview to be conducted;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1302 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) of the obligation for the applicant to disclose, as soon as possible in the procedure any relevant information that could help to establish any prior residence permits, visas or educational diplomas;. The competent authorities shall take into account the elements and information relevant for determining the Member state responsible submitted at any stage of the procedure, provided they have been submitted before the final decision determining the Member State responsible. In the period between the final decision and the actual transfer to a designated Member State, other relevant elements provided by the applicant shall be taken into consideration if the delay in submitting them is due to justified reasons.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1311 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) of the possibility to challenge a transfer decision within the time limit set out in Article 33(2) and of the fact that the scope of that challenge is limited as laid down in Article 33(1)existence of the rights to have an effective remedy with automatic suspensive effect before a Court or a Tribunal in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, including in a situation where no transfer decision is taken;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1319 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) of the right to be granted, on request, legal and linguistic assistance free of charge at all stages of the procedure, where the person concerned cannot afford the costs involved;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1323 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)
(ga) of the possibility under Article 25 to request the discretionary clause to be applied by any Member State from the Member State where they are present, as well as of the specific arrangements relating to the procedure;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1328 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point k
(k) in the case of an unaccompanied minor, of the role and responsibilities of the representativeguardian and of the procedure to file complaints against a representativeguardian in confidence and safety and in full respect of the child's right to be heard in this respect;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1332 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point l
(l) where applicable, of the relocation procedure set out in Articles 57 and 58.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1336 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be provided in writingthe mother tongue of the applicant or, if not possible, in a language that the applicant understands or is reasonably supposed to understand. Member States shall use the common information material drawn up in clear and plain language pursuant to paragraph 3 for that purpose. . In both cases the information shall be provided in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language. Member States shall use the common information material drawn up in clear and plain language pursuant to paragraph 3 for that purpose. The information shall be provided in writing and orally, where appropriate with the support of multimedia equipment. Oral information may be given either in individual or group sessions and applicants shall have the possibility to ask questions about the procedural steps they are expected to follow with regard to the process of determining a Member State responsible in accordance with this Regulation. When the applicant is a minor, information shall be provided in a child-friendly manner, including in both written and oral forms by appropriately trained staff and with the involvement of the guardian, notably about the process to identify family members or relatives in accordance with Article 15 of this Regulation.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1343 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Where necessary for the applicant’s proper understanding, the information shall also be supplied orally, where appropriate in connection with the personal interview as referred to in Article 12.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1350 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3
3. The Asylum Agency shall, in close cooperation with the responsible national agencies, draw up common information material, as well as a specific leaflet for unaccompanied minors, containing at least the information referred to in paragraph 1. That common information material shall also include information regarding the application of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Eurodac Regulation] and, in particular, the purpose for which the data of an applicant may be processed within Eurodac. The common information material shall be drawn up in such a manner as to enable Member States to complete it with additional Member State-specific information. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall create specific information material intended particularly for the following target groups: (a) adult applicants; (b) unaccompanied minors; (c) accompanied minors.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1354 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The competent authorities of the Member States shall keep the applicants informed of the progress of the procedures carried out under this Regulation with regard to their application. The information shall be provided in writing at regular intervals, at least every two weeks. In the case of minors, the competent authorities shall, in accordance with the same arrangements, inform both the minor and the parent or guardian. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt implementing acts to establish the arrangements for the provision of such information.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1357 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 a (new)
Article 11a Free legal assistance 1. Without prejudice to the applicant's right to choose his or her own legal representative at his or her own cost, Member States shall provide free legal assistance and representation on matters relating to the application of this Regulation at all stages of the procedure where the applicant concerned cannot afford the costs involved. Member States may request a total or partial reimbursement of the costs incurred where the decision to cover such costs was taken on the basis of false information supplied by the applicant, provided that it can be established that the applicant can afford the costs involved. 2. The legal assistance and representation shall, at least, include: (a) the provision of information on the procedure in the light of the applicant's individual circumstances; (b) assistance in the preparation of the personal interview and supporting documents and evidence to be provided as part of the interview, including participation in the personal interview; (c) an explanation of the reasons for and consequences of a transfer decision as well as information as to how to challenge that decision or how to access remedies in situations where no transfer decision is taken pursuant to Article 33 (d) the preparation of the required procedural documents and representation before a court or tribunal. In complying with this paragraph, Member states shall ensure that legal assistance and representation is not arbitrarily restricted and that the applicant’s effective access to justice is not hindered. Procedures for access to legal assistance shall be laid down in national law.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1358 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. In order to facilitate the process of determining the Member State responsible, the determining Member Statecompetent authorities of the determining Member State, assisted by the Asylum Agency, shall conduct a personal interview with the applicant. The interview shall also allow the proper understanding of the information supplied to the applicant in accordance with Article 11specific individual situation of the applicant and of the information he or she supplied in accordance with Article 11. The determining Member State shall proactively ask questions on all aspects of the claim that would allow for the determination of the Member States responsible. In any case, the presence of the legal representative of the applicant or of a representative of an institution for the protection and assistance of asylum seekers registered in the Member State shall be allowed at the interview.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1364 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. The personal interview may be omitdeleted wthere: (a) (b) personal interview and has not provided justified reasons for his or her absence; (c) information referred to in Article 11, the applicant has already provided the information relevant to determine the Member State responsible by other means. The Member State omitting the interview shall give the applicant the opportunity to present all further information which is relevant to correctly determine the Member State responsible within the period referred to in Article 29(1). applicant has absconded; the applicant has not attended the after having received the
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1373 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3
3. The personal interview shall take place in a timely manner and, in any event, before any take charge request is made pursuant to Article 29 or take back request pursuant to Article 31.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1379 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4
4. The personal interview shall be conducted in the mother tongue of the applicant or in a language that the applicant understands or is reasonably supposed to understand and in which he or she is able to communicate. Interviews of unaccompanied minors shall be conducted in a child- friendly manner, by staff who are appropriately trained and qualified under national law, in the presence of the representativeguardian and, where applicable, the minor’s legal advisor. Where necessary, Member States shall have recourse to an interpreter, and where appropriate a cultural mediator, who is able to ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the person conducting the personal interview. The applicant may request to be interviewed and assisted by staff of the same sex.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1390 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. The Member State shall ensure that there are appropriate standard operating procedures in place in order to ensure that appropriate protection measures are taken with respect to applicants at risk of being exploited for the purposes of trafficking in human beings or other organised crime activities.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1394 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 6
6. The Member State conducting the 6. personal interview shall make adraft written summary thereof which shall contain at least the main information supplminutes. The main elements to be included in the minutes shall, by the end of the interview, be verified by the applicant, at the interview. The summary may either take the form of a report or a standard formnd, where relevant, by the guardian and the legal representative. The Member State shall ensure that the applicant or the legal advisor or other counsellor who is representing the applicant have timely access to the summaryminutes as soon as possible after the interview, and in any event before a transfer decision is taken.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1405 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Each Member State where an unaccompanied minor is presents shall ensure that he or she isminors are represented and assisted by a representativeguardian with respect to the relevant procedures provided for in this Regulation. The representativeguardian shall have the resources, qualifications, training and, expertise and independence to ensure that the best interests of the minor are taken into consideration during the procedures carried out under this Regulation. Such representative shall have access to the content of the relevant documents in the applicant’s file including the specific information material for unaccompanied minors.minors, and shall inform the child accordingly about the procedure. The guardian shall be appointed as soon as possible but, at the latest, within two days after the arrival, and in any event prior to the collection of biometric data pursuant to Articles 10, 13 and 14a of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX (Eurodac Regulation)
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1411 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Where an organisation is appointed as a representativeguardian, it shall designate a person responsible for carrying out its duties in respect of the minor. The first subparagraph shall apply to that person.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1414 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
The representativeguardian provided for in the first subparagraph may be the same person or organisation as provided for in Article 22 of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedure Regulation].
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1416 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. The representative of an unaccompanied minor shall bguardian shall represent the minvolvedor in the process of establishing the Member State responsible under this Regulation. T and any other representativeight recognized to the minor. The guardian shall assist the unaccompanied minor to provide information relevant to the assessment of his or her best interests in accordance with paragraph 4, including the exercise of the right to be heard, and shall support his or her engagement with other actors, such as family tracing organisations, where appropriate for that purpose. , and with due regard to confidentiality obligations to the minor. The guardian shall ensure the minor has access to information, legal advice and representation concerning the procedures under this Regulation and shall keep the minor informed on the progress in the procedures under this Regulation concerning him or her. The guardian shall have access to the content of the relevant documents in the minor's file including the specific information material for unaccompanied minors and the forms provided for in Article 6. Guardians shall receive regular training and support to undertake their tasks.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1424 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. In assessing the best interests of the child, Member States shall closely cooperate with each other and shall, in particular, take due account of the following factorsnon-exhaustive list of factors and rights of the child:
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1429 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – point a
(a) the preservation of family life, including family reunification possibilities;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1436 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – point b
(b) the minor’s well-being and social development, taking into particular consideration the minor’s backgroundethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background and further having regard to the need for stability and continuity in care and custodial arrangements and access to health and education services;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1449 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – point c
(c) safety and security considerations, in particular where there is a risk of the minor being a victim of any form of violence and exploitation, including trafficking in human beings or violence within the family;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1451 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – point c a (new)
(ca) situations of vulnerability, including psycho-physical trauma, specific health needs and disability;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1458 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – point d a (new)
(da) the need for decisions concerning minors to be treated with priority;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1459 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – point d b (new)
(db) In assessing the best interests of the minor, the minor's right to be heard must be guaranteed to every child capable of forming his or her own views.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1461 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – point e
(e) where the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the information provided by the representativeguardian in the Member State where the unaccompanied minor is present.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1467 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 5
5. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to the Member State responsible or, where applicable, to the Member State of relocation, the transferring Member State shall make surobtain guarantees assessed on the individual case that the Member State responsible or the Member State of relocation takes the measures referred to in Articles 14 and 23 of Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Reception Conditions Directive] and Article 22 of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedure Regulation] without delay. Any decision to transfer an unaccompaniedor not transfer a minor shall be preceded by an individual and multidisciplinary assessment of his/her best interests. The assessment shall be based on the factors listed in paragraph 4 and the conclusions of the assessment on these factors shall be clearly stated in the transfer decision. The assessment shall be done swiftly by multidisciplinary staff with the qualifications and expertise to ensure that the best interests of the minor are taken into consideration. The multidisciplinary assessment shall involve competent staff with expertise in child protection and child psychology and development and shall also include, as a minimum, the minor’s guardian and legal advisor. Before the transfer of a minor, the receiving Member State shall appoint a guardian as soon as possible, but in any event within five working days of the confirmation of the transfer decision. The competent authorities shall communicate the information regarding the guardian appointed by the receiving Member State to the current guardian together with the arrangements for the transfer.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1480 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
To that end, that Member State may call for the assistance of international or other relevant organisations, and may facilitate the minor’s access to the tracing services of such organisations., as soon as possible after an application for international protection is made, whilst protecting his or her best interest. In cases where there may be a threat to the life or integrity of the minor or his or her close relatives, particularly if they have remained in the country of origin, care must be taken to ensure that the collection, processing and circulation of information concerning those persons is undertaken on a confidential basis, so as to avoid jeopardising their safety
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1484 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2
The staff of the competent authorities referred to in Article 41 who deal with requests concerning unaccompanied minors shall have received, and shall continue to receive, appropriate training concerning the specific needs of minors, including training on rights of the child and child psychology and development. Such training shall also include modules on risk assessment to target care and protection depending on the individual needs of the minor, with a specific focus on early identification of victims of trafficking in human beings and of abuse, as well as training on good practices to prevent disappearance.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1491 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 7
7. With a view to facilitating the appropriate action to identify the family members or relatives of the unaccompanied minor living in the territory of another Member State pursuant to paragraph 6, the Commission shall adopt implementing acts including a standard form for the exchange of relevant information between Member States. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 67(2).
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1492 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13a EU Relocation Coordinator 1. With a view to supporting the mandatory relocation established in this Regulation, the Commission shall appoint an EU Relocation Coordinator, who will act as a contact point, in order to coordinate the relocation activities from the benefitting Member State to the contributing Member States implementing their obligations referred to in Article 14, 45, 51. 2. The EU Relocation Coordinator shall: (a) coordinate and support communication between the Member States involved; (b) keep an overview of the persons eligible for relocation, and follow up on the ongoing relocations, and on the contributions of the Member States involved; (c) organise, at regular intervals, meetings between the authorities of the benefitting Member State, and the contributing Member States, to establish the needs, including at an operational level, in order to facilitate the best interaction and cooperation among Member States, in the interest of the persons eligible for relocation and the efficiency of the mandatory relocation mechanism; (d) promote best practices in the field of relocation.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1494 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – title
Hierarchy of criteria upon arrival and disembarkation, including following search and rescue operations
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1497 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists referred to in Article 30(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Eurodac Regulation], that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a Member state by land, sea or air having come from a third country or where third-country nationals apply for international protection at external border crossing points or in transit zones and who do not fulfil the entry conditions set out in Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, that Member State of first entry shall apply the screening procedure according to Regulation XXX/XXX.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1500 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. That Member State, assisted by the Asylum Agency, shall arrange, upon arrival or after disembarkation, including following search and rescue operations and activities, for an interview with the applicant in order to identify his or her meaningful links with one or more member States including that of arrival. The applicant has the right to be informed and cooperate in line with article 11 of this Regulation.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1501 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. The Member State with which the applicant has meaningful links shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. If the person has meaningful links with more than one Member State, the applicant may express a preference. Otherwise, the responsible Member State will be determined with regard to the lowest number of applications received in relation to the fair share calculated according to Article 54.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1502 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 d (new)
2d. The Member State of entry, in cooperation with the Asylum Agency, shall inform the applicant of the determination and of the arrangements of the transfer to the Member State responsible for the examination, in accordance to Article 32 of this Regulation.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1503 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 e (new)
2e. If no meaningful links with a Member State are established or no criteria listed in this Chapter are applicable, the procedure established in Article 45 of this Regulation shall apply.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1506 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Where a minor is accompanied by one parent, adult sibling or other adult who holds parental responsibility for the minor, whether by law or by the practice of that Member State, and one parent or other adult who holds parental responsibility for the minor, whether by law or by the practice of that Member State, is legally present in a Member State, the determination of the Member State responsible shall be based on the objective of prioritising family unity, taking into account the best interest of the child.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1509 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. The Member State responsible shall be that where a family member of the unaccompanied minor is legally present, unlessif it is demonstrated that it is not in the best interests of the minor. Where the applicant is a married minor whose spouse is not legally present on the territory of the Member Statesin the best minor's best interest. Where the applicant is a minor, the Member State responsible shall be the Member State where the father, mother, grandparents or other adult responsible for the minor, whether by law or by the practice of that Member State, or sibling is legally present.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1518 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 5
5. In the absence of a family member or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Member State responsible shall be that where the unaccompanied minor’s application for international protection was first registered is present, unless it is demonstrated that this is not in the best interests of the minor.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1529 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 7
7. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish uniform conditions for the consultation and the exchange of information between Member States. The implementing acts shall promote the ability of the guardian and legal assistance provider to seek assistance in another State so as to gain information about the circumstances of reception and care arrangements in the other country or family reunion possibilities. This may involve contact with guardianship authority, information on access to legal assistance in the event of need to appeal. The implementing acts shall also promote and facilitate cooperation between guardians and legal assistance providers between States in the event a transfer of a minor is being contemplated or implemented, including providing for sharing of information about the minor, with the informed consent of the minor. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 67(2).
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1534 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – title
Family members who are beneficiaries of international protectionlegally reside in a Member state
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1536 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Where the applicant has a family member who has been allowed to reside as a beneficiary of international protection, regardless of whether the family was previously formed in the country of origin, who is legally residing in a Member State, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, provided that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1541 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Where the applicant has a family member in a Member State whose application for international protection in that Member State has not yet been the subject of a first decision regarding the substance, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, provided that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1554 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 4
4. Where the applicant is in possession of one or more residence documents or one or more visas which expired less than three years before the application was registered, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall apply.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1556 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 a (new)
Article 19a Previous stays If the applicant has resided legally for at least two years in a Member state with a valid residence permit, the Member state shall be responsible for examining his or her application for international protection.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1567 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21
1. basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists referred to in Article 30(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Eurodac Regulation], that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the first Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. That responsibility shall cease if the application is registered more than 3 years after the date on which that border crossing took place. 2. shall also apply where the applicant was disembarked on the territory following a search and rescue operation. 3. if it can be established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists referred to in Article 30(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Eurodac Regulation], that the applicant was relocated pursuant to Article 57 of this Regulation to another Member State after having crossed the border. In that case, that other Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.Article 21 deleted Entry Where it is established, on the The rule set out in paragraph 1 Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1582 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22
If a third-country national or a stateless person enters into the territory of the Member States through a Member State in which the need for him or her to have a vArticle 22 deleted Visa is waived, that Member State shall be responsible for examining his or her application for international protection. That responsibility shall cease if the application is registered more than three years after the date on which the person entered the territory. entry
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1589 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23
Application in an international transit Where the application for international protection is made in the international transit area of an airport of a Member State by a third-country national or a stateless person, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application.rticle 23 deleted area of an airport
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1597 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Where, on account of pregnancy, having a new-born child, serious illness, severe disability, severe trauma or old age,trauma, old age, or other relevant psychological and/or physical vulnerabilities an applicant is dependentin need onf the assistance of his or her child or , sibling, parent, or grandparent legally resident in one of the Member States, or his or her child or , sibling, parent or grandparent legally resident in one of the Member States is dependentn need onf the assistance of the applicant, Member States shall normally keep or bring together the applicant with that child or , sibling, parent, or grandparent, provided that family ties existed before the applicant arrived on the territory of the Member States, that the child or the child, sibling, parent or grandparent or the applicant is able to take care of the dependent person and that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1600 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Where there are indications that a child or , sibling, parent or grandparent is legally resident on the territory of the Member State where the dependent person is present, that Member State shall verify whether the child or , sibling, parent or grandparent can take care of the dependent person, before making a take charge request pursuant to Article 29.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1607 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 2
2. Where the child or , sibling, parent or grandparent referred to in paragraph 1 is legally resident in a Member State other than the one where the applicant is present, the Member State responsible shall be the one where the child or parent is legally resident unless the applicant’s health prevents him or her from travelling to that Member State for a significant period of time, sibling, parent or grandparent is legally resident . In such a case, the Member State responsible shall be the one where the applicant is present. Such Member State shall not be subject to the obligation to bring the child or , sibling, parent or grandparent of the applicant to its territory.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1613 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 a (new)
Article 24 a Sponsorship 1. A Member State may provide the possibility that recognised organisations working in that Member State in the field of refugee protection programmes and prevention of trafficking in human beings become the sponsor of an applicant who has applied for international protection in the Union. The sponsoring organization shall arrange for the applicant's relocation and stay in the Member State until a final decision is taken on his or her application for international protection. 2. If the Member State in which the organization is established agrees to take charge of the applicant, it becomes the Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1615 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1
1. By way of derogation from Article 8(1), each Member State may decide to examine an application for international protection by a third-country national or a stateless person registerlodged with it, even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1618 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The Member State in which an application for international protection is registered and which is carrying out the process of determining the Member State responsible, or the Member State responsible, may, at any time before a first decision regarding the substance is taken, request another Member State to take charge of an applicant in order to bring together any family relations, on humanitarian grounds based in particular on family or, cultural considerations or social ties, language skills or other meaningful links which would facilitate his or her integration into that other Member state, even where that other Member State is not responsible under the criteria laid down in Articles 15 to 18 and 24. The persons concerned shall express their consent in writing.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1620 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
The requested Member State shall carry out any necessary checks to examine the humanitarian grounds cited, and shall reply to the requesting Member State within twoone months of receipt of the request using the electronic communication network set up under Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003. A reply refusing the request shall state the reasons on which the refusal is based. Where the requested Member State accepts the request, responsibility for examining the application shall be transferred to it.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1629 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 a (new)
Article 25 a Light Family procedure 1. The determining Member State shall be responsible for conducting a special family reunification procedure for the applicant in order to ensure swift family reunification and access to the asylum procedures for applicants where there are, prima facie, sufficient indicators showing that they are likely to have the right to family reunification in accordance with Article 13, 15, 16, 24a. 2. If it is determined pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 that an applicant has, prima facie, the right to family reunification in accordance with Article 13, 15, 16 24a, the determining Member State shall notify the Member State of allocation thereof and the applicant shall be transferred to that Member State. 3. In accordance with the procedure referred to in paragraph 2, the Member State of allocation shall make the determination of whether the conditions for family reunification in accordance with Article 18 are met. If this is the case the Member state of allocation shall become the Member State responsible.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1640 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 31 and 35 of this Regulation, a beneficiary of international protection in relation to whom that Member State has been indicated as the Member State responsible under Article 11(1) of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Eurodac Regulation];deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1649 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 31 and 35 of this Regulation, a resettled or admitted person who has made an application for international protection or who is irregularly staying in a Member State other than the Member State which accepted to admit him or her in accordance with Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Union Resettlement Framework Regulation] or which granted international protection or humanitarian status under a national resettlement scheme.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1659 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The first subparagraph shall not apply if the person has already been granted international protection by the responsible Member State, provided that the beneficiary does not claim before a judge that in the Member State primarily designated as responsible there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatments and punishments, in contrast with Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, pursuant to Article 8 (3).
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1667 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The obligations specified in Article 26 shall cease where the Member State responsible can establish, when requested to take charge of or take back an applicant or another person as referred in Article 26, that the person concerned has left the territory of the Member States for at least three months, unless the person concerned is in possession of a valid residence document issued by the Member State responsible. An application registered after the period of absence referred to in the first subparagraph shall be regarded as a new application giving rise to a new procedure for determining the Member State responsible.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1691 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. If a Member State where an application for international protection has been registered considers that another Member State is responsible for examining the application, it shall, without delay and in any event within twohree months of the date on which the application was registered, request that other Member State to take charge of the applicant.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1700 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, in the case of a Eurodac hit with data recorded pursuant to Articles 13 and 14a of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Eurodac Regulation] or of a VIS hit with data recorded pursuant to Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008, the request to take charge shall be sent within onetwo months of receiving that hit.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1704 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Where the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, or the determining Member State may, where it considers that it is in the best interest of the minorrequest is based on Article 16 or 17, the determining Member State may, continue the procedure for determining the Member State responsible and request another Member State to take charge of the applicant despite the expiry of the time limits laid down in the first and second subparagraphs. With regard to minors, for the purpose of calculating the deadlines referred to in the first and second subparagraphs of this paragraph, time shall start to run when a guardian has been appointed and when the best interests assessment pursuant to Article 13, 15, 16, 17, 25a has been concluded.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1739 #
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1745 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1
1. In a situation referred to in Article 26(1), point (b), (c) or (d) the Member State where the person is present shall make a take back notificationrequest without delay and in any event within two weeks after receiving the Eurodac hit. Where the take back request is not made within the established time limit, the responsibility for examining the application for international protection shall lie with the Member State where the applicant is present.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1763 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 3
3. The notifirequested Member State shall aconfirm receipt of the notification torequest of the Member State which made the notificationrequest within onefour weeks, unless the notifirequested Member State can demonstrate within that time limit that its is not responsibility has ceasedle pursuant to Article 27.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1768 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 4
4. Failure to act within the onefour-weeks period set out in paragraph 3 shall be tantamount to confirming the receipt of the notificationrequest.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1774 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 5
5. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt uniform conditions for the preparation and submission of take back notificationrequests. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 67(2).
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1781 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1
1. The determining Member State whose take charge request as regards the applicant referred to in Article 26(1), point (a) was accepted or who made a take back notification as regards persons referred to in Article 26(1), point (b), (c) and (d) shall take a transfer decision at the latest within one week of the acceptance or notification.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1788 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 2
2. Where the requested Member State accepts to take charge of an applicant or to take back a person referred to in Article 26(1), point (b), (c) or (d), the requesting or the notifying Member State shall notify the person concerned in writing without delayin one week of the decision to transfer him or her to the Member State responsible and, where applicable, of the fact that it will not examine his or her application for international protection.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1793 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. The decision referred to in paragraph 1 shall be written in a language understandable to the applicant and contain information on the legal remedies available, including on the right to apply for suspensive effect, and on the time limits applicable for seeking such remedies and for carrying out the transfer, and shall, if necessary, contain information on the place where, and the date on which, the person concerned is required to appear, if that person is travelling to the Member State responsible by his or her own means.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1808 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The applicant or another person as referred to in Article 26(1), point (b), (c) and (d) shall have the right to an effective remedy with automatic suspensive effect, in the form of an appeal or a review, in fact and in law, against a transfer decision, before a court or tribunal.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1811 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The scope of the remedy shall be limited to an assessment of: (a) whether the transfer would result in a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment for the person concerned within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; (b) whether Articles 15 to 18 and Article 24 have been infringed, in the case of the persons taken charge of pursuant to Article 26(1), point (a).deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1823 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The person concerned shall have the right to request, within a reasonable period of Member States shall ensure that an effectimve from the notificationremedy shall confer ofn the transfer decision, a court or tribunal to suspend the implementation of the transfer decisionperson concerned the right to remain in the Member state concerned pending the outcome of his or ther appeal or review. Member States shall ensure that an effective remedy is in place by suspending the transfer, the transfer shall be automatically suspended until the decision on the first suspension request is taken. Any decision on whether to suspend the implementation of the transfer decision shall be taken within one month of the date when that request reached the competent court or tribunal.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1826 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Where the person concerned has not exercised his or her right to request suspensive effect, the appeal against, or review of, the transfer decision shall not suspend the implementation of a transfer decision.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1834 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. Member States shall ensure that legal assistance is granted on request free of charge, at all stages of the procedure, where the person concerned cannot afford the costs involved, according to Article 11a of this Regulation. Member States may provide that, as regards fees and other costs, the treatment of persons subject to this Regulation shall not be more favourable than the treatment generally accorded to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal assistance.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1838 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
Without arbitrarily restricting access to legal assistance, Member States may provide that free legal assistance and representation is not to be granted where the appeal or review is considered by the competent authority or a court or tribunal to have no tangible prospect of success.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1844 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Where a decision not to grant free legal assistance and representation pursuant to the second subparagraph is taken by an authority other than a court or tribunal, Member States shall provide the right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal to challenge that decision. Where the decision is challenged, that remedy shall be an integral part of the remedy referred to in paragraph 1.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1845 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 3
In complying with the requirements set out in this paragraph, Member States shall ensure that legal assistance and representation is not arbitrarily restricted and that effective access to justice for the person concerned is not hindered.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1848 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 4
Legal assistance shall include at least the preparation of the required procedural documents and representation before a court or tribunal and may be restricted to legal advisors or counsellors specifically designated by national law to provide assistance and representationbe in line with Article 11a.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1850 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 5
Procedures for access to legal assistance shall be laid down in national law.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1853 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall not hold a person in detention for the sole reason that he or she is subject to the procedure established by this Regulation. Detention shall, in any case, be a measure of last resort when alternatives are not available.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1858 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Minors, whether accompanied or unaccompanied, and vulnerable people according to Directive 2013/33 shall not be detained. In accordance with the principle of family unity, parents or legal or customary primary caregivers shall not be detained. Unaccompanied minors shall be placed in appropriate alternative care settings in the national child protection system in line with their best interest and taking into consideration their views and needs. Families with minor children shall be accommodated together in non- custodial, community-based placements while their immigration status is being resolved.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1866 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 2
2. Where there is a proven risk of absconding, Member States, as measure of last resort, may detain the person concerned in order to secure a transfer proceduresafter a final transfer decision has been taken and notified in accordance with this Regulation, on the basis of an individual assessment and only in so far as detention is proportional and other less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied effectively, based on an individual assessment of the person’s circumstances.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1874 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Detention shall be for as short a period as possible and shall be for no longer than the time reasonably necessary to fulfil the required administrative procedures with due diligence until the transfer under this Regulation is carried out, and in any case shall not exceed three months.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1883 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Where an applicant or another person referred to in Article 26(1), point (b), (c) or (d) is detained pursuant to this Article, the period for submitting a take charge request or a take back notificationrequest shall not exceed two weeks from the registration of the application. Where a person is detained at a later stage than the registration of the application, the period for submitting a take charge request or a take back notification shall not exceed one week from the date on which the person was placed in detention. The Member State carrying out the procedure in accordance with this Regulation shall ask for an urgent reply on a take charge request. Such reply shall be given within one week of receipt of the take charge request. Failure to reply within the one-week period shall be tantamount to accepting the take charge request and shall entail the obligation to take charge of the person, including the obligation to provide for proper arrangements for arrival.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1895 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 4
4. Where a person is detained pursuant to this Article, the detention shall be ordered in writing by judicial authorities. The detention order shall state the reasons in fact and in law on which it is based and shall contain a reference to the consideration of the available alternatives and the reasons as to way they could not be applied effectively.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1899 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 5
5. As regards the detention conditions, which shall fully respect the person's fundamental rights and the guarantees applicable to applicants detained, in order to secure the transfer procedures to the Member State responsible, Articles 9, 10 and 11 of Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Reception Conditions Directive] shall apply.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1906 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The transfer of an applicant or of another person as referred to in Article 26(1), point (b), (c) and (d), from the requesting or notifying Member State to the Member State responsible shall be carried out in accordance with the national law of the requesting or notifying Member State, after consultation between the Member States concerned, as soon as practically possible, and at the latest within six months of the acceptance of the take charge request or of the confirmation of the take back notificationrequest by another Member State or of the final decision on an appeal or review of a transfer decision where there is a suspensive effect in accordance with Article 33(3). That time limit may be extended up to a maximum of one year if the transfer cannot be carried out due to imprisonment of the person concerned for criminal purposes.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1929 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, where the person concerned absconds and the requesting or notifying Member State informs the Member State responsible before the expiry of the time limits set out in paragraph 1, first subparagraph, that the person concerned has absconded, the transferring Member State shall retain the right to carry out the transfer within the remaining time at a later stage, should the person become available to the authorities again, unless another Member State has carried out the procedures in accordance with this Regulation and transferred the person to the responsible Member State after the person absconded.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1934 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1
1. In accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Fund], a contribution shall be paid to the Member State carrying out the transfer for theThe costs necessary to transfer of an applicant or another person as referred to in Article 26(1), point (b), (c) or (d), pursuant to Article 35to the Member state responsible shall be met by the General Budget of the Union.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1939 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 1
1. The Member State carrying out the transfer of an applicant or of another person as referred to in Article 26(1), point (b), (c) or (d), shall communicate to the Member State responsible such personal data concerning the person to be transferred as is adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary for the sole purposes of ensuring that the competent authorities, in accordance with national law in the Member State responsible, are in a position to provide that person with adequate assistance, including the provision of immediate health care required in order to protect his or her vital interests, to ensure continuity in the protection and rights afforded by this Regulation and by other applicable asylum legal instruments. Those data shall be communicated to the Member State responsible within a reasonable period of time before a transfer is carried out, in order to ensure that its competent authorities in under national law have sufficient time to take the necessary measures.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1977 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 3
3. Provided it is necessary for the examination of the application for international protection, the Member State responsible may request another Member State to let it know on what grounds the applicant bases his or her application and, where applicable, the grounds for any decisions taken concerning the applicant. The other Member State may refuse to respond to the request submitted to it, if the communication of such information is likely to harm its essential interests or the protection of the liberties and fundamental rights of the person concerned or of others. In any event, communication of the information requested shall be subject to the written approval of the applicant for international protection, obtained by the requesting Member State. In that case, the applicant must know for what specific information he or she is giving his or her approval.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1994 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 3
3. Before concluding or amending any arrangement as referred to in paragraph 1, point (b), the Member States concerned shall consult the Commission as to the compatibility of the arrangement with this Regulation and with other relevant provisions of EU Law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1995 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 4
4. If the Commission considers the arrangements referred to in paragraph 1, point (b), to be incompatible with this Regulation, and with any other relevant provisions of EU Law including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, it shall, within a reasonable period, notify the Member States concerned. The Member States shall take all appropriate steps to amend the arrangement concerned within a reasonable time in such a way as to eliminate any incompatibilities observed.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2015 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Solidarity contributions for the benefit of a Member State under migratory pressureof first entry or subject to disembarkations following, including after search and rescue operations shall consist of the followand activities shall be established according to the procedure provided ing types:his Article.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2020 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) relocation of applicants who are not subject to the border procedure for the examination of an application for international protection established by Article 41 of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedure Regulation];deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2034 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) return sponsorship of illegally staying third-country nationals;deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2036 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) relocation of beneficiaries of international protection who have been granted international protection less than three years prior to adoption of an implementing act pursuant to Article 53(1);deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2045 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) capacity-building measures in the field of asylum, reception and return, operational support and measures aimed at responding to migratory trends affecting the benefitting Member State through cooperation with third countries.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2058 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Where no meaningful links can be established, the Commission, assisted by the Asylum Agency, shall identify the Member State with the lowest number of applicants in relation to its share, calculated on the basis of the distribution key, as the Member State responsible. The European Commission will immediately notify this Member State which will be responsible for examining the application and the Member State of first entry.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2061 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. The Member State of first entry, in cooperation with the Asylum Agency, shall immediately inform the applicant about the determination of responsibility as referred to in paragraph2 of this Article, and of the arrangements of the transfer to the Member State responsible for the examination, in accordance to Article 32 of this Regulation.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2062 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. The procedure established by this Article shall apply to applicants arrived in a Member State by land, air or sea, including after disembarkation and following search and rescue operations and activities.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2063 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. The share calculated according to the distribution key may be adjusted when a Member State demonstrates that over the proceeding 10 years it has been responsible for twice the Union average per capita of applicants for international protection.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2067 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 2
2. Such contributions may, pursuant to Article 56, also consist of: (a) relocation of applicants for international protection subject to the border procedure in accordance with Article 41 of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedure Regulation]; (b) relocation of illegally staying third- country nationals.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2086 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 46
Article 46 deleted Solidarity Forum shall comprise all Member States. The Commission shall convene and preside the Solidarity Forum in order to ensure the smooth functioning of this Part.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2105 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – title
47 Solidarity for disembarkations following search and rescue activities and operations
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2107 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 1
1. This Article and Articles 148 and 495 shall also apply to search and rescue oparrivals, connected to search and rescue activities as referred to in the 1979 Internations that generate recurring arrivalsal Convention Maritime on Search and Rescue adopted in Hamburg, Germany, on 27 April 1979, and operations as referred to in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No656/2014, leading to disembarkation of third- country nationals orand stateless persons on to the territory of a Member State and to vulnerable persons as set out in Article 49(4).
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2112 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 2
2. Where the Migration Management Report referred to in Article 6(4) indicates that one or more Member States faced with the situations referred to in paragraph 1, it shall also set out the total number of applicants for international protection referred to in Article 45(1), point (a) that would need to be relocated in order to assist those Member States. The report shall also identify any capacity-building measures referred to in Article 45(1), point (d) which are necessary to assist the Member State concernedIn the context of disembarkations following search and rescue activities and operations, as defined in paragraph 1, the special needs of children, including unaccompanied minors, victims of trafficking in human beings, persons in need of urgent medical assistance, disabled persons, persons in need of international protection and other persons in a particularly vulnerable situation, shall be addressed as a matter of urgency and in a spirit of solidarity, pursuant to Articles 14 and 45.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2114 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 3
3. Within two weeks of the adoption of the Migration Management Report, the Commission shall invite all other Member States that are not expected to be faced with arrivals on their territory as referred to in paragraph 1 to provide the solidarity contributions referred to in paragraph 2. In its request, the Commission shall indicate the total number of applicants to be relocated by each Member State in the form of solidarity contributions referred to in Article 45(1), point (a) by each Member State, calculated according to the distribution key set out in Article 54. The distribution key shall include the share of the benefitting Member States.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2118 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 4
4. Within one month of the adoption of the Migration Management Report, Member States shall notify the Commission of the contributions they intend to make, by completing the SAR Solidarity Response Plan set out in Annex I. Member States shall indicate whether they intend to provide contributions in the form of: (a) Article 45(1), point (a); or (b) Article 45(1), point (d) identified in the Migration Management Report; or (c) Article 45(1), point (a) of vulnerable persons pursuant to Article 49(4).deleted relocation in accordance with measures in accordance with relocation in accordance with
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2132 #

2020/0279(COD)

5. Where the Commission considers that the solidarity contributions indicated by all the Member States pursuant to paragraph 4 fall significantly short of the total solidarity contributions set out in the Migration Management Report, the Commission shall convene the Solidarity Forum. The Commission shall invite Member States to adjust the number and, where relevant, the type of contributions. Member States that adjust their contributions shall submit revised SAR Solidarity Response Plans in the course of the Solidarity Forum.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2207 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) that Member State has informed the Commission that it considers itself to be under migratory pressure; and
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2211 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) on the basis of available information, it considers that aone or more Member States may be under migratory pressure, due to a constant level of arrivals, including after disembarkation, which would undermine the effective functioning of the procedures foreseen in Articles 14 and 45 of this Regulation.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2216 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 2
2. The Asylum Agency and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency shall assist the Commission in drawing up the assessment of migratory pressure, in cooperation with the Member States in question. The Commission shall inform the European Parliament, the Council and the Member States concerned, without delay, that it is undertaking an assessment.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2221 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) the total number of applications for international protection by third-country nationals and the nationality of the applicants;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2223 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) the number of third-country nationals who have been detected by Member State authorities while not fulfilling, or no longer fulfilling, the conditions for entry, stay or residence in the Member State including overstayers within the meaning of Article 3(1)(19) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 of the European Parliament and of the Council58 ; _________________ 58 Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2017 establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) to register entry and exit data and refusal of entry data of third-country nationals crossing the external borders of the Member States and determining the conditions for access to the EES for law enforcement purposes, and amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement and Regulations (EC) No 767/2008 and (EU) No 1077/2011, OJ L 327, 9.12.2017, p. 20.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2227 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) the number of return decisions that respect Directive 2008/115/EC;deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2230 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point d
(d) the number of third-country nationals who left the territory of the Member States following a return decision that respects Directive 2008/115/EC;deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2235 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point f
(f) the number of incoming and outgoing take charge requests and take back notifications in accordance with Articles 34 and 36;deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2239 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point g
(g) the number of transfers carried out in accordance with Article 31;deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2242 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point h
(h) the number of persons apprehendidentified in connection with an irregular crossing of the external land, sea or air border;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2245 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point i
(i) the number of persons refused entry in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation EU (No) 2016/399;deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2249 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point j
(j) the number and nationality of third- country nationals disembarked and following search and rescue operations and activities, including the number of applications for international protection;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2251 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point k
(k) the number of vulnerable migrants, in particular unaccompanied minors.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2254 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point k a (new)
(ka) the capacity of the Member States under migratory pressure, in particular in its overall needs in managing its asylum and reception caseload.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2260 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 4 – point b
(b) the level of cooperation on migration with third countries of origin and transit, first countries of asylum, and safe third countries as defined in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedure Regulation];deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2263 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 4 – point f
(f) the Migration Management Report referred to in Article 6(4);deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2267 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 4 – point h
(h) information from the visa liberalisation reporting process and dialogues with third countries;deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2275 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Commission shall consult the Member States concerned during its assessment undertaken pursuant to Article 50(1).
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2281 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 2
2. In the report, the Commission shall state and explain whether the Member States concerned isare under migratory pressure.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2285 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Where the Commission concludes that the Member States concerned isare under migratory pressure, the report shall identify:
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2288 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) the capacity of the Member States under migratory pressure in the field of migration management, in particular asylum and return as well as, in particular in its overall needs in managing its asylum and returception caseload;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2292 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – point b – point i
(i) measures that the Member States under migratory pressure should take in the field of migration management, and in particular in the field of asylum and returception;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2294 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – point b – point ii
(ii) measures referred to in Article 45(1), points (a), (b) andidentified by the Commission to support the Member States concerned, including: (a) capacity building measures in the field of asylum and reception, corresponding to the needs of the Member States under pressure; (cb) to be taken by other Member States; relocation of beneficiaries of international protection who have been granted protection less than two years prior to the relocation.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2299 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – point b – point iii
(iii) measures referred to in Article 45(1), point (d) to be taken by other Member States.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2314 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1
1. Where the report referred to in Article 51 indicates that a Member State is under migratory pressure, the other Member States which are not themselves benefitting Member States shall contribute by means of the solidarity contributions referred to in Article 45(1), points (a), (b) and (c51(3) (b) (ii). Member States shall prioritise the relocation of unaccompanied minors.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2317 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 2
2. Where the report referred to in Article 51 identifies measures referred to in paragraph 3, point (b)(iii) of that Article, other Member States may contribute by means of those measures instead of measures referred to in Article 51(3)(b)(ii). Such measures shall not lead to a short fall of more than 30% of the total contributions identified in the report on migratory pressure under Article 51(3)(b)(ii).deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2325 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Within two weeks from the adoption of the report referred to in Article 51, Member States shall submit to the Commission a Solidarity Response Plan by completing the form in Annex II. The Solidarity Response Plan shall indicate the type of contributions from among those set out in Article 51(3)(b)(ii) or, where relevant, the measures set out in Article 51(3)(b)(iii) that Member States propose to take. Where Member States propose more than one type of contribution set out in Article 51(3)(b)(ii), they shall indicate the share of each.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2329 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Where the Solidarity Response Plan includes return sponsorship, Member States shall indicate the nationalities of the illegally staying third-country nationals present on the territory of the Member State concerned that they intend to sponsor.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2332 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Where Member States indicate measures set out in Article 51(3)(b)(iii) in the Solidarity Response Plan they shall also indicate the detailed arrangements and the time-frame for their implementation.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2339 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 4
4. Where the Commission considers that the solidarity contributions indicated in the Solidarity Response Plans do not correspond to the needs identified in the report on migratory pressure provided for in Article 51, it shall convene the Solidarity Forum. In such cases, the Commission shall invite Member States to adjust the type of contributions in their Solidarity Response Plans in the course of the Solidarity Forum by submitting revised Solidarity Response Plans.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2341 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 5
5. A Member State proposing solidarity contributions set out in Article 51(3)(b)(ii), may request a deduction of 10% of its share calculated according to the distribution key set out in Article 54 where it indicates in the Solidarity Response Plans that over the preceding five years it has examined twice the Union average per capita of applications for international protection.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2356 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 1
1. Within two weeks from the submission of the Solidarity Response Plans referred to in Article 52(3) or, where the Solidarity Forum is convened pursuant to Article 52(4), within two weeks from the end of the Solidarity Forum, the Commission shall adopt an implementing act laying down the solidarity contributions for the benefit of the Member States under migratory pressure to be taken by the other Member States and the timeframe for their implementation.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2357 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Where the type of contribution indicated by Member States in their solidarity response plans is that referred to in Article 45(1), point (d), the Commission shall assess whether the measures proposed are in proportion to the contributions that the Member States would have made by means of the measures referred to in Article 45(1), points (a), (b) or (c) as a result of the application of the distribution key set out in Article 54.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2360 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Where the measures proposed are not in proportion to the contributions that the contributing Member State would have made by means of the measures referred to in Article 45(1), points (a), (b) or (c), the Commission shall set out in the implementing act the measures proposed while adjusting their level.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2363 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Where the measures proposed would lead to a shortfall greater than 30% of the total number of solidarity measures identified in the report on migratory pressure under Article 51(3)(b)(ii), the contributions set out in the implementing act shall be adjusted so that those Member States indicating such measures would be required to cover 50% of their share calculated according to the distribution key set out in Article 54 through measures set out in Article 51(3)(b)(ii). The CommissionCommission considers the measures proposed are inadequate, it shall adjust measures referred to in Article 51(3)(b)(iii) indicated by those Member States accordingly.
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2364 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) the total number of persons to be relocated from the requesting Member State pursuant to Article 45(1), points (a) or (c), taking into account the capacity and needs of the requesting Member States in the area of asylum identified in the report referred to inset of measures foreseen in Article 51 (3) (b) (ii) of this Regulation, including the total number of beneficiaries of international protection pursuant to Article 51 (3) (b) (ii) (b), that shall be relocated;
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2365 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) the total number of persons to be subject to return sponsorship from the requesting Member State pursuant to Article 45(1), point (b), taking into account the capacity and needs of the requesting Member States on return identified in the report referred to in Article 51(3)(b)(ii);deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2366 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) the distribution of persons to be relocated and/or those to be subject to return sponsorship among the Member States including the benefitting Member State, on the basis of the distribution key set out in Article 54;deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2367 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 3 – point d
(d) the measures indicated by Member States pursuant to second, third and fourth subparagraph of paragraph 2.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2370 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
The distribution referred to in paragraph 3 point (c) shall be adjusted where a Member State making a request pursuant to Article 52(5) demonstrates in the Solidarity Response Plan that over the preceding 5 years it has been responsible for twice the Union average per capita of applications for international protection. In such cases the Member State shall receive a deduction of 10/% of its share calculated according to the distribution key set out in Article 54. This deduction shall be distributed proportionately among the Member States making contributions referred to in Article 45(1) points (a), (b) and (c);deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2373 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 4
4. Where contributions have been made in response to a request by a Member State for solidarity support from other Member States to assist it in addressing the migratory situation on its territory to prevent migratory pressure pursuant to Article 56(1) within the preceding year, and where they correspond to the type of measures set out in the implementing act, the Commission shall deduct these contributions from the corresponding contributions set out in the implementing act.deleted
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2380 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
The share of solidarity contributions referred to in Articles 45(1), points (a), (b) and (c) to be provided by each Member State in accordance with Articles 48 and 53 shall be calculated in accordance with the formula set out in Annex III and and 50 to 53 shall be based on the following criteria for each Member State, according to the latest available Eurostat data:
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2383 #
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2392 #
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2398 #
2021/12/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2430 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – title
Other solidarity contribuVoluntary relocation of beneficiaries of international protections
2021/12/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2432 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 1
1. Where a Member State requests solidarity support from other Member States to assist it in addressing the migratory situation on its territory to prevent migratory pressure, it shall notify the Commission of that request.deleted
2021/12/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2436 #

2020/0279(COD)

2. Any Member State may, at any time, in response to a request for solidarity support by a Member State, or onsituations where there its own initiative, including in agreement with another Member State, make contributions by means of the measures referred to in Article 45 for the benefit of the Member State concerned and with its agreement. Contributions referred to in article 45, point (d) shall be in accordance with the objectives of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Migration Fund]no migratory pressure and where the mechanism established in Article 51 -53 is not applicable, decide to relocate beneficiaries of international protection. In this case it shall inform the Commission without delay.
2021/12/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2438 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 3
3. Member States which have contributed or plan to contribute with solidarity contributions in response to a request for solidarity support by a Member State, or on its own initiative, shall notify the Commission, thereof by completing the Solidarity Support Plan form set out in Annex IV. The Solidarity Response Plan shall include, where relevant, verifiable information, including on the scope and nature of the measures and their implementation.deleted
2021/12/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2446 #
2021/12/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2450 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) persons referred to in Article 45(1), point (b) where the period referred to in Article 55(2) has expired, and Article 45(2), point51(3) (b) (ii) (b).;
2021/12/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2456 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 2
2. Before applying the procedure set out in this Article, the benefitting Member State shall ensure that there are no reasonable grounds to consider the person concerned an individual and specific danger to national security or public order of that Member State, according to the procedure laid down in Article 14 (3). If there are reasonable grounds to consider the person a danger to national security or public order, the benefitting Member State shall not apply the procedure set out in this Article and shall, where applicable, exclude the person from the list referred to in Article 49(2)being relocated.
2021/12/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2457 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 3
3. Where relocation is to be applied, the benefitting Member State shall identify the persons who could be relocated. Where the person concerned is an applicant for or a beneficiary of international protection, that Member State shall take into account, where applicable, the existence of meaningful links between the person concerned and the Member State of relocation. Where the identified person to be relocated is a beneficiary for international protection, the person concerned shall be relocated only after that person consented to relocation in writing. Where relocation is to be applied pursuant to Article 49, the benefitting Member State shall use the list drawn up by the Asylum Agency and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency referred to in Article 49(2). The first subparagraph shall not apply to applicants for whom the benefitting Member State can be determined as the Member State responsible pursuant to the criteria set out in Articles 15 to 20 and 24, with the exception of Article 15(5). Those applicants shall not be eligible for relocation.deleted
2021/12/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2466 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Where relocation is to be applied pursuant to Article 49,, the EU relocation coordinator should support the relocation activities from the benefitting Member Sstate shall use the list drawn up by the Asylum Agency and the European Border and Coast Guard Agencyto the contributing member state implementing their obligations referred to in Article 49(213a (d).
2021/12/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2473 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Each Member State shall create a database of the requests of beneficiaries of international protection, who have been legally residing in its territory for less than two years and who have expressed their willingness to be relocated to another Member State. Each beneficiary of international protection may express up to two preferences for Member States to which he or she may be relocated. Each Member State shall regularly update the database referred to in this paragraph.
2021/12/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2474 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. The Commission shall, by means of implementing act, lay down uniform criteria for the collection, retention and deletion by the Member States of the information referred to in paragraph 1, and the organizational and operational arrangements for the implementation of relocation;
2021/12/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2475 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. When implementing the solidarity measures pursuant to Article 53(3), the benefitting Member State shall promptly inform of the activation of the relocation procedure, the beneficiaries of international protection registered in the database referred to in paragraph 1, on the basis of the chronological order of registration. Member States shall take into consideration the preferences expressed by the beneficiary of international protection. Potential beneficiaries of relocation shall express their consent to be relocated within 7 days after they have been informed, otherwise they shall be considered non-eligible for relocation. The benefitting Member State shall identify a number of beneficiaries corresponding to that established, by means of implementing act, by the Commission pursuant to Article 53.
2021/12/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2477 #

2020/0279(COD)

4. When the period referred to in Article 55(2) expires, the benefitting Member State shall immediately inform the sponsoring Member State that the procedure set out in paragraphs 5 to 10 shall be applied in respect of the illegally staying third-country nationals concerned.deleted
2021/12/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2483 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 5
5. The benefitting Member State shall transmit to the Member State of relocation as quickly as possible the relevant information and documents on the person referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3.
2021/12/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2484 #

2020/0279(COD)

6. The Member State of relocation shall examine the information transmitted by the benefitting Member State pursuant to paragraph 5, and verify that there are no reasonable grounds to consider the person concerned a danger to its national security or public order.deleted
2021/12/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2489 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 7
7. Where there are no reasonable grounds to consider the person concerned a danger to its national security or public order, the Member State of relocation shall confirm within one week that it will relocate the person concerned. Where the checks confirm that there are reasonable grounds to consider the person concerned a danger to its national security or public order, the Member State of relocation shall inform within one week the benefitting Member State of the nature of and underlying elements for an alert from any relevant database. In such cases, relocation of the person concerned shall not take place. In exceptional cases, where it can be demonstrated that the examination of the information is particularly complex or that a large number of cases need checking at that time, the Member State of relocation may give its reply after the one-week time limit mentioned in the first and second subparagraphs, but in any event within two weeks. In such situations, the Member State of relocation shall communicate its decision to postpone a reply to the benefitting Member State within the original one- week time limit. Failure to act within the one-week period mentioned in the first and second subparagraphs and the two-week period mentioned in the third subparagraph of this paragraph shall be tantamount to confirming the receipt of the information, and entail the obligation to relocate the person, including the obligation to provide for proper arrangements for arrival.deleted
2021/12/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2512 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 2
2. Where the Member State of relocation has relocated an applicant for whom the Member State responsible has not yet been determined, that Member State shall apply the procedures set out in Part III, with the exception of Article 8(2), Article 9(1) and (2), Article 15(5), and Article 21(1) and (2). Where no Member State responsible can be designated under the first subparagraph, the Member State of relocation shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. The Member State of relocation shall indicate its responsibility in Eurodac pursuant to Article 11(1) of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Eurodac Regulation].deleted
2021/12/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2518 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The Member State of relocation shall indicate its responsibility in Eurodac pursuant to Article 11(1) and (3), respectively, of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Eurodac Regulation].
2021/12/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2520 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 3
3. Where the Member State of relocation has relocated an applicant for whom the benefitting Member State had previously been determined as responsible on other grounds than the criteria referred to in Article 57(3) third subparagraph, the responsibility for examining the application for international protection shall be transferred to the Member State of relocation. The Member State of relocation shall indicate its responsibility in Eurodac pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Eurodac Regulation].deleted
2021/12/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2523 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 4
4. Where the Member State of relocation has relocated a beneficiary for international protection, tThe Member State of relocation shall automatically grant international protection status respecting the respective status granted by the benefitting Member State.
2021/12/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2529 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 5
5. Where the Member State of relocation has relocated a third-country national who is illegalrregularly staying on its territory, of Directive 2008/115/EC shall apply.
2021/12/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2531 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 59
The benefitting and contributing Member States shall keep the Commission informed on the implementation of solidarity measures taken on a bilateral level including measures of cooperation with a third country.Article 59 deleted Other obligations
2021/12/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2545 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 1 a (new)
The cost of relocation and transfer will be covered by the EU budget.
2021/12/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2546 #

2020/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 1 b (new)
The costs of reception of an applicant met by a determining Member State, from the time when the application for international protection was registered until the transfer of the applicant to the Member State responsible, or until the determining Member State assumes responsibility for the applicant, shall be refunded from the general budget of the Union.
2021/12/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 5 #

2020/0112R(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas the proposal for a Council regulation represents a step forward in making the work of the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) more broadly effective by enabling it to operate fully in all areas of Union competence and by clarifying its tasks and working methods;
2021/01/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 11 #

2020/0112R(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas the role of the FRA represents an important contribution to upholding fundamental rights and as an independent and fully-fledged EU agency and fundamental rights watchdog should be further strengthened at all costs;
2021/01/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 18 #

2020/0112R(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas EU ambitions for developing a stronger external dimension should be reflected in the further involvement of the FRA in the monitoring and scrutiny of the acts and activities of the Union and its Member States in the area of the common foreign and security policy;
2021/01/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 22 #

2020/0112R(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas in a globalised world, it is essential, through international cooperation with third countries is increasingly important in order, to guarantee sufficient protection of fundamental rights;
2021/01/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 28 #

2020/0112R(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E
E. whereas building trust among EU citizens in the work of police and justice authorities can be achieved when the acts and activities of the Union and its Member States are sufficiently monitored and scrutinised by the FRA to ensure that they are in line with fundamental values, andrights; whereas FRA activity in the area of freedom, security and justice is therefore of the utmost importance and should therefore also cover the area of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters;
2021/01/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 32 #

2020/0112R(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas the FRA is of great importance in monitoring compliance with the fundamental values set out in Article 2 and thus plays an important role in boosting the rule of law in the Member States with the Rule of Law Report, Article 7 procedures and the rule of law mechanism, and this role should be strengthened; stresses the need to increase the FRA's independence and importance in this area and to make it responsible for coordinating the panel of independent experts in the annual monitoring cycle;
2021/01/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 38 #

2020/0112R(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Acknowledges the objective of the FRA in providing information, assistance and expertise on fundamental rights and in defending and protecting fundamental rights in the EU; underlines its important role as a facilitator in supporting the Union and its Member States when taking measures or formulating courses of action relating to fundamental rights;
2021/01/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 45 #

2020/0112R(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that antisemitismdiscrimination is a complex phenomenonroblem and requires a holistic response across policy areas; recalls that the rise of Jew-hatred and antisemitism poses a threat to our democratic values; notes with serious concern the increase in antisemitic hate speech; emphasises in particular the commitment of the agency to helping groups in need of protection and combating discrimination of all kinds, and stresses the need for action in that regard;
2021/01/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 52 #

2020/0112R(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Reaffirms its strong willingness to enable the FRA to operate fully in all areas of Union competence and to fulfil its role as designed by the EU legislators, and therefore to identify the principles and conditions under which it might give its consent;
2021/01/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 58 #

2020/0112R(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point i – paragraph 1
In line with the changes that result from the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the word ‘Community’ should be replaced by the word ‘Union’ throughout the entire regulation. This implies that Union or Member State acts or activities relating to or within the framework of the common foreign and security policy, as well as in the area of freedom, security and justice, should be coveredi.e. police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and acts or activities of police and judicial authorities, as well as all areas for protecting and safeguarding the values set out in Article 2 TEU and Article 7 Rule of Law procedures, should also be covered, without restriction, by the FRA;
2021/01/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 66 #

2020/0112R(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point ii – paragraph 1
Observer membership on the Management Board should not be restricted to candidate countries or countries with a Stabilisation and Association Agreement, but should be open to other third countries, such as European Economic Area/European Free Trade Association countries, the UK post- Brexit and countries covered by the European neighbourhood policy;
2021/01/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 69 #

2020/0112R(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point iii – paragraph 1
In addition to the fight against racism, xenophobia and related intolerance, the fight against antisemitism should be specifically mentioned in the areas of activities of the FRA, and not only in the recital; this would be very much in line with the activities carried out by the FRA in relation to antisemitic incidents since 2009, with yearly updates on the situation in each Member State;deleted
2021/01/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 90 #

2020/0112R(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. Calls on the Commission to considerput forward a broader revision of the FRA Regulation following a thorough impact assessment, in order to strengthen the independence of the FRA; calls for the Commission to reflect in, in so doing, to take particular onaccount of:
2021/01/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 94 #

2020/0112R(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point i – paragraph 1
As is the case with many other EU agencies, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs should have the right to nominate one additional member of the FRA Management Board; members of the Management Board should have the right to be reappointed once, and the restriction on non-consecutive terms is unnecessary; the Management Board should feature a balanced representation of genders.
2021/01/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 105 #

2020/0112R(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point iii – paragraph 1
Upon the request of the Council, the Commission or Parliament, the FRA should be able to carry out scientific research, surveys, and preparatory and feasibility studies and formulate and publish conclusions and opinions on specific thematic topics; this should also be possible on the initiative of the FRA, and not only upon the request of an EU institution; furthermore, individual Member States or a group of Member States should have thea right of initiative;
2021/01/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 106 #

2020/0112R(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point iii – paragraph 1 a (new)
Considers that the support of the FRA for implementing the evaluation and monitoring mechanism in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013 (the Schengen Evaluation and Monitoring Mechanism) as one of the objectives of the agency, with particular regard to management and external border measures, has proved beneficial and that, in view of its widely-recognised specialist knowledge and the development of its operational contribution in hotspot areas, the FRA should also play a part in monitoring fundamental rights, particularly at the external borders.
2021/01/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 35 #

2019/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Da. Whereas the lack of harmonization has a deep impact on return practices among Member States;
2020/07/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 83 #

2019/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
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 returns, especially as it is less expensive and more sustainable;
2020/07/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 114 #

2019/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that a broad definition of the risk of absconding may lead to Member States frequently refraining from granting a period for voluntary departure; recalls the need for a closed and exhaustive list of criteria’s to define strictly the risk of absconding; recalls that lifting the voluntary departure period also leads to the imposition of an entry ban, which may further undermine voluntary departure;
2020/07/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 126 #

2019/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
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 remedies, in a language the person understands;
2020/07/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 136 #

2019/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
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; an automatic suspensive remedy is necessary to harmonize the practices and ensure that people are not returning before the final decision;
2020/07/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 146 #

2019/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Notes with regret the limited use of Article 6(4) of the directive; is concerned about the failure of Member States to issue a temporary residence permit where return has proven not to be possible; underlines the fact that granting residence permits to individuals who cannot return to their country of origin could help to prevent protracted irregular stays and facilitate individuals’ social inclusion and contribution to society; notes that this would also help to get people out of administrative limbos where they are left;
2020/07/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 206 #

2019/2208(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Notes 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, which are proven to be better for migrants and Member States, since they cost less and have a less negative impact on migrants, especially children and vulnerable people;
2020/07/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 240 #

2019/2208(INI)

20a. Calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure the sustainability of returns by monitoring them and by funding reintegration programs in cooperation with third countries of origin.
2020/07/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1 #
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 7 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4
— having regard to Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and 813 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR),
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 10 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 12
— having regard to the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights related to Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, and in particular Sharifi v. Austria of 5 December 2013 (Chamber judgment), Mohammadi v. Austria of 3 July 2014 (Chamber judgment), Sharifi and Others v. Italy and Greece of 21 October 2014 (Chamber judgment), and Tarakhel v. Switzerland of 4 November 2014 (Grand Chamber judgment), and ECtHR - M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece [GC]; Application No. 30696/09, Judgement of 21 November 2011, related to Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 (Dublin II)
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 13 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 27 a (new)
— having regard to the European Parliament Resolution of 12 April 2016 on the situation in the Mediterranean and the need for a holistic EU approach to Migration (2015/2095(INI));
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 14 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 27 b (new)
— having regard to the ECJ judgement of the 2 April 2020 on the joined cases C-715/17, C-718/17 and C- 719/17 Commission v Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 20 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas 2.5 million people applied for asylum in the European Union in the period 2015-2016, a fourfold increase compared to 2012-2013714,200 asylum applications were lodged in the EU in 2019;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 41 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas in the case of most asylum applications, the set of hierarchical criteria and the deadlines laid down as part of Dublin procedures are not met and transfers are not carried out;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 43 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas studies on the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation highlight systematic disregard towards family provisions and incorrect application of the principle of the best interest of the child, which have resulted in unnecessary and unreasonable transfer procedures;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 46 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas the provisions on dependent persons (article 16) and the discretionary clauses (article 17) could be widely used to support family unity;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 48 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)
Cc. whereas Member States make a disproportionate use of the criterion of the first country of irregular entry leaving most of the responsibility to frontline Member States;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 51 #
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 53 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C e (new)
Ce. whereas there has been scarce use of humanitarian and discretionary clauses, which provide reasonable solutions to relocations, including following disembarkation;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 55 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C f (new)
Cf. whereas implementation of the Dublin III Regulation does not effectively address secondary movements which are largely due to asylum seekers' social- connections with specific countries, protection-based concerns, health reasons and systemic deficiencies in the asylum systems where application are made;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 56 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C g (new)
Cg. whereas Article 28 of the Dublin Regulation allows detention as an exceptional measure "to secure transfer procedures", where there is "significant risk of absconding" of the applicant; whereas this definition remains unclear and the interpretation varies from a Member State to another;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 59 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C h (new)
Ch. whereas the use of detention and coercive transfers raises concerns with respect to asylum seekers' right to liberty, dignity and physical integrity;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 62 #
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 78 #
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 79 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the Dublin system places a significant burden on a minority of Member States, in particular when influxes of migrants occur; takes the view that the EU therefore needs a solidarity mechanism which makes for fair sharing of burdens and responsibility among Member States, including through relocation on the basis of objective criteria of asylum seekers who are manifestly eligible for asylum;deleted
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 98 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Considers that the Dublin System, and in particular the first country of irregular entry criterion places a significant burden on a minority of Member states;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 99 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Urges the EU to establish an automatic, permanent and mandatory relocation mechanism ensuring the full respect of the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility enshrined in art.80 of TFEU; including for those rescued at sea;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 109 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that ad hoc agreements are no substitute for a harmonised and sustainable policy at EU levelCommon European and Asylum System; deplores the fact that efforts to overhaul the Dublin III Regulation have been blocked in the Council;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 117 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the crisis management tool provided for in Article 33 did not provide effective support to the Member States, nor did it offer a response to the consequences of the COVID-19 crisis; considers that a solidarity-based crisis management mechanism, endowed with a financial instrument managed by the Commission,mechanism for early warning, preparedness and crisis management as set out in Article 33 has not been applied to date, considers that a solidarity-based mechanism in the EU should be established to ensure continuity of the right of asylum in the EU uander the best possible conditions not to hinder arrivals and deflect responsibility; emphasizes that the protection of fundamental rights of asylum applicants should always remain at the centre of this mechanism; also notes that the provisions set out in the Temporary Protection Directive has yet to be invoked;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 124 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Considers that such a mechanism should allow for the participation of civil society organization providing professional assistance to people in need of international protection during the assessment of their asylum application, particularly of legal nature;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 130 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Member States to makexpand the use of the discretionary clause in Article 17 when exceptional, to address challenging situations and humanitarian circumstances so warrant,, as for example to relocate and provide decent reception conditions to asylum seekers currently living in the Greek hotspots in an atmosphere of extreme tension and to provide decent receptioninhumane, degrading, unsanitary and unsafe conditions;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 134 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Takes the view that provisions on family unity, which are the first in the hierarchy of criteria, should be efficiently implemented, and that provisions on dependent persons (article 16) and the discretionary clauses (article 17) should be used more widely to support family unity;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 136 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. In the absence of a permanent solidarity mechanism, supports the expanded use of discretionary clauses of Article 17 as a solidarity tool for responsibility sharing in particular in situations of large number of spontaneous arrivals and in the specific context of sea arrivals and disembarkation procedures;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 140 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Urges the introduction, in accordance with international law, of fast-track Dublin procedures at the main points of irregular arrival in the EU, in European reception centres, in order to process asylum applications swiftly, assess their merits, determine the Member State responsible and, where appropriate, return asylum seekers without an unnecessarily prolonged detention period;deleted
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 155 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Highlights the significant operational backing for Dublin proceduresand technical support provided by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) in the hotspotto Member States; calls on the Commission and the Member States to facilitate the work of EASO staff by allowing interviews in a language other than that of the country in which they are conductedand the Commission to increase assistance to Member States, especially those at the border of the EU; calls for the establishment of a European Asylum Agency, with sufficient financial and human resources, supporting Member States with Dublin procedures;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 159 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls on the Commission to monitor that interviews are conducted in the language of the asylum seeker or in a language that the applicant is reasonably supposed to understand;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 161 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. PDeplores that the rights of asylum seekers, including that to legal assistance, are often neglected when implementing the Dublin III Regulation, points out that the protection of fundamental rights must be at the heart of the measures taken to implementEU asylum policies and of the implementation process of the Dublin III Regulation, including the protection of childrenminors, victims of trafficking, victims of torture, and the most vulnerable;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 169 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Recalls that asylum seekers have the right to be fully informed on the procedures; regrets that the level of information provided to asylum seekers differs consistently from one Member state to another; urges the Member states to guarantee that minors have tailored, child-friendly information and specific support; stresses that providing legal assistance and interpretation are key to ensure applicants' right to information;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 174 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Points out that transfers of asylum seekers, and in particular vulnerable people, minors and families can result in violations of their human rights; urges Member states to properly assess the risks to which applicants would be exposed in the Member States of destination; stresses in particular that transfers must be carried out in a way that under no circumstances exposes individuals to a risk of refoulement, irrespective of whether the asylum system of return is affected by systemic deficiencies;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 175 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Deplores that Member states resort too often to the detention of applicants waiting to be transferred; urges Member states to make concrete efforts to find valid alternatives to detention;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 180 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission to monitor compliance with the hierarchy of criteria more closely; regards it as essential to clarify the conditions for applying the family reunification criterion and toenable a better use of the family provisions, including by harmoniseing the standards of proof required; callacross Member states oin the Member States and the Commission to protect the best interests of children and to clarify the criteria for keeping children in detentiondirection of less stringent and more achievable standards; calls the Commission and the Member states to speed up family reunification procedures including through an immediate transfer to a country in which the applicant has family;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 188 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Regrets that Member states do not proactively contribute to the identification and verification of the family links; deplores that the burden of proof is almost entirely left to the applicants;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 192 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8c. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to ensure an adequate verification of the best interest of the child, avoiding that the complexity of the procedures results in the failure to implement this principle, in particular for the unaccompanied minors of age between 16 and 18;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 193 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 d (new)
8d. Regrets that Member states apply different interpretation of the best interest of the child; calls therefore the Commission to clarify the definition in line with EU legislation and to identify which family reunification possibilities, security and safety considerations, background information should be taken into consideration;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 194 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 e (new)
8e. Urges the Member States and the Commission to clarify that detention is never in the best interest of the child and that a minor should never be detained because of the migratory status of their family; calls to expand the sources used for the monitoring and identification of unlawful practices to include information provided by international and non- governmental organizations where it is reliable, up-to-date and specific;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 195 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 f (new)
8f. Deplores that insufficient identification mechanisms and erroneous methods of age assessment often further exacerbate the situation of minors, causing delays or affecting negatively the outcome of the Dublin procedure; calls for an harmonized age assessment that do not endanger minors' rights, health and psychological well-being;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 206 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that the number of transfer procedures has increased significantly, generating considerable human, material and financial costs; deplores, however, the fact that in only 11% of cases are transfers actually carried out, a further factor in the permanent overloading of asylum systems; stresses the lack of cooperation and information-sharing between Member States; regards efforts to combat secencourages Member states to apply the discretiondary movements as essential in order to reduce the number of transfer requests; proposes thatclause more swiftly in cases where it becomes evident that transfers cannot be carried out, or where the coinditions which trigger transfer procedures be clarified and harmonisedvidual situation of the applicant requires so;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 219 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that in some cases the rules on transfer of responsibility under Dublin III undermine the efficiency of asylum procedures and the carrying-out of transfers and, according to the evidence, that in many cases asylum seekers remain outside of the system due to disproportionate use of the criterion of the first countribute to the increase in the number of secondary movements by encouraging asylum-seekers to remain outside the systemy of irregular entry and the insufficient consideration of the meaningful links and the particular needs of the applicants; calls on the Commission to revise the rules, in order to give Member States sufficient time to carry out transfers and do away with transfer of responsibility in cases where anincrease trust between Member States and between them and the asylum seeker absconds;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 228 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that providing asylum seekers with legal assistance in connection with Dublin procedures, in particular in the hotspots, would simplify the process of obtaining asylum would enhance rights-compliant procedures, simplify Dublin procedures and improve decision- making; calls on the Member States to improve the information made available to asylum seekers on the complex Dublin procedures, to ensure that it is clear and accessible to everyone;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 232 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Calls on the Member States to increase the resources necessary to make Dublin III operational, particularly the number of asylum officers; calls on the European Commission to increase the funds available for the provision of legal assistance, especially funding for civil society professionals offering legal assistance to people in need of international protection during the Dublin procedure;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 239 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses that the principle of a single asylum application in the EU is consistently flouted, a state of affairs at odds with the very purpose of the Dublin III Regulation; considernotes that the competent national authorities should share their relevant information on a European database such as Eurodac, in order to speed up procedures and prevent multiple asylum applications, while protecting personal datare are multiple reasons for submission of additional asylum applications;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 249 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that the rate of protection for asylum seekers varies greatly between Member States for certain nationalities; considers that a common list of safe countries and a shared country-risk analysis, or at least greater convergence, would reduce these disparities, and thus also the number of secondary movements; stresses that the return of persons not eligible for asylum is a prerequisite for the effectiveness of the Dublin III Regulation and this can contribute to onward movement; considers that accounting for individual needs of the applicant in the Dublin procedures would reduce secondary movements; calls for the inclusion of a relocation criteria considering the "genuine links" with a particular Member state as an efficient approach to reduce secondary movements;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 261 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Notes that some two-thirds of asylum applications are submitted by nationals of safe countries who have arrived in the EU on a visa or visa waiver; considers that these manifestly unfounded applications contribute to the overloading of asylum systems; calls on the Commission and the Member States to make asylum and visa policies more consistent;deleted
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 276 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Proposes that EASO be given an expanded role in analysing the flows of and pathways taken by asylum seekers, in order to better anticipate and understand pressures on asylum systemssupporting Member states in the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 282 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Urges the Commission and the Council to work towards convergence in the bilateral agreements concluded between Member States and with thirdimplementation of the Dublin III Regulation by taking stock of the elements countries, in order to optimise implementation of the Dublin III Regubuting to greater efficiency, and compliance with human rights legislation;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 286 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Urges the Council to find a sustainable solution and take the necessary steps to adopt a position on the Dublin Recast Regulation by qualified majority;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 287 #

2019/2206(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17b. Proposes that a fairer system of allocation be a priority for any reform of the Dublin system while keeping the protection of fundamental rights of applicants at the centre of the functioning of the solidarity mechanism;
2020/07/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)
– having regard to the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 3 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 a (new)
– having regard to the FRA Fundamental Rights Reports of 2018 and 2019,
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 4 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 b (new)
– having regard to the FRA paper "Civil society space: views of organisations" as well as the FRA report "Challenges facing civil society organisations working on human rights in the EU"
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 30 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 15 a (new)
– having regard to Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin,
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 32 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 15 b (new)
– having regard to Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation,
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 33 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 15 c (new)
– having regard to Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law,
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 48 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 23 a (new)
– having regard to its resolution of 12 February 2019 on the need for a strengthened post–2020 Strategic EU Framework for National Roma Inclusion Strategies and stepping up the fight against anti-Gypsyism1a, __________________ 1a Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0075
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 52 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 23 b (new)
– having regard to its resolution of 1 June 2017 on combating anti-semitism1a, __________________ 1a Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0243
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 53 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 23 c (new)
– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies,
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 105 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 47
– having regard to the FRA’s Fundamental Rights Reports of 2018 and 2019 of FRA,deleted
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 112 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas the EU is not merely a monetary union, but also a social one, as enshrinvalue based one; whereas Article 2 of the TEU states that the EU is founded ion the Charter, the European Convention on Hvalues of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the primacy of law and human Rrights, the European Social Charter and the European Pillar of Social Rightsincluding the rights of persons belonging to minorities – values which are shared by all the Member States and which must be upheld and actively promoted by the EU and each Member State individually in all their policies, both internally and externally in a consistent way;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 115 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas Article 17 of the TEU states that the Commission must ensure the application of the Treaties; whereas a refusal by a Member State to fully uphold EU law, the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary and the predictability of state actions is undermining the credibility of the EU as a legal area;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 128 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas the EU is also a social union, as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Social Charter and the European Pillar of Social Rights;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 134 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)
Ac. whereas we see increased violation of rights related to equality, freedoms and justice; 1a whereas “today we see not only human rights violations, but the rejection of human rights protection systems as a whole” 1b __________________ 1a FRA Fundamental Rights Report 2019 1bFundamental Rights Forum 2018, Chair´s Statement, 23/10/2018 https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra _uploads/fra-2018-frf-2018-chair- statement_en.pdf
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 138 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A d (new)
Ad. whereas violence against women continues and includes physical, psychological and sexual violence; whereas initiatives as #Metoo are important; whereas women are still discriminated at the labour market and a woman only makes around 84 percent of a man's salary;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 143 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A e (new)
Ae. whereas there is a serious backlash of LGBTI-rights, even to the extent that "LGBTI-free zones" are introduced.
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 167 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas Roma women are particularly affected as regards women’s rights and often face exacerbated forms of verbal, physical, psychological and racial harassment in reproductive health care settings, as has found to be the case in Bulgaria19 ; whereas Roma have also experienced in that Member State, ethnic segregation in maternal health care facilities, and are placed in segregated rooms with segregated bathrooms and eating facilities20 ; whereas in some Member States, such as the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic, Roma have been subjected to systematic practices of forced and coercive sterilisation and have been unable to obtain adequate reparations, including compensation, for the resulting violations of their human rights21 ; __________________ 19Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in Europe, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2017, pp. 42-44; Decision of the European Committee of Social Rights of 5 December 2018, European Roma Rights Centre v Bulgaria, Complaint No. 151/2017 ; European Roma Rights Centre, Romani woman harassed by racist hospital staff during childbirth wins case, European Roma Rights Centre, 18 January 2017, http://www.errc.org/press- releases/romani-woman-harassed-by- racist-hospital-staff-during-childbirth- wins-case 20Decision of the European Committee of Social Rights of 5 December 2018, European Roma Rights Centre v Bulgaria, Complaint No. 151/2017. 21Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding observations on the third periodic report of Slovakia, 18 October 2019, E/C.12/SVK/CO/3, paras. 44-45; Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the combined twelfth and thirteenth periodic reports of Czechia, 19 September 2019, CERD/C/CZE/CO/12-13, paras. 19-20; Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the combined eleventh and twelfth periodic reports of Slovakia, 12 January 2018, CERD/C/SVK/CO/11-12, paras. 23-24; Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the fourth report of Slovakia, 22 November 2016, CCPR/C/SVK/CO/4, paras. 26-27.
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 186 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas on 1 October 2019, the Council of Europe’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights approved an investigation into the growing number of national, regional and local politicians prosecuted for statements made in the exercise of their mandate in Spain22 ; __________________ 22Introductory memorandum of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Should politicians be prosecuted for statements made in the exercise of their mandate?, 1 October 2019, AS/Jur (2019) 35.deleted
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 194 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas many instances of disproportionate use of force against peaceful demonstrators continue to be reported across the EU, including the beating of demonstrators; whereas law enforcement authorities in some Member States such as Romania23 , Spain and France24 are increasingly using less lethal weapons, such as batons, tear gas, hand- held sting grenades, electroshock weapons, water cannons and rubber bullets to control or disperse crowds of demonstrators; whereas the number of persons seriously wounded in demonstrations in recent years as a result of the use of rubber bullets is particularly striking; __________________ 23European Parliament resolution of 13 November 2018 on the rule of law in Romania (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0446) 24 Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Shrinking space for freedom of peaceful assembly, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2019; Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Memorandum on maintaining public order and freedom of assembly in the context of the ‘yellow vest’ movement in France, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2019; Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Protection of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly during last week’s demonstrations in Catalonia, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2019
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 228 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas intolerance, racism, xenophobia and discrimination has increased in the society as a whole, but also in the political scene through growing far-right movements; whereas successful integration and social inclusion require effective protection from discrimination and hate crime; whereas failure to do so can have a negative effect on the social cohesion in the society; 2a __________________ 2a FRA, Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 235 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F b (new)
Fb. whereas racial, ethnic and religious minorities face structural racism, discrimination, hate-crime and hate-speech, lack of access to justice, and sustained socio-economic inequalities in areas such as housing, healthcare, employment and education, which needs to be acknowledged as major barriers to full enjoyment of fundamental rights and key barrier to inclusion and equality;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 238 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F c (new)
Fc. whereas afrophobia has just started to be acknowledged at the EU- level; whereas national authorities have not developed policies and measures to tackle discrimination against people of African descent, racial profiling, racially motivated harassment and violence;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 241 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F d (new)
Fd. whereas anti-Gypsyism remains pervasive across the EU, where structural anti-Gypsyism and sustained socio- economic inequalities affect Roma in areas such as housing, healthcare, employment and education; whereas Roma people suffer increased hate speech in public, in social media and by politicians, police violence, including collective punishment, racial profiling, residential and school segregation;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 244 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F e (new)
Fe. Whereas anti-Semitism remains pervasive across the EU, with several Member States reporting increases in crimes motivated by anti-Semitism; whereas those who experience anti- Semitic harassment generally do not report the incidents to the police;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 247 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F f (new)
Ff. whereas Muslims, especially Muslim women, continues to be discriminated in the society and targeted in racist attacks as a result of pervasive islamophobia;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 249 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F g (new)
Fg. whereas there is an increase of foreign interference in European Elections through direct and indirect measures from countries such as Russia, but also threats against institutions and civil society organisations in the European Union and its member states, with the aim to restrict freedom of speech, from countries such as China 4a __________________ 4a Example: The Case of Swedish PEN
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 267 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the effects of austerity measures have deeply impacted the social fabric of the EU in many Member States and that this continues today – exacerbating already widening inequalities and breaching fundamental rights – and affects in particular women, migrants, Roma, Travellers and other people in disadvantaged groups with a particular ferocity;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 317 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 aa (new)
4aa. Is deeply concerned about the increased levels of xenophobia and different forms of racism, such as anti- Semitism, islamophobia, afrophobia and anti-Gypsyism, and tend to become normalised in Member States;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 318 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 ab (new)
4ab. Is worried by increased participation of political parties promoting racist, xenophobic and other discriminatory ideas, policies and practices, and by the refusal by some Member States to fully uphold EU law, to safeguard the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary, which is undermining the credibility of the EU as a legal area;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 319 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 ac (new)
4ac. Calls for full implementation of legislations and stronger sanctions against any discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnic or social origin, religion or belief, membership of a national minority, disability, age, gender, gender expression, gender identity, sexual orientation, sex characteristics, residence status or health;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 320 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 ad (new)
4ad. Calls on the Member States to ensure the effective practical enforcement of the Race Equality Directive (2000/43/EC) and to ensure effective enforcement of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia to combat persisting afrophobia, anti-Gypsyism, anti-Semitism and islamophobia; points out that the Member States should put forward or review national inclusion strategies to ensure that all people regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender or any other status are empowered to actively participate in social, economic, political and cultural life;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 321 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 ae (new)
4ae. Calls for the quick adoption of the proposed 2008 Equal Treatment Directive which is still pending for approval by the Council; considers it a condition to secure a consolidated and coherent EU law framework against discrimination, also protecting from discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief, disability, age and sexual orientation outside of employment;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 322 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 af (new)
4af. Calls for the EU wide implementation of the Aarhus Convention that links environmental rights and human rights; calls for the environmental regulation that would equally benefit all parts of society; (after sub-heading «Right to equal treatment, before paragraph 5)
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 323 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 ag (new)
4ag. Points out that EU and its Member States should combat effectively discriminatory or violent treatment and reactions against the schooling and participation of children from minority backgrounds especially migrant, refugee and Roma children, both through law enforcement and by promoting mutual understanding and social cohesion; calls on Member States to structurally address respect for diversity, intercultural understanding and human rights, including children’s rights, in regular school curricula; (after sub-heading «Right to equal treatment, before paragraph 5)
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 367 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Welcomes the landmark judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Common case in June 2018, which clarified that term ‘spouse’ within the meaning of the provisions of EU law on freedom of residence for EU citizens and their family members includes spouses of the same sex; urges the Member States in the EU that do not recognise either same- sex partnerships or marriages to amend their national laws in such a way as to provide a legal framework for ensuring that the CJEU’s ruling is properly implemented.;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 374 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Expresses concern that six EU Member States, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia, have not yet ratified the Istanbul Convention;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 403 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Expresses its concern at the lack of reporting of hate crimes by victims owing to inadequate safeguards and to the failure of authorities to investigate properly and obtain convictions for hate crimes in the Member States;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 413 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Is deeply concerned about a backlash in rights and attitudes to LGBTI persons and a sharp rise of hate speech, often carried out by public figures; strongly condemns anti-LGBTI rhetoric and the proclamation of “LGBT-free zones” or “zones free from LGBT ideology”;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 465 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Recalls that freedom of expression, information and media are fundamental for ensuring democracy and the rule of law; strongly condemns violence, pressure or threats against journalists and media, including in relation to the disclosure of information about breaches of fundamental rights;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 487 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Is deeply concerned about the increasingly shrinking space for independent civil society in some Member States; recalls the importance of ensuring adequate funding to support civil society activitiesis also concerned about the general decrease of financial support at national level by some Member States for civil society organisations that are conducting advocacy work; recalls the importance of ensuring adequate funding to support civil society activities; stresses the importance of ensuring funding for advocacy work as-well as other types of work;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 525 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Condemns the abuses and human rights violations suffered by migrants and refugees, in particular with regard to access to territory, reception conditions, asylum procedures, immigration detention and the protection of vulnerable persons, and recalls the obligations of Member States to international conventions and European laws;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 540 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Expresses grave concern about consistent reports of violent pushbacks by law enforcement officials in several Member States; calls on the Commission and the Member States to investigate the matter and take effective measures to ensure that such policies and practices are scrapped, including by putting on hold funds for border surveillance and ensuring the independent monitoring of border control activities by national ombudsmen and NGOs; stresses the importance of a fully operational human rights office within Frontex;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 548 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Expresses serious concern about the intimidation and arrests of humanitarian workers and volunteers who support migrants in an irregular situation; notes that the trend continued in 2018 and 2019, targeting both rescue vessels deployed by civil society in the Mediterranean, as well as volunteers and non-governmental organisations active in the EU;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 559 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13b. Expresses grave concern over humanitarian the situation in the hotspots;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 593 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the EU institutions and the Member States to resolutely fight systemic corruption and to devise effective instruments for preventing, combating and sanctioning corruption and fighting fraud, as well as regularly monitoring the use of public funds; highlights the negative impact of corruption on human rights; calls on the Commission to immediately resume its annual anti- corruption monitoring and reporting, with reference to the EU institutions and the Member States; calls on all the Member States to comply with the GRECO recommendations28 ; __________________ 28 Group of States against Corruption
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 596 #

2019/2199(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Conveys worries about the on- going attacks on the independence of the judiciary in some EU Member States; expresses grave concern about the negative developments which took place in both Hungary and Poland; is concerned about the lack of progress in the Article 7 proceedings in the Council; calls on the Council to take into consideration the situation of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law in its hearings on Article 7.1 procedure; reminds that the European Parliament cannot be set-aside from these ongoing hearings.;
2020/02/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 25 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 a (new)
- having regard to the Declaration of 5 July 2009 of Western Balkans partners on Roma Integration within the EU Enlargement Process, known as the Poznan Declaration,
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 30 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 13
- having regard to its resolution of 9 July 2015 on the Srebrenica Commemoration1 , of 15 January 2009 on Srebrenica and of 7 July 2005 on the Western Balkans 10 years after Srebrenica, __________________ 1 OJ C 265, 11.8.2017, p. 142.
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 42 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 a (new)
- having regard to the Report of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia of 1 July 2017,
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 43 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 b (new)
- having regard to the Progress Report of the Prosecutor of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals of 19 May 2020,
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 44 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 c (new)
- having regard to the 58th Report of the High Representative (HR) for Implementation of the Peace Agreement on Bosnia and Herzegovina,
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 60 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas the country continues to face numerous challenges related to the rule of law, human rights, fundamental freedoms, governance, accountability, freedom of expression and media freedom, and a functioning market economy;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 70 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G
G. whereas BiH is a migrant transit route, and reception capacities remain insufficient for hosting migrants and asylum seekers present in the country, despite the availability of EU funded and ready-made solutions;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 74 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas serious human rights concerns remain over the rights of people in transit in BiH;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 75 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G b (new)
Gb. whereas the EU approach to the external dimension of migration has led the EU to cooperate with BiH in the field of border control and migration management; whereas the externalisation of EU border management and migration control is of serious concern in light of violations of human rights standards; whereas it is the EU's duty to conduct a humane border procedure and migration approach that aims at protecting the fundamental rights of persons in need of international protection in countries of transit such as BiH;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 95 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the path towards the EU depends on sustainable peace, lasting stability, social cohesion and genuine reconciliation warranting the democratic and multicultural character of BiH; urges the country to expedite effective prosecution of war crimes under the revised National War Crimes Processing Strategy, and calls for impartial and effective investigations into these crimes; condemns any kind of historical revisionism, or opposition to ICTY judgements, secessionist rhetoric and related acts, denial or glorification of war crimes committed during the 1990’s war;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 101 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that over 7 200 BiH citizens are still missing, and urges the authorities to intensify cooperation and data sharing between regional, national and international stakeholders alike, on issues related to missing persons, redress to civilian victims of war, including victims of sexual violence, and to ensure the safe and sustainable return of refugees and internally displaced people; through reconstruction assistance, job creation measures, education rights and the proper implementation of property laws;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 107 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Urges the rapid adoption of a law banning Holocaust denial, genocide and war crimes; encourages the High Representative in BiH (OHR) to use his powers to make the law banning Holocaust denial, genocide and war crimes an integral part of BiH legislation;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 121 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Urges the authorities to ensure inclusive and non-discriminatory education for all children, regardless of their ethnic, cultural, or personal background, notably by abolishing the two-schools-under-one- roof practice ruled as discriminatory and as ethnic segregation by the Supreme Court of Federation of BiH, by enabling Bosniak children in Republika Srpska to name their mother tongue as Bosnian language and by increasing the enrolment and completion rate of Roma pupils;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 135 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Urgently calls on BiH to remedy the unequal access to remote schooling, resulting in many children being deprived of their right to education throughout the pandemic;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 140 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Urges all BiH political leaders and institutions to significantly accelerate work and co-operation to fully comply with the 14 key priorities; calls on the authorities to maintain the political will for enhanced co-operation demonstrated at the onset of the COVID-19 crisis, especially through developing and adopting a national programme for the adoption of the EU acquis; guaranteeing legal certainty by establishing a judicial body entrusted with ensuring the consistent interpretation of the law throughout BiH; ensuring that veto rights in all administrative bodies entrusted with implementing the acquis are eliminated; strengthening the prevention and fight against corruption and organised crime; ensuring the implementation of the legislation on non- discrimination and on gender equality; enabling environment for civil society by upholding European standards on freedom of association and freedom of assembly;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 148 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that the effective organisation and independent functioning of institutions is an essential feature of a viable democracy and a prerequisite for advancing the EU integration process, including obtaining candidate status; warns that ethno-nationalistic divisive rhetoric and attempts to obstruct the functioning of institutions undermine unity, lasting stability and country-wide co- ordination and decision-making on key policies and reforms;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 156 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Commends the adoption of the amendments to the BiH Election Law that allowed Mostar citizens to vote in the 2020 local elections; welcomes the Parliamentary Assembly’s vote of 22 July 2020 on the Rules of Procedure governing the meetings of Stabilisation and Association Parliamentary Committee (SAPC), paving the way for their formal adoption by the 2nd EU-BiH SAPC as soon as possible and for a fruitful parliamentary cooperation;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 164 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 d (new)
7d. Calls on the EC and the EEAS to step up their mediation activities in BiH, in order to strengthen political dialogues and reconciliation, which is central to the future development of BiH, and to provide a framework for dealing with the legacies from the past and for overcoming the divisions in the society;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 173 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines the urgent need to address shortcomings in the constitutional framework andincluding through harmonisation of laws on cantonal and federal level and expanding the state’s jurisdiction, as well as to make progress on reforms that would transform BiH into a fully functional and inclusive state by implementing the Sejdic-Finci case group; stresses that institutional reforms depend on the will and commitment of political leaders and institutions in the country; urges the international community to facilitate the conditions for constitutional dialogue within BiH institutions and among elected representatives in BiH under the leadership of the EU, in particular Parliament, and in consultation with civil society;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 182 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Regrets the lack of progress on reforms in the judiciary; reiterates the urgent need to resolve the mounting backlog of cases pending trial, to strengthen the professionalism and accountability of the judiciary and, to ensure its independence from undue influence by adopting new legislation on the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council and on the Courts of BiH in line with EU standards;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 195 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Calls for immediate steps to tackle corruption and impunity in the public sphere in order to rebuild citizens’ trust in the institutions; by adopting and implementing legislation on conflict of interest and whistle-blowers’ protection; ensuring the effective functioning and coordination of anti-corruption bodies; align the legislation and strengthen capacities on public procurement; ensuring transparency of privatisation processes; in particular, calls for the authorities to duly investigate and resolve the lack of effective prosecutions for high- profile corruption cases; insists that the persistent lack of transparency shown by political actors and public institutions alike needs to be addressed;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 209 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Regrets the lack of progress on addressing the EU’s Opinion priority n. 11 on ensuring an enabling environment for civil society by upholding European standards on freedom of association and freedom of assembly; underlines the importance of protecting and promoting freedom of association and deplores that the exercise of freedom of assembly remains restricted; regrets that activists, in particular those dealing with sensitive issues in Republika Srpska have been subject to threats, intimidation, fines and judicial prosecution; calls on the authorities to develop a strategic framework of cooperation with civil society and to ensure meaningful consultations as part of inclusive policy dialogues;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 210 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12b. Stresses the need to make the European integration process as inclusive and open as possible; notes the insufficient involvement of civil society organisations which can make substantial contributions to the EU integration process; notes that this involvement is of paramount importance for the participation of citizens in the democratic life of the country and in the enlargement process;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 214 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Expresses concern over the fundamental rights situation, specifically, the persisting discrimination and hate speech faced by the LGBTIQ+ community, migrants and asylum seekers, as well as ethnic and religious minorities, and calls for more effective and comprehensive countrywide hHuman rRights and anti- discrimination strategies, as well asincluding an action plan on child protection, an action plan on LGBTIQ+ people and measures against interfaith and interethnic intolerance; stresses the need to duly prevent and prosecute the proliferation of hate speech, hate crimes and violence targeting minorities, LGBTIQ+ persons and women, and to promote social inclusion of minorities and vulnerable populations, including the Roma, in line with the 2019 Poznan Declaration on Roma Integration within the EU Enlargement Process, persons with disabilities, LGBTIQ+ persons, migrants and asylum seekers, as well as displaced persons and refugees;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 221 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Underlines that the enlargement process needs to deliver for women and all gender of BiH; urges the authorities to harmonise legislation on gender equality across the country and fully implement it; expresses concern about the high ratio of gender-based violence, increased domestic violence under COVID restrictions, and about abuses against women’s rights defenders, and the insufficient institutional response to tackle this phenomenon; stresses the need to ensure that reparation, access to specialised services, victims support, legal aid and safe accommodation for survivors of violence are guaranteed across the country and that women’s civil society organisations providing these services are supported;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 222 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Recalls the need for specific earmarked funding on gender equality in all EU external financing instruments, and for reduced administrative constraints to allow access to funding for local and small civil society organisations (CSOs) and especially women civil society organisations (WCSOs);
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 229 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Commends the decision of the Constitutional Court of 4 October 2019 to repeal Article 11 of the Constitution of the Republika Srpska entity, thus abolishing capital punishment across BiH; regrets that the Republika Srpska entity parliament did not amend the Constitution on this matter prior to the Court decision;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 232 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Regrets BiH’s continued inability to comply with anti-discrimination rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR); notes the continuing shortcomings in the election process, and reiterates the need to address discriminatory ethnicity and residency- based restrictions on the right to stand for election through the required constitutional changes; regrets the inability to ensure that elections are conducted in line with European standards by implementing OSCE/ODIHR and relevant Venice Commission recommendations, as well as to ensure transparency of political party financing;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 242 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Calls for thorough investigations into alleged electoral irregularities, including identity theft, barriers to independent electoral observation and political pressure on voters and the BiH Central Election Commission (CEC) itself and other irregularities, during of the 2020 municipal elections;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 245 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Regrets continued political and financial pressure and instrumentalisation of the media, undermining freedom of expression and media pluraliswhich has especially deteriorated during the covid-19 pandemic, thus undermining freedom of expression and media pluralism, especially due to the lack of financial sustainability of the public broadcasting system; expresses its concern at the hostile environment for independent media, and urges the authorities to effectively investigate and prosecute verbal and physical threats and attacks against journalists and media personnel; , including female journalists, and media personnel; calls for the regulation of transparency of media ownership;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 259 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Insists that the EU must enhance its communication strategy in order to proactively and effectively counter ethnic or religious-based foreign interferences and disinform disinformation campaigns aimed at diminishing the EU’s credibility and actions in the region and jeopardizing the country’s unity;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 268 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Insists that BiH itself must increase proactive information-sharing on the pandemic, clarification of preventive measures and instructions for citizens, as well as data on infections and vaccinations through official channels;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 280 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Notes the increased migratory pressure on the country; calls for effective inter-institutional and inter-governmental coordination of migration and border management in the face of a mounting humanitarian crisis; calls for equitable burden-sharing and adequate support for local communities hosting temporary reception centres; underlines the need to ensure appropriate reception condiurges the BiH authorities to quickly scale up actions to address the grave humanitarian situations and to boost capacity for processing incoming migrants and asylum-seekers; urges BiH to conclude an agreement with the European Asylum Support Office (EASO); callprovide immediate assistance and secure basic living conditions to all the migrants and refugees oin the EU to step up its support to BiH’s authorities, namely with regard to operational assistancetemporary reception centres;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 288 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Insists that it has to be ensured that humanitarian operations can reach migrants and refugees with humanitarian assistance;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 289 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
19b. calls for equitable burden-sharing and adequate support for local communities hosting temporary reception centres; stresses the need to ensure appropriate reception conditions and to boost capacity for processing incoming migrants and asylum-seekers; urges BiH to conclude an agreement with the European Asylum Support Office (EASO); calls on the EU to step up its support to BiH’s authorities, namely with regard to operational assistance;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 291 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 c (new)
19c. calls on the EU to investigate and report on the financial assistance given to BiH authorities and international organizations in BiH for handling the migrant situation in order to ensure transparency and increase the credibility of the EU; calls on a prompt assessment of the EU financial assistance, both by DG ECHO and under IPA, given to BiH authorities and international organizations in BiH for handling the migrant situation in order to ensure transparency;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 292 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 d (new)
19d. Calls on the BiH authorities to improve the efficiency of the asylum system;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 293 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 e (new)
19e. Calls on the EU and the BiH’s authorities to work on long term sustainable solutions for people in transit in BiH;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 294 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 f (new)
19f. Expresses great concern regarding the number of unaccompanied or separated children among refugees and migrants left without access to adequate accommodation and child protection services; calls for effectively facilitating fast-track asylum applications from vulnerable children and families and to recognise them as a priority group in any of the national health, education and protection strategies;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 295 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 g (new)
19g. Expresses concern for BiH’s increasing cooperation with neighbouring countries in terms of migration policies, inter alia resulting in violent pushbacks in violation of international treaties BiH is a party to, and abuse of migrants at the country’s borders; calls on the EU and EU member states to stop illegal pushbacks notably by Croatian authorities which make the crisis in border areas even bigger; calls in this regard for the establishment of an EU-wide mechanism that shall include in its investigation reports or testimonies of victims of border violence, allowing for the independent investigation of alleged violations of European law at the borders to put an end to the fundamental and human rights violations;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 296 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 h (new)
19h. Calls for safe and legal pathways for refugees and migrants into the EU and for an EU migration and asylum policy based on solidarity amongst the Member States;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 299 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Urges BiH to step up its efforts against cross-border crime, especially human traffickingto fight against drug and human smugglers, and to ensure swift conclusion of the status agreement with the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) that wshould aim at facilitateing a better protection of borders inand humane border approach fully respect foring fundamental rights, while helping fight cross-border crime;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 304 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Calls for the resignation of the Executive Director of FRONTEX, in view of the alleged involvement of the Agency in violations of fundamental rights; demands a parliamentary inquiry to investigate FRONTEX’ alleged illegal practices;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 312 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Calls for a timely co-ordinated, strategic, transparent and publicly accessible countrywide response to the ongoing health emergency and post- pandemic recovery measures; recalls COVID-related EU support to address the acute situation in the country; calls on the European Commission and the Member States to allocate a sufficient number of COVID-19 vaccines to , taking into account the different impact of the crisis on different genders, that must reach all individuals affected by the crisis; recalls COVID-related EU support to address the acute situation in the country needs to address the specific needs of women and of minority and vulnerable groups; calls on the European Commission and the Member States to allocate a sufficient number of COVID-19 vaccines to the Western Balkan countries and support their vaccination preparedness; welcomes in this respect the package that will allow BiH and other Western Balkan countries partners to finally benefit from the EU Advance Purchase Agreements; underlines that the much needed COVID-19 mitigation measures should not lead to further marginalization or stigmatization of vulnerable groups, including refugees and migrants;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 322 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Condemns the authorities’ poor management of the covid-19 crisis, including selective enforcement of the ban on assemblies - resulting in the ban of the route of 2020 Sarajevo Pride march -, curtailment of freedom of expression by excluding the media from press conferences, public procurement irregularities and by not offering solutions to meet the needs of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 332 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Calls on BiH to step up active labour market measures aimed at reducing long-term andunemployment, including youth unemployment, contributing to the most acute brain drain in the region by investing more in the education sector – from pre- school to higher education - in order to achieve better and equal opportunities for all including vulnerable groups; recalls BiH commitment to increase the employment rate of Roma people;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 338 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Recalls that the unemployment of women, who make up 60 % of the working age inactive persons, is of particular concern;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 339 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Welcomes the continued participation of BiH in the Erasmus+, Creative Europe and Europe for Citizens Programmes; stresses that educational and cultural exchanges and joint projects are an essential part of bringing the citizens of BiH and of the EU closer;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 340 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 b (new)
23b. Calls on the authorities to harmonise the legislation on maternity and paternity leave across entities and cantons;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 341 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 c (new)
23c. Urges the authorities to develop effective measures to prevent gender- based discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 342 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 d (new)
23d. Underlines that social cohesion is an essential element of a sustainable and united future for BiH; therefore stresses the importance for the EU to support the strengthening of the welfare system of BiH, so as to boost a policy of social justice, of reduction of social inequalities, which will contribute to strengthening social cohesion; regrets that serious challenges remain to be addressed as regards to poverty reduction and calls for access to public health coverage for all; recalls that BiH is a signatory to all ILO fundamental and governance Conventions and as such calls for enhanced social dialogue and social protection;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 343 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Urges the authorities to prioritise measures aimed at boosting economic diversification, digitalisation and tackling the informal economy, while developing effective and transparent mechanisms for energy market, transport infrastructure, sustainable tourism and support for SMEs; calls on the authorities to foster the social-economic dialogue among social partners on all socio-economic matters;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 359 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
25. Recommends focusing on sustainable and inclusive growth- enhancing public investment and infrastructure projects, making full use of the Economic and Investment Plan for the Western Balkans; which can contribute to facilitating a social development and long-term recovery following the pandemic; stresses however the need to ensure that EU funds contain both incentives and conditionality and shall effectively contribute to protecting and strengthening democracy, good governance, the rule of law and fundamental rights for all people in BiH;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 364 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Notes the extension of the trade preferences for the Western Balkans for five more years, thereby contributing to their sustained economic development; underlines that BiH consequently needs to engage in effective economic reforms and regional cooperation;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 368 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
26. Urges BiH’s authorities to ensure alignment with EU standards and policy objectives on climate protection and energy, facilitating the green and digital transition, and calls for the prioritisation of measures reducing ecological degradation and environmental risks to health by banning the building of small hydropower plants, combating illegal construction, and increasing inspection oversight on ecological issues; welcomes the adoption of the Green Agenda for the Western Balkans, which shall incentivize the transition to a circular economy and the adoption of the necessary measures to preserve and protect environmentally sensitive areas;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 399 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
28. Welcomes the continued presence of EUFOR’s Operation Althea in the country and the extension of EUFOR’s mandate until November 2021; commends that BiH contributes troops to EU CSDP training missions; welcomes the signature of a joint roadmap for action on the G7 partnership for Women, Peace and Security;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 405 #

2019/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
30. Reaffirms its position that government and civil society representatives of the Western Balkan countries should be engaged in the Conference on the Future of Europe;
2021/02/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 22 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the rule of law is a key benchmark for assessing the progress towards the EU accession;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 32 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas the ongoing pandemic has clearly demonstrated that the EU and the Western Balkans must continue tackling common challenges together;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 33 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D c (new)
Dc. whereas the country has to recover from the widespread damage caused by the 26 November 2019 earthquake and the COVID-19 pandemic; boost preparedness for civil protection and disaster response and advance preparations for joining the Union Civil Protection Mechanism;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 34 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D c (new)
Dc. whereas the EU has mobilised grants worth €115 million for the post- earthquake rehabilitation and reconstruction within the €400 million European support pledge;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 36 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D d (new)
Dd. whereas the EU mobilised €51million to assist Albania in tackling COVID-19 and made available up to €180 million in macro-financial assistance;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 39 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D e (new)
De. whereas the EU is Albania’s biggest trading partner and the largest donor, and the country has benefited from €1.25 billion in EU pre-accession funding since 2007;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 41 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D g (new)
Dg. whereas the Economic and Investment Plan for the Western Balkans will facilitate a long-term recovery, following the COVID-19 pandemic, supporting the economic development and reforms in the region;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 43 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D h (new)
Dh. whereas Albanian citizens enjoy visa-free travel to the Schengen area since December 2010;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 44 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D i (new)
Di. whereas since 2015 Albanian citizens participate in student, academic and youth exchanges under Erasmus+;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 45 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D j (new)
Dj. whereas the EU remains fully committed to supporting Albania’s strategic choice for European integration, based on the rule of law and good neighbourly relations;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 46 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D k (new)
Dk. whereas Albania remains a trustworthy foreign policy partner, advancing regional cooperation and good neighbourly relations;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 69 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Considers the appointment of the Chief Negotiator and the negotiating team, along with the adoption of the action plan to address the conditions and priorities set by Council’s conclusions of March 2020, to be a sign of a clear political commitment to advance the EU integration process;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 73 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Encourages political leaders to create a climate of confidence by increasing transparency and overcoming the lack of dialogue and expresses its serious concern about the polarised political climate and lack of sustainable cross-party cooperation that continue to hamper the democratic process;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 75 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls on public institutions to be proactive and make information publicly and timely available to civil society, media and the general public, particularly when related to issues of high public interest;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 94 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Stresses the importance of ensuring that preparations for the 2021 parliamentary elections take place in a transparent and inclusive manner;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 95 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Notes that all political forces, state bodies, civil society and the media have a joint duty to ensure a transparent, credible and objective election campaign, free from disinformation, intimidation and false accusations;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 97 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Urges Albania to improve intra- governmental co-ordination, decentralisation under the territorial administrative reform, to advance public consultations at local level and advance with public administration reform;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 101 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Recalls the paramount importance of safeguarding the rule of law through implementation of judicial overhaul and a steady and consistent prosecution of high- level corruption;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 105 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Encourages Albania to complete the relevant steps towards re-establishing the Constitutional Court’s ability to function fully and efficiently, as well as to make sure the Appeals Court does not stop operating and urges all involved to swiftly conclude the appointment process;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 112 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Welcomes the fact that the High Court has regained its ability to function and that it has been reviewing more than a thousand cases, and encourages it to make further progress in the appointment of additional judges and to develop a plan to recover its backlog;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 119 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Recalls the need to improve transparency and control of political party funding under the amended Law on Political Party Financing;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 122 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)
14b. Notes the importance of effectively implement the recommendations of the Albanian Supreme State Audit Institution;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 126 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Notes the increase in proactive investigations, prosecutions and final convictions targeting illicit wealth and money laundering, leading to the systematic freezing and seizure of criminal assets, and calls for their further intensification, in line with the principles of judicial independence, due process and fair trial;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 128 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Underlines the importance of the continuing efforts and systemic improvements in tackling human, firearms and counterfeit goods’ trafficking, along with the cyber-crime and terrorist threats;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 133 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Expresses its support for inclusive policies and calls for progress to be made in adopting measures to effectively protect the fundamental freedoms and rights of all citizens, with a special focus on women, children, persons with disabilities, ethnic minorities and LGBTQI+ persons;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 135 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Notes that the National Action Plan for LGBTI Issues 2016-2020 has expired; Calls on the government to develop the new action plan in a transparent and inclusive process in consultation with civil society and ensure appropriate resources are assigned for its implementation;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 140 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Welcomes the decision to eliminate the unacceptable "conversion therapy", strengthening the right to gender identity and gender expression;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 146 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Calls for the creation of an effective mechanism for the prevention of gender- based and domestic violence and harassment, exacerbated by the COVID- 19 pandemic, and for protection and support to be given to its victims, combined with the effective and efficient prosecution of its perpetrators;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 150 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Reminds Albania of its calls for further improvements to be made in the education and health, and the employment rates and living conditions of Roma and other ethnic minorities; welcomes the 2019 Poznan Declaration on Roma Integration within the EU Enlargement Process, urges the authorities to advance Roma integration policies in line with the EU Roma strategic framework;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 152 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Reminds Albania of its calls forto ensure non-discriminatory access to public services and further improvements to be made in the education and health, and the employment rates and living conditions of Roma and other ethnic minorities;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 153 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Reminds Albania of its calls for further improvements to be made in the education and health, and the employment rates and living conditions of Roma, Egyptians and other ethnic minorities;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 159 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Recalls the importance of measures ensuring the protection of national minorities, including self-identification, the use of languages and property rights; Welcomes in this context the adoption of the law on the population census;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 163 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
25. Encourages Albania to make further progress on measures consolidating property registration, restitution and compensation rights, implementing the law on transitional ownership, and completing the comprehensive land sector reform;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 166 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
26. Welcomes Albania’s efforts in promoting tolerance, inter-religious harmony and addressing prejudice and discrimination, including antisemitism, as affirmed by the parliamentary approval of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 169 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Calls on the authorities to ensure that the right to peaceful assembly is respected, and during state of emergency or state of natural disaster the restrictions to public gatherings are applied fairly;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 172 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
27. Recalls the authorities’ obligation to ensure due process for asylum seekers in compliance with Albania’s international obligations, and to properly address the needs of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants, while increasing preparedness for potential increases in migratory flows; calls for increased capacities to process asylum requests and investigations into the reported cases of breaches of the return procedures;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 177 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
28. Stresses that border protection and the prevention of cross-border crime, including in cooperation with the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), must be conducted in full respect for fundamental rights, enshrined in applicable international and regional laws and principles;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 180 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
29. Welcomes the ongoing efforts being made and urges the authorities to take a robust approach in preventing, investigating, prosecuting and punishing human trafficking and the exploitation of its victims, who include children and other vulnerable groups, to increase reintegration services and ensure witness protection;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 184 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
30. Welcomes the ongoing measures and calls for further progress to be made in considerably reducing the number of unfounded asylum claims by Albanian nationals, including the arrivals of unaccompanied minors, in the EU Member States; notes that Albania continues to fulfil visa liberalisation benchmarks;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 185 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30a. Notes the importance of addressing allegations of police misconduct and to eradicate ill-treatment of suspects and prisoners;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 187 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
31. Underlines the need to improve the climate for the functioning of civil society and urges the authorities to ensure meaningful, timely and representative consultations, and to enhance throughout the decision- making at different governance levels and to enhance the legal and fiscal framework, improving the financial sustainability of the non-governmental sector;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 189 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)
31a. Stresses the importance of consultation and participation of civil society organizations on the regular function of society; Notes that this involvement is of paramount importance to the participation of citizens in the life of the country;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 190 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
33. Recalls the importance of ensuring quality journalism and media literacy for the functioning of democracy and in tackling disinformation, hate speech and fake-news; stresses the importance of increasing the levels of media literacy in Albania;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 193 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
33a. Underlines the need to strengthen self-regulation, ethics, independence, impartiality, financial sustainability and reporting quality of public and private media outlets and to enhance transparency of the media ownership, funding and public advertising; notes the need to improve labour and social conditions of the media professionals in order to ensure quality journalism;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 198 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
35. Expresses grave concern about the proposed measures under the draft media law and welcomes the commitment to adopt amendments only if they are publicly shared in a consultation process with civil society, journalists and media organisations and assessed as being fully in line with the Venice Commission’s recommendations;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 205 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
36. Encourages the Albanian Government to prioritise measures aimed at mitigating the socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, with particular consideration for marginalised and vulnerable groups such as Roma, Egyptians and the LGBTQI+ community, while taking further steps to enhance the representativeness of the social dialogue and to tackle the widespread informal economy;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 206 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
36. Encourages the Albanian Government to prioritise measures aimed at mitigating the socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, while taking further steps to improve diversification, competitiveness, and digitalisation, enhance the representativeness of the social dialogue and to tackle the widespread informal economy;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 209 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
37. Stresses the need to substantially strengthen social care coverage and improve access to social and healthcare services in order to reduce the risk of poverty and social exclusion;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 212 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
38. Calls for the measures addressing the demographic decline and the brain drain to be stepped up through active labour market policies that address skills mismatches and reduce long-term unemployment, as well as by addressing problems relating to housing and access to education;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 213 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
38. Calls for the measures addressing the demographic decline and the brain drain to be stepped up through active labour market policies that address skills mismatches and reduce long-term unemployment, particularly among the youth and the most excluded/marginalised groups;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 216 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
39. Welcomes the positive trends in women’s participation in politics, and calls for additional steps to address thegender imbalances, gender pay gap and workplace discrimination;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 217 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40 a (new)
40a. Recalls that sustainable growth depends on eradication of endemic corruption, improved transparency, legal certainty and efficiency, fair competition and reduction of bureaucracy;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 218 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40 b (new)
40b. Calls for adequate co-financing and further improvements in transparency and visibility of the EU funding;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 220 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40 b (new)
40b. Stresses that the EU Investment Plan for the Western Balkans should play an important role on the fight against the demographic decline and the brain drain, developing tools to address this problem;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 223 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 b (new)
41b. Underlines that planning and construction of eco-sensitive projects, including hydropower, industrial and tourist sites, must be conducted under a broad country-wide stakeholder consultation with the civil society and local communities and must comply with international and EU norms on impact assessments and environmental protection;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 229 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 a (new)
42a. Recalls the need to overhaul the Fierza Hydro Power Plant and construct the Skavica Hydro Power Plant;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 234 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
43. Urges the authorities to ensure full compliance with the Energy Community Treaty; underlines the contribution of the newly launched trans-Adriatic pipeline, and upcoming connection of the converted Vlora thermal plant, to regional energy security;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 241 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
44. Calls for continuing progress in strengthening strategic transport networks in line with the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) regulatory framework and advance work on the Albanian sections of the “Blue Highway“;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 242 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 a (new)
44a. Recalls the need to complete the railway sector reforms and advance the Tirana-Podgorica-Durrës rail connection;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 243 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 a (new)
44a. Recalls the need to complete the electricity market reform and put in place Bitola-Elbasan electricity interconnector with North Macedonia;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 245 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 a (new)
44a. Recalls the need to prioritise setting up of an integrated regional waste management system, promote recycling, close hazardous dumpsites, address deforestation, step-up water quality monitoring and wastewater treatment capacities and strengthen the capacities of the agencies on environment and protected areas;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 257 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 a (new)
47a. Recalls that regional cooperation should be underpinned by respect for fundamental European values and a common future in the EU;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 258 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 a (new)
48a. Calls upon all political leaders to take urgent steps to set up the Regional Commission tasked with establishing the facts about all victims of war crimes and other serious human rights violations committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia (RECOM), building upon the significant work carried out by the Coalition for RECOM;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 263 #

2019/2170(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
49. Welcomes Albania’s ongoing full alignment with the common foreign and security policy decisions and declarations since 2012 and its active contribution to the EU crisis management missions and operations; urges Albania to comply with the EU position on the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court;
2020/12/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 5 #

2019/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 a (new)
— having regard to the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction,
2021/03/02
Committee: JURIFEMM
Amendment 6 #

2019/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 b (new)
— having regard to the Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption,
2021/03/02
Committee: JURIFEMM
Amendment 7 #

2019/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 c (new)
— having regard to the Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime,
2021/03/02
Committee: JURIFEMM
Amendment 8 #

2019/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 d (new)
— having regard to the Directive (EU) 2016/800 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings,
2021/03/02
Committee: JURIFEMM
Amendment 63 #

2019/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
C a. whereas between 70% and 85% of children know their abuser and the vast majority of children are victims of people they trust;1a _________________ 1ahttps://www.coe.int/en/web/human- rights-channel/stop-child-sexual-abuse- in-sport
2021/03/02
Committee: JURIFEMM
Amendment 72 #

2019/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas the lockdown and social distancing measures during the COVID-19 pandemic have been associated with an exponential increase in the prevalence and intensity of intimate partner violence cases in many Member States, resulting from forced confinement within the home and making it difficult for women to access effective protection and, support and justice; whereas in spite of the prevalence of the phenomenon, intimate partner violence against women remains under-reported in the EU for various reasons and there is a significant lack of comprehensive data;
2021/03/02
Committee: JURIFEMM
Amendment 76 #

2019/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
D a. Whereas domestic and gender- based violence has increased as a result of the lockdown measures put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic and according to the latest Europol Report1a child sexual abuse online in the EU has dramatically increased; _________________ 1a https://www.europol.europa.eu/publicatio ns-documents/exploiting-isolation- offenders-and-victims-of-online-child- sexual-abuse-during-covid-19-pandemic
2021/03/02
Committee: JURIFEMM
Amendment 120 #

2019/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
I a. whereas the right of the child to be heard and fully informed in a child- friendly manner at all stages of the criminal proceedings should always be a primary consideration in accordance with Art. 4 and 16 of the Directive (EU) 2016/800;
2021/03/02
Committee: JURIFEMM
Amendment 122 #

2019/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I b (new)
I b. where the best interest of the child should always be the primary consideration in all decisions concerning children, including family disputes;
2021/03/02
Committee: JURIFEMM
Amendment 169 #

2019/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. stresses the importance to fully and swiftly implement the EU Gender Equality Strategy and its key objectives on stopping gender-based violence;
2021/03/02
Committee: JURIFEMM
Amendment 192 #

2019/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
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 with 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, represents the best alternativeonly way in order to prevent further violence and secondary victimisation of the victims;
2021/03/02
Committee: JURIFEMM
Amendment 202 #

2019/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Calls for mandatory targeted training for judicial and law enforcement officers, including judges, about domestic violence and its mechanisms, including coercion, manipulation and psychological violence, and about the relevance of intimate partner violence to children’s rights, and to their protection and well- being, as well as to provide adequate skills to enable the officers to assess the situation using reliable risk assessment tools; recalls the importance of European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) in this respect;
2021/03/02
Committee: JURIFEMM
Amendment 214 #

2019/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
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 of intimate partner violence, including raising awareness of gender- based violence, 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;
2021/03/02
Committee: JURIFEMM
Amendment 242 #

2019/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide quality, gender- 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; stresses the key role of Eurostat and of Member States’ statistical institutes in producing high quality, timely and reliable statistics on gender-based violence, including intimate partner violence; recalls that such action is eligible for funding under the Single Market Programme for the period 2021- 2027, which should contribute in speeding up such production by Member States even in the ones where such data is still not collected or such statistics not produced yet;
2021/03/02
Committee: JURIFEMM
Amendment 291 #

2019/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Member States to promote betterfull access to legal protection, effective hearings and restraining orders, counselling and victim funds for women victims of intimate partner violence, and to apply particular procedures based on common minimum standards and give support to mothers who are victims of domestic violence, in order to prevent them from becoming victims again as a result of losing custody of their children;
2021/03/02
Committee: JURIFEMM
Amendment 297 #

2019/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. highlights for this reason the key role of economic support for the victims in order to reach financial independence from the violent partner; for the same reason, calls on Member States to provide rapid and effective decisions on paid child support to avoid dependence of the victim and potentially dangerous situations also for the child;
2021/03/02
Committee: JURIFEMM
Amendment 306 #

2019/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10 b. Highlights the need for special attention and specific procedures and standards for cases in which the victim or the child involved is a person with disabilities or belongs to a particularly vulnerable group;
2021/03/02
Committee: JURIFEMM
Amendment 309 #

2019/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 c (new)
10 c. Welcomes the initiative of the Commission to put forward an EU strategy on the rights of the child (2021- 24); underlines the need to protect the rights of the most vulnerable children, with particular attention to children with disabilities, the prevention of and fight against violence and the promotion of child-friendly justice; calls for a full and swift implementation of the strategy by all Member States;
2021/03/02
Committee: JURIFEMM
Amendment 311 #

2019/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Commission to promote EU-wide public awareness campaigns as a necessary measure in the prevention of domestic violence and the creation of a climate of zero tolerance towards violence; highlights the strategic role of media in this regard; stresses, however, that in some Member States femicides and cases of gender violence are still presented in absolutory terms with regard to the violent partner; emphasizes that instead the media should strongly condemn this type of violence and abstain from treating the violent partner with an absolutory tone;
2021/03/02
Committee: JURIFEMM
Amendment 339 #

2019/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Emphasises that thearing from the child is important child has the right to be heard, which is a key element in order to establish what is in the best interests of the child while examining custody cases; points out nevertheless that in every case, but crucially in cases where intimate partnership violence is suspected, such hearings should be conducted in a child- friendly environment, with no pressure or influence from parents or relatives, by trained professionals, including those qualified in child neuropsychiatry, to avoid deepening the trauma and victimisation; calls for minimum EU standards on how such hearings should be conducted;
2021/03/02
Committee: JURIFEMM
Amendment 350 #

2019/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Underlines the importance of the exchange of information between courts, the central authorities of Member States and police bodies, especially in relation to cross-border custody cases; hopes that the revised rules under Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 of 25 June 2019 on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction7 will enhance the cooperation between judicial systems to effectively determine the best interests of the child; calls, in this context, on the Commission and the Member States to implement the Brussels IIa Regulation effectively; ensure enforcement and effective application of the Brussels IIa Regulation; regrets in this regard that its latest revision failed to extend the scope to registered partnerships and unmarried couples; is of the opinion that this leads to discrimination and potentially dangerous situations for victims and children of registered partnerships and unmarried couples; _________________ 7 OJ L 178, 2.7.2019, p. 1.
2021/03/02
Committee: JURIFEMM
Amendment 200 #

2019/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Highlights that trade and human rights reinforce each other, and that the business community has an important role to play in offering positive incentives in terms of promoting human rights, democracy and corporate responsibility; remindscalls on the Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) of the needurgently to make effective and binding use of human rights clauses within international agreements, based on not only to ensure political dialogue, and the regular assessment of progress and recourse to the consultation procedure upon request from a party but also to enable serious efforts to be made to set up an effective, legally-binding sanction mechanism for grave human rights abuses arising from the business activities of companies; requests that robust implementation and monitoring mechanisms of human rights clauses be put in place, involving Parliament, local civil society and relevant international organisations, as well as establishing a complaints mechanism for groups of citizens and stakeholders who are affected by human rights violations;
2019/10/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 246 #

2019/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Condemns in the strongest possible terms Turkey’s war of aggression, in violation of international law, against northern and eastern Syria and particularly the use of banned weapons, as well as the Turkish army’s cooperation with terrorist militias and the associated displacement of Kurds, Armenians, Syrian Armenians and members of other ethnic and religious groups in the region, and calls on the EU to respond to Turkey’s actions with a strict weapons embargo and tough economic sanctions. In this regards, calls on the EU firmly to demand the withdrawal of the Turkish army of occupation and its associated militias from Afrin and the return and compensation of the people driven out in 2018;
2019/10/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 247 #

2019/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17b. Calls on the international community officially to recognise, at the political and international level, genocides such as that committed against the Yazidi in Sinjar, Iraq in August 2014 and to provide support and measures for legal processing of the crimes and for the reconstruction of the region, as well as ensuring, for example by means of civilian observer missions, that similar persecution on the scale of genocide in Iraq and Syria will be prevented in the future;
2019/10/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 420 #

2019/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Calls on the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal for compliance with transparency and due diligence obligations in the area of human rights and environmental protection which calls on companies to respect human rights and the environment in their global value chains and operations; stresses the need for victims of violations by companies to have better access to means of legal redress under the new legislation; notes the need for binding EU legislation to ensure protection for individuals, communities, workers, human rights defenders and their representatives, as well as for the environment;
2019/10/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 423 #

2019/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 b (new)
25b. calls for a compensation obligation system in the event of a company’s economic or commercial activities violating fundamental human rights;
2019/10/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 424 #

2019/2125(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 c (new)
25c. Stresses that human rights due diligence tests should be ongoing and be conducted as early as possible, and certainly whenever a new business activity is being established, as risks to human rights can change as a company’s business activities develop and the business environment undergoes changes. Risks to human rights can increase or decrease while contracts and other agreements are being drawn up or can be prevented when mergers or takeovers happen;
2019/10/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 1 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1
— having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and in particular Articles 2, 4(3) and 7(1) thereof,
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 6 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7
— having regard to its resolutions of 16 January 2020 and 5 May 2022 on ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) of the TEU regarding Poland and Hungary2 , _________________ 2 OJ C 270, 7.7.2021, p. 91.
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 10 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and as reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and embedded in international human rights treaties, and whereas those values, which are common to the Member States and to which all Member States have freely subscribed, constitute the foundation of the rights enjoyed by those living in the Union;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 11 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas it is apparent from Article 49 TEU, which provides the possibility for any European State to apply to become a member of the European Union, the European Union is composed of States which have freely and voluntarily committed themselves to the common values referred to in Article 2 TEU, which respect those values and which undertake to promote them, EU law being based on the fundamental premiss that each Member State shares with all the other Member States, and recognises that those Member States share with it, those same values 1a _________________ 1a Judgement of 24 June 2019, European Commission v Republic of Poland, C- 619/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:531, paragraph 42
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 12 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas that premiss implies and justifies the existence of mutual trust between the Member States that those values will be recognised and, therefore, that the law of the EU that implements them will be respected 2a; _________________ 2a Opinion of the Court of 18 December 2014, Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU, 2/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454, paragraph 168
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 13 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)
Ac. whereas compliance by a Member State with the values contained in Article 2 TEU is a condition for the enjoyment of all the rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to that Member State; whereas any violation of EU fundamental values by a Member State governments inevitably implies an attack on citizens’ personal freedom, political and social rights, as well as their wealth and wellbeing;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 14 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A d (new)
Ad. 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 Union;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 15 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Ae. whereas Article 19 TEU gives concrete expression to the value of the rule of law affirmed in Article 2 TEU, entrusts the responsibility for ensuring the full application of EU law in all Member States and judicial protection of the rights of individuals under that law to national courts and tribunals and to the Court of Justice 3a; _________________ 3a Judgments of 27 February 2018, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, C-64/16, EU:C:2018:117, paragraph 32
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 16 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A f (new)
Af. Whereas the adoption of the Fourth Amendment of the Fundamental Law repealed the rulings of the Hungarian Constitutional Court (HCC) given prior to the entry into force of the Fundamental Law on 25 April 2011;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 17 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A g (new)
Ag. Whereas the HCC increasingly relies on the vague concept of constitutional identity based on the historic constitution in its decisions; whereas the HCC does not deem that constitutional identity as list of closed and static values and will determine it on a case-by-case basis; whereas in the case- law of the HCC values the constitutional identity above the Fundamental Law; whereas the HCC may review the joint exercise of power within the European Union; whereas the Hungarian Government uses the HCC as a means of evading the enforcement of a binding CJEU judgment;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 18 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A h (new)
Ah. Whereas the Fundamental Law was amended nine times since its adoption; whereas the Hungarian Government recently proposed the tenth amendment thereof; whereas cardinal laws cover 35 subject matters 5a, including issues which should be left to the ordinary political process and which are usually decided by simple majority, that now amounts to more than 300 pieces of legislation that were adopted since 25 April 2011; _________________ 5a Az Alaptörvény elfogadását követően benyújtott, illetve elfogadott sarkalatos törvények, https://www.parlament.hu/documents/101 81/1205420/Az+Alapt%C3%B6rv%C3%A 9ny+elfogad%C3%A1s%C3%A1t+k%C3 %B6vet%C5%91en+beny%C3%BAjtott% 2C+illetve+elfogadott+sarkalatos+t%C3% B6rv%C3%A9nyek/0af78bee-9b54-49fd- 97df-2c9ba024c265
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 40 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Ga. Whereas on 20 July 2020, the Council recommended in its opinion on the 2020 Convergence Programme of Hungary to ensure that any emergency measures be strictly proportionate, limited in time and in line with European and international standards and do not interfere with business activities and the stability of the regulatory environment, to ensure effective involvement of social partners and stakeholders in the policy- making process;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 41 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G b (new)
Gb. Whereas on 25 September 2020, in its second interim compliance report, the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) welcomed the amendments to the Act on the National Assembly to make the provisions prohibiting or restricting members of parliament (MPs) to engage in certain activities more operational by providing for clearer consequences in case these matters are not resolved by the MP in question; however, more determined measures remained necessary to improve the current integrity framework of Parliament, in particular to improve the level of transparency and consultation in the legislative process (including the introduction of rules on interactions with lobbyists), to adopt a code of conduct for MPs (covering in particular various situations that could lead to a conflict of interest), to further develop rules obliging MPs to disclose in an ad-hoc manner potential conflicts between their parliamentary work and their private interests, to ensure a uniform format of asset declarations and to review the broad immunity enjoyed by MPs as well as to ensure the effective supervision and enforcement of rules of conduct, conflict of interest and asset declarations;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 43 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G c (new)
Gc. Whereas on 20 November 2020, in her statement, the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe urged Hungary’s Parliament to postpone the vote on draft bills fearing that several proposals contained in the complex legislative package, submitted without prior consultation and relating to matters including the functioning of the judiciary, election law, national human rights structures, scrutiny over public funds, and the human rights of LGBTI people, could serve to undermine democracy, the rule of law and human rights in Hungary; whereas on 2 July 2021, in its opinion on the constitutional amendments adopted by the Hungarian Parliament in December 2020, the Venice Commission noted with concern that the constitutional amendments were adopted during a state of emergency, without any public consultation, and the explanatory memorandum consists of only three pages; whereas the Venice Commission also indicated that Articles 6 and 9, and 11 of the Ninth Amendment amending the Fundamental Law of Hungary relating to declarations of war, control of the Hungarian Defence Forces, and the “special legal order” that pertains to state of war, state of emergency and state of danger mainly leave the specification of most details to Cardinal Acts, which could eventually raise some serious questions regarding the scope of the powers of the State during states of exception; whereas, as concerns the abolition of the National Defence Council and the entrusting of its powers to the government, the Venice Commission indicated that, while it is not contrary as such to European standards, it leads to a concentration of emergency powers in the hands of the executive which cannot be considered an encouraging sign, notably in the absence of any clarification in the explanatory memorandum for the ratio or the necessity of such modification; whereas the pending proposal for a constitutional amendment expands the government’s mandate to declare a state of danger to cases of an armed conflict, war or humanitarian disaster in a neighbouring country;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 44 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Gd. Whereas on 12 February 2021, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe noted a generally negative situation in terms of local and regional self- government, due to a general failure to comply with the European Charter of Local Self-Government and expressed concerns about a clear trend towards recentralisation, a lack of effective consultation and significant interference by the State in municipal functions; whereas it highlighted certain shortcomings in the situation of local self- government in the country, such as a lack of financial resources available to local authorities and their inability to recruit high quality staff;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 45 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G e (new)
Ge. Whereas on 18 October 2021, in their joint opinion on the 2020 amendments to electoral legislation, the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR stressed that the speed and the lack of meaningful public consultations are particularly worrisome when they concern electoral legislation, which should not be seen as a political instrument; they also made the key recommendation to amend Section 3 and Section 68 of the Act CLXVII of 2020 on the Amendment of Certain Acts relating to Elections, by significantly reducing the number of single-member constituencies and the number of counties in which each party needs to nominate candidates simultaneously in order to be able to run a national list of candidates, as well as a number of further recommendations;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 46 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G f (new)
Gf. Whereas on 4 April 2022, in the Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions following the Parliamentary Elections and Referendum, the OSCE international election observation mission stated that the 3 April parliamentary elections and referendum were well administered and professionally managed but marred by the absence of a level playing field; whereas contestants were largely able to campaign freely, but while competitive, the campaign was highly negative in tone and characterized by a pervasive overlap between the ruling coalition and the government, and he lack of transparency and insufficient oversight of campaign finances further benefited the governing coalition; the manner in which many election disputes were handled by election commissions and courts fell short of providing effective legal remedy;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 50 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H
H. whereas on 20 July 2021, the Commission indicated in the country chapter on Hungary of the 2021 Rule of Law Report that the Hungarian justice system performs well in terms of the length of proceedings and has a high level of digitalisation, and that the gradual increase in the salaries of judges and prosecutors continues; whereas, as regards judicial independence, the justice system has been subject to new developments adding to existing concerns: the new rules allowing for the appointment of members of the Constitutional Court to the Supreme Court (Kúria) outside the normal procedure have been put into practice and have enabled the election of the new Kúria President, whose position was also endowed with additional powers and who was elected despite an unfavourable opinion from the National Judicial Council (NJC); whereas the recommendation to strengthen judicial independence, made in the context of the European Semester, remains unaddressed, including the need to formally reinforce the powers of the independent NJC to enable it to counterbalance the powers of the President of the National Office for the Judiciary (NOJ); whereas the nomination of the new Kúria President was rejected by the NJC with 13 votes against and1 in favour;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 51 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Ha. Whereas on 23 November 2021, in Case C-564/19IS (Illégalité de l’ordonnance de renvoi), the CJEU ruled that Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the supreme court of a Member State from declaring, following an appeal in the interests of the law, that a request for a preliminary ruling which has been submitted to the CJEU under Article 267 TFEU by a lower court is unlawful on the ground that the questions referred are not relevant and necessary for the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings, without, however, altering the legal effects of the decision containing that request; whereas the principle of the primacy of EU law requires that lower court to disregard such a decision of the national supreme court; whereas Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding disciplinary proceedings from being brought against a national judge on the ground that he or she has made a reference for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU under that provision;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 52 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H b (new)
Hb. Whereas on 14 December 2018, in her statement the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe called on Hungary’s President to return to the Parliament the legislative package on administrative courts; whereas on 19 March 2019, in its opinion on the Law on administrative courts and the Law on the entry into force of the Law on administrative courts and certain transitional rules, the Venice Commission stated that the major drawback is that very extensive powers are concentrated in the hands of a few stakeholders and there are no effective checks and balances to counteract those powers;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 53 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H c (new)
Hc. Whereas on 21 May 2019, in her Report following the visit to Hungary from 4 to 8 February 2019, the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe noted that a series of reforms of the judiciary in Hungary during the 2010s have drawn concern about their effects on the independence of the judiciary, and in the ordinary court system, questions about the effectiveness of the supervision exercised by the NJC over the President of the NJO have been raised by the recent anomalies observed in the relationship between these judicial institutions with reference to appointment procedures; whereas, while welcoming the recent amendments made to the original legislation on the administrative courts in response to the opinion of the Venice Commission, the Commissioner was not persuaded that the amendments are sufficient in addressing the serious concerns identified by the Venice Commission;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 54 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H d (new)
Hd. Whereas in 2019, the Parliament of Hungary decided to postpone the entry into force of the legislative package on administrative courts, and the Government stated that it had abandoned the idea of introducing the separate administrative courts; whereas several important elements of the package were introduced by a series of legislative amendments adopted between 2019–2021;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 55 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H e (new)
He. Whereas on 28 November 2019, in her statement the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe urged the Hungarian Parliament to modify a bill affecting the independence of the judiciary; whereas the Commissioner considered that the provisions opening the possibility of administrative authorities to introduce constitutional complaints following unfavourable rulings by the ordinary courts raise concerns about upholding fair trial guarantees for the individual complainant and, coupled with the proposed changes on the qualifications and appointments of judges and the uniformity of jurisprudence, the legislative measures also run the risk of diminishing the independence of individual judges in their core duties and of creating excessive hierarchies within the judicial system;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 56 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H f (new)
Hf. Whereas on 16 October 2021, in its opinion on the amendments to the Act on the Organisation and Administration of the Courts and the Act on the Legal Status and Remuneration of Judges, adopted by the Hungarian Parliament in December 2020, the Venice Commission reiterated the recommendations expressed in its 2012 opinion which have not been addressed by the authorities as to the role of the President of the NOJ; whereas the Venice Commission also recommended setting up clear, transparent and foreseeable conditions for the seconded judges to be assigned to a higher position after the period of secondment; whereas the Venice Commission made several recommendations related to the allocation of cases, the power of the President of the Kúria to increase the members of adjudicating panels, the uniformity decisions and the composition of chambers in the uniformity complaint procedure; whereas the Venice Commission also observed that the regime of appointment of the President of the Kúria introduced with the 2019 amendments could pose serious risks of politicisation and important consequences for the independence of the judiciary, or the perception thereof by the public, considering the crucial role of this position in the judicial system;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 57 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H g (new)
Hg. Whereas on 25 September 2020, in its second interim compliance report GRECO noted that, as regards judges, no further progress has been reported regarding the three remaining non- implemented recommendations, and GRECO’s findings on the powers of the President of the NJO (both as regards the process of appointing or promoting candidates for judicial positions and the process of re-assigning judges) remain of special significance; as regards prosecutors, GRECO welcomed the entry into force of legislative amendments making the involvement of a disciplinary commissioner compulsory in disciplinary proceedings, however, without saying that recommendation xvii had now been complied with; no progress had been achieved regarding the prolongation of the term of the Prosecutor General, the broad immunity enjoyed by prosecutors and the development of criteria to guide the removal of cases from subordinate prosecutors;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 58 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H h (new)
Hh. Whereas on 15 April 2021, in his communication with the government of Hungary, the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers considered that the appointment of the President of the Kúria may be regarded as an attack to the independence of the judiciary and as an attempt to submit the judiciary to the will of the legislative branch, in violation of the principle of separation of powers; whereas the Special Rapporteur also highlighted that the fact that the President of the Kúria was elected in spite of the manifest objection of the NJC is of particular concern, and the decision to ignore the negative opinion expressed by the NJC may be interpreted as a political statement by the ruling majority that does not consider itself bound to respect judicial independence by abiding to, or at least taking into account the views expressed by the body constitutionally assigned to safe guard the independence of courts and judges; whereas according to the Special Rapporteur, the main effect – if not the main goal – of the reforms of the judicial system has been to hamper the constitutionally protected principle of judicial independence and to enable the legislative and executive branches to interfere with the administration of justice;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 59 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H i (new)
Hi. Whereas on 2 December 2021, in its decision concerning the pending enhanced supervision of the execution of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) judgments in Gazsó group v. Hungary, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recalled that this group of cases, the first of which became final in 2003, concerns the structural problem of excessive length of civil, criminal and administrative proceedings and the lack of effective domestic remedies, noted with satisfaction the adoption of the bill introducing a compensatory remedy for excessively long civil proceedings and its impending entry into force on 1 January 2022, but with a view to avoiding the risk of an influx of new applications to the ECtHR, firmly called on the authorities to ensure its Convention-compliant application and invited them to provide the Committee with concrete information on its implementation in practice, and noted the authorities’ timetable for preparing a proposal for a remedy covering other types of judicial proceedings by the end of June 2023; in light of the importance of the matter, its technical nature and the expiry of the deadline set by the ECtHR in its pilot-judgment more than five years ago, strongly encouraged the authorities to explore any possible avenue for accelerating their planning;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 60 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Hj. Whereas on 9 March 2022, in its interim resolution concerning the pending enhanced supervision of the execution of the ECtHR judgment in Baka v. Hungary, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe strongly urged the authorities to step up their efforts to find ways, in close cooperation with the Secretariat, to introduce the required measures to ensure that a decision by Parliament to impeach the President of the Kúria will be subject to effective oversight by an independent judicial body in line with the ECtHR case- law and recalled, once again, the authorities’ undertaking to evaluate the domestic legislation on the status of judges and the administration of courts, and urged them to present the conclusions of their evaluation, including of the guarantees and safeguards protecting judges from undue interferences, to enable the Committee to make a full assessment as to whether the concerns regarding the ‘chilling effect’ on the freedom of expression of judges caused by the violations in these cases have been dispelled;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 65 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Ia. Whereas in written answers to questions to Commissioner Hahn regarding the hearing of 11 November 2019 on the 2018 discharge to the Commission, the Commission indicated that for 2014-2020, flat rate financial corrections were accepted and implemented in Hungary following an horizontal public procurement audit, that identified serious deficiencies in the functioning of the management and control system in relation to the control of public procurement procedures;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 66 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I b (new)
Ib. Whereas on 20 July 2020, the Council recommended in its opinion on the 2020 Convergence Programme of Hungary to improve competition in public procurement;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 69 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J
J. whereas on 10 June 2021, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) stated in its 2020 Activity Report that it had recommended that the Commission recover 2.2 % of the payments made under the European Structural and Investment Funds and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development for the period 2016- 2020; whereas this is the highest percentage of payments to be recovered among all the Member States and is far above the average of 0.29 %; whereas fraud committed against EU development funds allocated to Hungary is a direct attack on the wealth and wellbeing of Hungarian citizens; whereas the Hungarian government, consistently and deliberately turns a blind eye on high level corruption committed by politicians, their family members and oligarchs close to the government.
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 75 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital K
K. whereas on 5 April 2022, the Commission President announced that Commissioner for Budget Johannes Hahn had informed the Hungarian authorities about the Commission’s plans to move on to the next step and formally trigger the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation5 , mainly over corruption concerns; whereas on 27 April 2022, the Commission finally started the formal procedure against Hungary under the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation by sending a written notification; _________________ 5 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, OJ L 433 I , 22.12.2020, p. 1.
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 76 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)
Ka. Whereas on 6 April 2022, the Commission decided to send additional formal notice to ensure correct transposition of Directive2014/24/EU on public procurement, Directive 2014/23/EU on the award of concession contracts and Directive 2014/25/EU on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors; whereas, according to the Commission, Hungarian law allows for more extensive application of exceptions as regards security reasons and for contracts subsidised via tax benefits, and these exceptions lead to a broader exclusion of contracts from the obligations under EU law; whereas in addition, the Commission also believes that changes in the Hungarian mining law, which provide for the possibility to award mining concessions without transparent tendering procedures, are against the principle of transparency;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 79 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital K b (new)
Kb. Whereas on 25 September 2020, in its second interim compliance report, GRECO noted that Hungary had still only implemented satisfactorily or dealt in a satisfactory manner five of the eighteen recommendations contained in the Fourth Round Evaluation Report and concluded that the overall low level of compliance with the recommendations remains "globally unsatisfactory";
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 81 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital K c (new)
Kc. Whereas in the mission report following the ad-hoc LIBE delegation to Budapest, Hungary on 29 September - 1 October 2021, concerns were raised about the lack of safeguards as regards surveillance in the current legislation, with no real checks and balances and remedies; whereas concerns were raised on the alleged use of the Pegasus spyware and increased surveillance by the state against activists, journalists and lawyers;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 82 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital K d (new)
Kd. Whereas on 15 February 2022, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) in the preliminary remarks on modern spyware concluded that the widespread use of highly-advanced spywares like Pegasus have the potential to cause unprecedented risks and damages not only to fundamental rights and freedoms but also to democracy and the rule of law and indicated that a ban on the development and the deployment of spyware with the capacity of Pegasus in the EU would be the most effective option to protect fundamental rights and freedoms;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 84 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital K e (new)
Ke. Whereas on 9 March 2022, in its decision concerning the pending enhanced supervision of the execution of the ECtHR judgment in Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recalled that this case concerns the violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life and for their correspondence on account of the Hungarian legislation on national security-related measures of secret surveillance, which lacked safeguards sufficiently precise, effective and comprehensive on the ordering, execution and potential redressing of these measures, highlighted that secret surveillance should be regarded as a highly intrusive act that potentially interferes with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy and threatens the foundations of a democratic society and recalling that in response to the ECtHR judgment the authorities announced in 2017 the need for a legislative reform, and noted with serious concern that, despite this the legislative process is still at a preliminary stage and the authorities have not presented any other relevant developments; therefore, strongly called on the authorities to urgently adopt the measures required to bring the domestic legislation fully in line with the Convention requirements, establish a timeline for the legislative process and to present to the Committee a draft legislative proposal;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 91 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)
La. Whereas on 2 December 2021, the Commission decided to send a reasoned opinion regarding a decision made by the Hungarian Media Council to reject Klubradio's application for the use of radio spectrum; whereas the Commission concluded that the decisions of the Hungarian Media Council to refuse renewal of Klubradio's rights were disproportionate and non-transparent, and the Hungarian national media law has been applied in a discriminatory way in this particular case, in breach of Directive (EU)2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018establishing the European Electronic Communications Code;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 93 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)
La. Whereas in the centuries-long history of Hungary the peaceful coexistence of different nationalities and ethnic groups has had positive effects on the cultural wealth and prosperity of the nation, Hungary is reminded to continue this tradition and to resolutely oppose all efforts that might discriminate against individual groups.
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 95 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L b (new)
Lb. Whereas Hungary itself has subscribed to the values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and whereas the joy of joining the European Union in 2004 was great and full of hope, Hungary is reminded to consider itself a constructive member of the Union, to respect the Union's values of the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights.
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 96 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L b (new)
Lb. Whereas on 8 October 2019, in its judgment in Szurovecz v. Hungary, the ECtHR found a violation of the freedom of expression regarding the lack of media access to reception facilities for asylum- seekers; whereas the supervision of the execution of that judgment remains pending;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 98 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L c (new)
Lc. Whereas on 3 December 2019, in its judgment in Scheiring and Szabó v. Hungary, and on 2 December 2021, in its judgment in Szél and Others v. Hungary, the ECtHR found that there had been violations of the freedom of expression regarding displaying banners in the Parliament of Hungary; whereas the supervision of the execution of those judgments is still pending;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 100 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L c (new)
Lc. Whereas Hungary’s government disregards systematically the European supremacy principle of the role of the EU Court of Justice, but itself employs the EU Court of Justice when it comes to bringing actions against existing European laws.
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 102 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L d (new)
Ld. Whereas on 20 January 2020, in its judgment in Magyar Kétfarkú Kutya Párt v. Hungary, the ECtHR found that there had been a violation of the freedom of expression regarding penalising for providing apolitical party’s mobile application which allowed voters to photograph, anonymously upload and comment on invalid votes cast during a referendum on immigration in 2016; whereas the supervision of the execution of that judgment is still pending;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 103 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L d (new)
Ld. Whereas blocking sanctions against Russia in the Council undermines the Union's own ability to act as a whole and constitutes a security problem for the European Union.
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 105 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L e (new)
Le. Whereas the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has overturned significant parts of Hungary's asylum law in various rulings - most recently on 17 December 2020 - and Hungary has been condemned for pushbacks of asylum seekers and Frontex has had to cancel joint operations due to the fundamental rights violations found by the ECJ
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 106 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L e (new)
Le. Whereas on 23 March 2020, in his statement the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media expressed his concerns about provisions of the coronavirus response draft bill in Hungary that could negatively impact the work of the media reporting on the pandemic;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 108 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L f (new)
Lf. Whereas on 26 May2020, in its judgment in Mándli and Others v. Hungary, the ECtHR found a violation of the freedom of expression regarding the suspension of the applicants’ Parliament accreditation as journalists; whereas the supervision of the execution of that judgment remain spending;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 109 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L f (new)
Lf. Whereas Hungary did not agree to the application of the common Temporary Protection Directive on 3 March 2022, but the first application was decided by a two- thirds majority and thus Hungary must also comply with its provisions.
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 111 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L g (new)
Lg. Whereas on 30 March 2021, in her Memorandum on freedom of expression and media freedom in Hungary, the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe indicated that the combined effects of apolitically controlled media regulatory authority and sustained and distorting state intervention in the media market have eroded the conditions for media pluralism and the freedom of expression in Hungary, and free political debate and the free exchange of diverse opinions, which are the prerequisites for democratic societies to thrive, have been severely curtailed, particularly outside the capital;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 112 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L g (new)
Lg. Whereas on 02.06.2021 the two third majority in the Hungarian government has decided not to participate in the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) or the strengthened cooperation among EU prosecutors and that therefore the European Public Prosecutor's Office is not allowed to enter the country, thus hindering the investigation and prevention of corruption.
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 114 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L h (new)
Lh. Whereas on 22 November 2021, in her statement following the visit to Hungary the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression indicated that Hungary’s interventions in the media sector over the past decade could create risks for human rights in the upcoming elections, and by exerting influence over media regulatory bodies, providing substantial state funds to support pro-government media, facilitating the expansion and development of media that follow a pro- government editorial line, and ostracizing media outlets and journalists reporting critically on the government, the authorities have proactively reshaped the media sector and in their efforts to create “balance” have undermined media diversity, pluralism and independence;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 115 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L h (new)
Lh. Recalls the joint statement of the presidents of the Hungarian and Romanian Constitutional Courts, Péter Paczolay and Augustin Zegrean, on the occasion of a meeting of the members of the two institutions, on 16 May 2013 in Eger, which emphasized the special responsibility of constitutional courts in countries governed by a 2/3 majority.
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 116 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L i (new)
Li. Whereas on 4 April 2022, in the Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions following the Parliamentary Elections and Referendum, the OSCE international election observation mission stated that the bias and lack of balance in monitored news coverage and the absence of debates between major contestants significantly limited the voters’ opportunity to make an informed choice;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 117 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L i (new)
Li. Whereas the systematic dismantling of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights has enormously restricted the space for opposition parties and civil society, leaving no social dialogue and consultation mechanism with civil society organisations, trade unions and interest groups
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 118 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L j (new)
Lj. Whereas on 8 April 2022, the Hungarian National Election Office considered that the nationwide NGO campaign urging people to vote invalid in the referendum regarding children’s access to information concerning sexual orientation and gender identity issues was unlawful, and imposed fines on 16 different Hungarian NGOs participating in the referendum campaign;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 119 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L j (new)
Lj. Whereas the government's restrictions on civil society have destroyed the social dialogue and consultation mechanism with civil society organisations, trade unions and interest groups, calls on the Hungarian government to make every effort to strengthen the social dialogue and broad consultation mechanism and to guarantee the rights associated with it.
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 120 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L k (new)
Lk. Whereas on 6 October 2020, in Case C-66/18 Commission v Hungary (Enseignement supérieur), the CJEU ruled that by adopting the measures provided for in Article 76(1)(a) and (b) of Law No CCIV of 2011 on national higher education, as amended, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13, Article 14(3) and Article 16 of the Charter, Article 49 TFEU and Article 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market, as well the World Trade Organization law;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 121 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L k (new)
Lk. Recalls the expulsion of the Central European University (CEU) from Budapest and condemns the constant attacks on academic freedom, such as the ban on gender studies in university curricula.
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 122 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L l (new)
Ll. Whereas on 2 July 2021, in its opinion on the constitutional amendments adopted by the Hungarian Parliament in December 2020, the Venice Commission considered that Article 7 of the Ninth Amendments relating to Article 38 of the Constitution and introducing in the Fundamental Law the “public interest asset management foundations performing public duties” should be reconsidered; these foundations should rather be regulated by statutory law, clearly setting out all relevant duties of transparency and accountability for the management of their funds (public and private), as well as appropriate safeguards of independence for the composition and functioning of the board of trustees; whereas the Venice Commission also mentioned that these laws should take into account the significant role of universities as places of freethought and argumentation, providing for all due measures to guarantee the proper safeguard of academic independence and institutional autonomy;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 123 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L l (new)
Ll. Whereas in Hungary independent journalists, media owners and politicians had the Pegasus software downloaded onto their mobile phones without their knowledge, and the fact that pro- government media in Hungary hardly reported on Pegasus, illustrates the restriction of freedom of assembly and the right to privacy.
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 124 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L m (new)
Lm. Whereas on 22 November 2021, in her statement following the visit to Hungary the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression urged the authorities to effectively protect academic freedom and respect the rights of professors and students, given the risks linked to the privatisation of public universities for the autonomy of the scholars;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 125 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L m (new)
Lm. Whereas non-discrimination is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter and that the referendum against LGBTQ people held in Hungary on 3 April 2022 has been discriminatory and violated this fundamental right. Recalls in addition that the results were deemed invalid as neither option ('yes' or 'no') gathered 50% of the votes.
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 126 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L n (new)
Ln. Whereas on 21 December 2018 a comprehensive amendment to the 2011 Church Act was promulgated; whereas, according to the government, it opened legal avenues for religious communities to apply, before the Metropolitan Court of Budapest, for the status of religious association, registered church or incorporated church; whereas the supervision of the execution of the ECtHR judgment in Magyar Keresztény Mennonita Egyház and Others v. Hungary remains pending;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 127 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L n (new)
Ln. urges the Hungarian government to end discrimination against Roma, to intensify its activities to integrate Roma and to take appropriate measures to protect Roma population. Racist threats against the Roma population must be unequivocally and decisively countered.
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 128 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L o (new)
Lo. Whereas on 2 July 2021,in its opinion on the constitutional amendments adopted by the Hungarian Parliament in December 2020, the Venice Commission recommended that the public-school system must provide an objective and pluralist curriculum, avoiding indoctrination and discrimination on all grounds, respecting parental convictions and their freedom to choose between religious and non-religious classes;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 129 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L o (new)
Lo. notes that the proportion of women in the Hungarian Parliament in 2019 was 12.6 per cent, the lowest in national parliaments in Europe, and that also the new two-thirds majority has only ten women
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 130 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L p (new)
Lp. Whereas on 18 June 2020 in Case C-78/18 of Commission v Hungary (Transparency of Associations), the CJEU ruled that by adopting the provisions of Law No LXXVI of 2017 on the Transparency of Organisations which receive Support from Abroad, which impose obligations of registration, declaration and publication on certain categories of civil society organisations directly or indirectly receiving support from abroad exceeding a certain threshold and which provide for the possibility of applying penalties to organisations that do not comply with those obligations, Hungary has introduced discriminatory and unjustified restrictions on foreign donations to civil society organisations, in breach of its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Articles 7, 8and 12 of the Charter; whereas on 18 February 2021, the Commission decided to send a letter of formal notice to the Hungarian authorities, considering they had not taken the necessary measures to comply with the judgment; whereas on20 July 2021, the Commission indicated in the country chapter on Hungary of the 2021 Rule of Law Report that the Hungarian Parliament repealed the law and introduced new rules on legality checks for civil society, and pressure remains on civil society organisations critical towards the government; where as the adoption of the new law was not preceded by any public consultation, and NGOs have not been consulted directly either, in contradiction with the Venice Commission’s indication that the public consultation should involve, as far as possible, all civil society organisations the status, financing or spheres of operation of which will be affected as a result of the entry into force of this legislation (expressed on20 June 2017 in its opinion on the Draft Law on the Transparency of Organisations Receiving Support from Abroad);
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 131 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L p (new)
Lp. Whereas on 5th of May 2020 the Hungarian Parliament has refused to ratify the Council of Europe's Istanbul Convention on Violence against Women. Is deeply concerned about the increase of domestic violence against women during the Corona pandemic in Europe.
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 132 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L q (new)
Lq. Whereas on 23 July 2021, the donor states, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, announced no agreement had been reached on the appointment of a Fund Operator to manage the funding for civil society; as a consequence, no programmes will be implemented under the EEA and Norway Grants during the current funding period, while €214.6 million in funding from the EEA and Norway Grants were set aside for Hungary;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 133 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L q (new)
Lq. Whereas the UNESCO World Heritage Advisory Council, ICOMOS International, has described the planned large-scale project at Lake Neusiedl in Fertörakos, Hungary, in an analysis as a threat to the World Heritage Site.
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 134 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L r (new)
Lr. Whereas on 17 December 2018, in their joint opinion on Section 253 of Act XLI of 20 July 2018 amending certain tax laws and other related laws, and on the immigration tax, the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR stated that the 25%tax on financial support to an immigration-supporting activity carried out in Hungary or on the financial support to the operations of an organisation with a seat in Hungary that carries out immigration-supporting activity, does not meet the requirement of legality and constitutes an unjustified interference with the rights to freedom of expression and of association of the NGOs affected;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 135 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L r (new)
Lr. Condemns that, together with a high level of corruption, there has been a massive increase in social inequality, insecurity and poverty, which not only leads to great insecurity among the population but also constitutes a violation of private property rights and undermines basic civil liberties
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 136 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L s (new)
Ls. Whereas on 21 May 2019, in her Report following the visit to Hungary from 4 to 8 February 2019, the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe stressed that the legislative measures have stigmatised and criminalised civil society activities which should be considered fully legitimate in a democratic society, they exercise a continuous chilling effect on NGOs, and some of the legal provisions are exceptionally vague, arbitrary and not implemented in practice;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 137 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L s (new)
Ls. Condemns the fact that, in the case of homelessness, the social security system focuses primarily on declaring it illegal for homeless people to stay in public areas and on punitive measures, and calls for social inclusion measures.
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 138 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L t (new)
Lt. Whereas on 11 May 2020, in his report on the visit to Hungary in 2019 the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants observed that civil society organizations working on the rights of migrants in Hungary experienced multiple obstacles in carrying out their legitimate and important work; those obstacles resulted from legislative amendments, financial restrictions and other operational and practical measures taken by the relevant authorities; in addition, a number of civil society organizations had been subjected to smear campaigns, in some cases followed by administrative or criminal investigations;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 139 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L u (new)
Lu. Whereas on 20 July 2021, the Commission indicated in the country chapter on Hungary of the 2021 Rule of Law Report that the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights (CFR) has gained more competences, but its independence has been questioned by stakeholders;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 140 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L v (new)
Lv. Whereas on 2 December 2021, the Commission decided to send a reasoned opinion to the Hungarian authorities considering that by imposing an obligation to provide information on a divergence from ‘traditional gender roles', Hungary restricts the freedom of expression of authors and book publishers (Article 11 of the Charter); discriminates on grounds of sexual orientation in an unjustified way (Article 21 of the Charter ),and incorrectly applies the EU rules on unfair commercial practices under Directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 141 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L w (new)
Lw. Whereas on 2 December 2021, the Commission decided to send a reasoned opinion to the Hungarian authorities with regard to their national rules that seek to prohibit or limit access to content that portrays the so-called ‘divergence from self-identity corresponding to sex at birth, sex change or homosexuality' for individuals under 18 years of age, considering that these national rules run contrary to Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services, Directive 2000/31/EC on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market, as well as human dignity, freedom of expression and information, the right to respect of private life as well as the right to non- discrimination as enshrined respectively in Articles 1, 7, 11 and 21 of the Charter; whereas on 22 June 2021, 18 EU Member States joined a statement on the margins of the General Affairs Council, opposing the adoption of the law;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 142 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L x (new)
Lx. Whereas on 21 May 2019, in her Report following the visit to Hungary from 4 to 8 February 2019, the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe indicated that Hungary is backsliding in gender equality and women’s rights, the political representation of women is strikingly low, and in government policy, women’s issues are closely associated with family affairs and the authorities have ceased implementing a specific strategy on gender equality;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 143 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L y (new)
Ly. Whereas on 29 April 2020, in his statement, the UN Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity urged Hungary to drop proposed legislation that would deny trans and gender diverse people the right to legal recognition and self-determination;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 144 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L z (new)
Lz. Whereas on 3 March 2020, in its Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Hungary, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child called on the government to act, adopt a strategy, and provide information and support to vulnerable children, including specific measures targeting girls, Roma children, asylum-seeking and migrant children and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex children; whereas the Committee also raised serious concerns about children with disabilities being deprived of their families and living in institutions, insufficient measures by the Hungarian authorities to end institutionalisation and promote access to health, rehabilitation services and other inclusion activities, cases of sexual abuse and maltreatment of children with disabilities in institutional care, lack of information on the situation of Roma children with disabilities, and the continuing stigma endured by children with disabilities;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 145 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L aa (new)
Laa. whereas on 5 May 2020 the Parliament of Hungary adopted a resolution rejecting ratification of the Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention);
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 146 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L ab (new)
Lab. Whereas on 16 July 2020, in its judgment in Ranav. Hungary, the ECtHR found a violation of the right to respect for private life in case of a transgender man from Iran who had obtained asylum in Hungary but could not legally change his gender and name in that country; whereas the enhanced supervision of the execution remains pending;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 147 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L ac (new)
Lac. Whereas on 14 June 2021 in her statement the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe urged Hungary’s Parliamentarians to reject draft amendments banning discussion about sexual and gender identity and diversity; whereas on 13 December 2021, in its opinion on the compatibility with international human rights standards of Act LXXIX of 2021 amending certain acts for the protection of children, the Venice Commission concluded that the amendments can hardly be seen as compatible with the ECHR and international human rights standards and urged the Hungarian authorities to repeal a number of provisions;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 148 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L ad (new)
Lad. Whereas on 14-25 March 2022, in its Report and Recommendations of the Virtual Session, the Sub-Committee on Accreditation of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions recommended to downgrade the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights to a B-status, as the Sub-Committee has not received the written evidence necessary to establish that the Commissioner is effectively carrying out its mandate in relation to vulnerable groups such as ethnic minorities, LGBTQI people, human rights defenders, refugees and migrants, or related to important human rights issues such as media pluralism, civic space and judicial independence; whereas the Sub-Committee is of the view that the Commissioner is acting in a way that seriously compromises its compliance with the Paris Principles; whereas the Sub-Committee also noted issues in the selection and appointment process and in working relationships and cooperation with civil society organizations and human rights defenders;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 149 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L ae (new)
Lae. Whereas on 2 July 2021, in its opinion on the constitutional amendments adopted by the Hungarian Parliament in December 2020, the Venice Commission recommended that the constitutional amendment regarding marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and the addition that “The mother shall be a woman, the father shall be a man”, should not be used as an opportunity to withdraw existing laws on the protection of individuals who are not heterosexuals, or to amend these laws to their disadvantage; whereas it also recommended that the interpretation and application of the constitutional amendments, especially in the drafting of the implementing legislation, should be carried out in a way that the principle of non-discrimination on all grounds, including on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, is thoroughly implemented; whereas it further noted that the amendment “Hungary shall protect the right of children to a self-identity corresponding to their sex at birth” should be repealed or modified to ensure that it does not have the effect of denying the rights of transgender people to legal recognition of their acquired gender identity;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 150 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L af (new)
Laf. Whereas on 18 October 2021, in its opinion on the amendments to the Act on Equal Treatment and Promotion of Equal Opportunities and to the Act on the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights as adopted by the Hungarian Parliament in December 2020, the Venice Commission indicated that there are risks associated with the merger of the equality bodies with the national human rights institutions including, but not limited to, different traditions, legal procedures and approaches the institutions may have in place and observed that collision of the competences already enjoyed by the Commissioner under Act CXI and those acquired in his /her capacity as successor of the Equal Treatment Authority, is a clear demonstration of a risk that may undermine the effectiveness of the work in the field of promoting equality and combating discrimination;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 151 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L ag (new)
Lag. Whereas on 13 January 2022 in her statement the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe indicated that the decision of the Hungarian government to conduct a national referendum regarding children’s access to information concerning sexual orientation and gender identity issues on the same day as the parliamentary elections is deeply regrettable as it furthers the instrumentalisation of the human rights of LGBTI people; whereas on 4 April 2022, in the Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions following the Parliamentary Elections and Referendum, the OSCE international election observation mission highlighted that contrary to established international good practice, the legal framework for the referendum does not guarantee equal opportunities to campaign and voters were not informed in an objective and balanced manner on the choices presented to them nor on their binding effect;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 152 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L ah (new)
Lah. Whereas on 4 April 2022, in the Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions following the Parliamentary Elections and Referendum, the OSCE international election observation mission highlighted that women were underrepresented in the campaign and as candidates;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 153 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L ai (new)
Lai. Whereas on 25 March 2022, in the Concluding observations on the combined second and third report of Hungary the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities expressed concerns that people with disabilities do not have a mechanism to make a decision out of autonomy, and recommended that Hungary amend its legislation to ensure supported decision-making respect the dignity, autonomy, will and preferences of people with disabilities in exercising their legal capacity; whereas the Committee also recommended that Hungary redesign its measures and redirect its budgets into community-based support services, such as personal assistance, with a view to provide support to live independently and equally in the community;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 154 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L aj (new)
Laj. Whereas on 9 June 2021 the Commission decided to send a letter of formal notice to Hungary as its national legislation does not fully comply with EU rules prohibiting discrimination under Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin and Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation which require that Member States laydown effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for discrimination; whereas the change occurred in July 2020 when Hungary amended the national sanction regime, obliging courts to award moral compensation for discrimination in the field of education and vocational training only in the form of training or education services and not in form of a one-time payment;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 155 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L ak (new)
Lak. Whereas on 2 December 2021, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice regarding transposition of Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, as the Hungarian legal framework fails to criminalise the public condoning, denial or gross trivialisation of international crimes and does not ensure that a racist and xenophobic motivation is considered an aggravating circumstance or that such motivation is taken into account by national courts for any crime committed;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 156 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L al (new)
Lal. Whereas on 6 June 2019, in the Concluding observations on the combined eighteenth to twenty-fifth periodic reports of Hungary the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination indicated it was is deeply alarmed by the prevalence of racist hate speech against Roma, migrants, refugees, asylum seekers and other minorities, which fuels hatred and intolerance and at times incites violence towards such groups, in particular from leading politicians and in the media, including on the Internet; it was especially deeply alarmed at reports that public figures, including at the highest levels, have made statements that may promote racial hatred, in particular as part of the government’s anti- immigrant and anti-refugee campaign started in 2015, and at the presence and operation of organizations that promote racial hatred; whereas, while taking note of the information provided on measures taken to improve the situation of Roma, including in the fields of health and education, as well as through the National Social Inclusion Strategy of 2011, the Committee remained highly concerned at the persistence of discrimination against Roma and the segregation and extreme poverty that they face;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 157 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L am (new)
Lam. Whereas on 26 May 2020, in its Fifth opinion on Hungary, the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities indicated that Hungary has maintained its policy to support national minorities based on a solid legislative framework, but it remains necessary to address structural difficulties faced by Roma in all spheres of public and private life, including education, employment, housing and access to health care; whereas it highlighted that urgent measures need to be taken in order to remedy the Roma situation, combat early school leaving, and promote inclusive and quality education, including in segregated areas; in disadvantaged regions, there is a need for stronger complementarity between national and local policies so as to provide long-term solutions to employment and housing problems; access to health care and social services remains subject to serious practical obstacles, mainly to the detriment of Roma women and children;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 158 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L an (new)
Lan. Whereas on 16 September 2021, in its decision concerning the pending enhanced supervision of the execution of the ECtHR judgments in Horváth and Kiss v. Hungary, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recalled that this case concerns the discriminatory misplacement and overrepresentation of Roma children in special schools for children with mental disabilities, due to their systematic misdiagnosis, and that, under the ECtHR case-law, the State is under a positive obligation to avoid perpetuating discriminative practices, noted with interest the use of an upgraded examination system, including tools allowing an objective assessment of the learning abilities of Roma children, by all 21 expert committees, the steady increase in the number of children receiving integrated education when diagnosed with special educational needs and the social development program, which was put in place in 30 of the most disadvantaged settlements, and encouraged the Hungarian authorities to further pursue these measures, reiterated their invitation to the authorities to provide examples demonstrating the effectiveness of the administrative and judicial remedies against the findings of the expert committees, to complete the statistical data provided in this respect, and to provide further information on the newly established procedure before the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights, and noted that the possible participation of an equal opportunities expert during the examination of the learning abilities of multiply disadvantaged children constitutes an important safeguard in this process with a view to preventing discriminatory practices against Roma children but that it remains purely theoretical so far;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 159 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L ao (new)
Lao. Whereas the supervision of the execution of the ECtHR judgments in Balázs group v. Hungary concerning violations of the prohibition of discrimination read in conjunction with the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment on account of the authorities’ failure to carry out effective investigations into the question of possible racial motives behind the ill-treatment inflicted on the Roma applicants by law enforcement agents, remains pending;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 160 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L ap (new)
Lap. Whereas on 19 March 2020, in Case C-564/18 Bevándorlásiés Menekültügyi Hivatal (Tompa), the CJEU ruled that Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection precludes national legislation which allows an application for international protection to be rejected as inadmissible on the ground that the applicant arrived on the territory of the Member State concerned via a State in which that person was not exposed to persecution or a risk of serious harm, or in which a sufficient degree of protection is guaranteed, as well as national legislation which sets a time limit of eight days within which a court hearing an appeal against a decision rejecting an application for international protection as inadmissible is to give a decision, where that court is unable to ensure, within such a time limit, that the substantive rules and procedural guarantees enjoyed by the applicant under EU law are effective;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 161 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L aq (new)
Laq. Whereas on 2 April 2020, in Joined Cases C-715/17, C-718/17and C- 719/17 including Commission v Hungary (Temporary mechanism for the relocation of applicants for international protection), the CJEU ruled that by failing to indicate at regular intervals, and at least every three months, an appropriate number of applicants for international protection who can be relocated swiftly to its territory, Hungary has, since 25 December 2015, failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of Decision 2015/1601 and has consequently failed to fulfil its subsequent relocation obligations under Article 5(4) to (11) of that decision;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 162 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L ar (new)
Lar. Whereas on 14 May 2020, in Joined Cases C-924/19PPU and C-925/19 PPU OrszágosIdegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság and OrszágosIdegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság, the CJEU ruled that Directive 2008/115 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals and Directive 2013/33/EU mean that the obligation imposed on a third-country national to remain permanently in a transit zone the perimeter of which is restricted and closed, within which that national’s movements are limited and monitored, and which he or she cannot legally leave voluntarily, in any direction whatsoever, appears to be a deprivation of liberty, characterised by ‘detention’ within the meaning of those directives, and indicated that EU law precludes a number of provisions of the Hungarian legislation;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 163 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L as (new)
Las. Whereas on 17 December 2020, the CJEU in CaseC-808/18 Commission v Hungary (Accueil des demandeurs de protection internationale) ruled that Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5, Article 6(1), Article 12(1) and Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, under Article 6, Article 24(3), Article 43 and Article 46(5) of Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, and under Articles 8, 9 and 11 of Directive 2013/33/EU laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection: 1) in providing that applications for international protection from third- country nationals or stateless persons who, arriving from Serbia, wish to access, in its territory, the international protection procedure, may be made only in the transit zones of Röszke and Tompa, while adopting a consistent and generalised administrative practice drastically limiting the number of applicants authorised to enter those transit zones daily; 2) in establishing a system of systematic detention of applicants for international protection in the transit zones of Röszke and Tompa, without observing the guarantees provided for in Article 24(3) and Article 43 of Directive 2013/32 and Articles 8, 9 and 11 of Directive 2013/33; 3) in allowing the removal of all third- country nationals staying illegally in its territory, with the exception of those of them who are suspected of having committed a criminal offence, without observing the procedures and safeguards laid down in Article 5, Article 6(1), Article 12(1) and Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/115; 4) in making the exercise by applicants for international protection who fall within the scope of Article 46(5) of Directive 2013/32 of their right to remain in its territory subject to conditions contrary to EU law; whereas on 27 January 2021, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency(Frontex) announced suspending its operations in Hungary, following the CJEU ruling; whereas on 12 November 2021, the Commission decided to refer Hungary to the CJEU for failing to comply with the judgment and requesting that the CJEU order the payment of financial penalties;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 164 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L at (new)
Lat. Whereas on 9 June 2021, the Commission decided to send a letter of formal notice and a reasoned opinion to the Hungarian authorities for failing to fully transpose Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection as regards provisions on the personal interview, the medical screening, guarantees for unaccompanied children and teenagers and on the asylum examination procedure;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 165 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L au (new)
Lau. Whereas on 15 July 2021, the Commission decided to refer Hungary to the CJEU considering that new asylum procedure is incompatible with Article 6 of Directive 2013/32 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, interpreted in the light of Article 18 of the Charter (Case C- 823/21 Commission v Hungary);
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 166 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L av (new)
Lav. Whereas on 16 November 2021, in Case C-821/19 Commission v Hungary (Incrimination de l’aide aux demandeurs d’asile), the CJEU ruled that Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under:1) Article 33(2) of Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection by allowing an application for international protection to be rejected as inadmissible on the ground that the applicant arrived on its territory via a State in which that person was not exposed to persecution or a risk of serious harm, or in which a sufficient degree of protection is guaranteed; 2) Article 8(2) and Article 22(1)of Directive 2013/32 and Article 10(4) of Directive 2013/33/EU laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection by criminalising in its national law the actions of any person who, in connection with an organising activity, provides assistance in respect of the making or lodging of an application for asylum in its territory, where it can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt that that person was aware that that application could not be accepted under that law; 3) Article 8(2),Article 12(1)(c) and Article 22(1) of Directive 2013/32 and Article 10(4) of Directive 2013/33 by preventing any person who is suspected of having committed such an offence from the right to approach its external borders;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 167 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L aw (new)
Law. Whereas on 21 May 2019, in her Report following the visit to Hungary from 4 to 8 February 2019, the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe found that the stance against immigration and asylum seekers adopted by the government since 2015 has resulted in a legislative framework which undermines the reception of asylum seekers and the integration of recognised refugees as prescribed by international human rights obligations;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 168 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L ax (new)
Lax. Whereas on 17 March 2020 in its report on the visit to Hungary in 2018, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) highlighted that nothing had been done since the CPT’s 2017 ad hoc visit to put in place effective safeguards to prevent ill- treatment of persons returned by Hungarian police officers through the border fence towards Serbia, and it was also clear that there were still no legal remedies capable of offering such persons effective protection against their forced removal and/or refoulement, including chain refoulement;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 169 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L ay (new)
Lay. Whereas on 6 June 2019, in the Concluding observations on the combined eighteenth to twenty-fifth periodic reports of Hungary the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination expressed concerns by the alarming situation of asylum seekers, refugees and migrants, at the reports that the principle of non-refoulement is not fully respected in law and in practice, and deep alarm at the reported excessive use of force and violence by law enforcement officers against third country nationals found anywhere in Hungary, while “pushing back” those found near the border to Serbia, resulting in injuries and bodily harm;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 170 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L az (new)
Laz. Whereas on 2 March 2021, in its judgment in R.R. and Others v. Hungary, the ECtHR found that the lack of food provided to R.R. and the conditions of stay of the other applicants (a pregnant woman and children) had led to violation of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment, and the applicants’ stay in the transit zone had amounted to a defacto deprivation of liberty and that the absence of any formal decision of the authorities and any proceedings by which the lawfulness of their detention could have been decided speedily by a court had led to violations of right to liberty and security; whereas on 24 February 2022, in its judgment in M.B.K. and Others v. Hungary, the ECtHR came to similar conclusions; whereas the enhanced supervision of the execution of those judgments remains pending;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 171 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L az (new)
Laz. Whereas on 11 May 2020, in his report on the visit to Hungary in 2019 the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants reiterated his call to conduct a meaningful reassessment of the current situation and its migration policies and indicated that Hungary should terminate the so-called crisis situation, which does not correspond to reality and has a severe negative impact on the human rights of migrants, asylum seekers, the freedom of civil society organizations and the power of the judiciary, as well as lift all other restrictive measures with similar features and consequences;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 172 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L bb (new)
Lbb. Whereas on 8 July 2021, in its judgment in Shahzad v. Hungary, the ECtHR found that the applicant had been subject to a “collective” expulsion as his individual situation had not been ascertained by the authorities, and they had not provided genuine and effective ways to enter Hungary, removal had not been a result of his conduct, and the applicant had not had an adequate legal remedy available to him; whereas the enhanced supervision of the execution of that judgment remains pending;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 173 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L bc (new)
Lbc. Whereas on 2 December 2021, in its decision concerning the pending enhanced supervision of the execution of the ECtHR judgment in Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recalled that this case concerns a violation of the procedural obligation under Article 3 to assess the risks of ill-treatment before removing the asylum-seeking applicants to Serbia by relying on a general presumption of “safe third country”, noted with deep regret that no steps have been taken towards conducting the necessary reassessment of the legislative presumption of “safe third country” in respect of Serbia and firmly reiterated their invitation to carry out such reassessment without further delay and in line with the requirements of the ECtHR case-law, and to present the grounds and the outcome thereof, and noted with grave concern that, despite the concerns expressed in their previous decision, the practice of forced removals without orderly procedure has continued; strongly reiterated their call on the authorities to fully comply with the requirements flowing from the ECtHR judgment and to ensure that forced returns are framed by orderly procedures and safeguards notably concerning every person’s right to seek asylum as established by international law;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 174 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L bd (new)
Lbd. Whereas the supervision of the execution of the ECtHR judgments in Nabil and Others group v. Hungary concerning violations of the applicant asylum seekers’ right to liberty and security, on account of their detention pending the examination of the merits of their asylum claims, remains pending;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 175 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L be (new)
Lbe. Whereas on 20 July 2020, the Council recommended in its opinion on the 2020 Convergence Programme of Hungary to address shortages of health workers and ensure an adequate supply of critical medical products and infrastructure to increase the resilience of the health system, improve access to quality preventive and primary care services, to protect employment through enhanced short-time working arrangements and effective active labour- market policies and extend the duration of unemployment benefits, to improve the adequacy of social assistance and ensure access to essential services and quality education for all;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 176 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L bf (new)
Lbf. Whereas on 18 June 2021, the Council recommended in its opinion on the 2021 Convergence Programme of Hungary to give priority to fiscal structural reforms that will help provide financing for public policy priorities and contribute to the long-term sustainability of public finances, including, where relevant, by strengthening the coverage, adequacy and sustainability of health and social protection systems for all;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 177 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L bg (new)
Lbg. Whereas on 3 March 2020, in the Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Hungary, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended that Hungary continue to invest in measures to end poverty, paying particular attention to Roma children and children living in socioeconomically deprived areas and raised serious concerns about the number of students leaving school early, most of them from disadvantaged backgrounds, the allocation of public schools to religious communities, which can contribute to segregation based on religion and belief, the continued segregation of Roma children in education, the education gap between Roma and non-Roma children, the lack of official data on Roma children in education, the bullying, abuse and exclusion faced by children in schools, in particular, LGBTI children, the use of methods of discipline in schools not protecting children from physical and mental violence;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 179 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Whereas democratic elections organised on level playing field are utmost important in the democratic nature of our societies;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 221 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Suggests that addressing and ignoring the recommendations by the OSCE/ODIHR election reports is discussed and as a result concrete actions are taken including under the Article 7(1) TEU procedure;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 225 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to make full use of the tools available to address the clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded, in particular expedited infringement procedures, applications for interim measures before the Court of Justice and actions regarding non- implementation of the Court’s judgments; recalls the importance of the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation and welcomes the decision to trigger it in the case of Hungary, albeit after a long delay and with a limited scope; calls on the Commission to take immediate action under the regulation as regards other breaches of the rule of law; notes the risk of misuse of funds under the Recovery and Resilience Facility and reiterates its call for the Commission to refrain from approval of the Hungarian plan until Hungary has fully complied with all European Semester country- specific recommendations in the field of the rule of law and until it has implemented all the relevant judgments of the CJEU and the ECtHR;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 229 #

2018/0902R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on the Commission to support independent civil society in Hungary which safeguards the European values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, in particular, by using the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme; reiterates its call on the Commission to adopt a comprehensive civil society strategy for the protection and development of civic space within the Union that integrates all existing tools and outlines a set of concrete measures that will protect and strengthen civic space;
2022/06/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 3 #

2018/0358M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines that economic development and multilateralism are important tools to improve people’s lives; points out that one of the objectives of the IPA is to strengthen the economic, trade and investment relationship between the EU and Viet Nam in accordance with the objective of sustainable development, and to promote trade and investment in a manner that is mindful of high levels offull compliance with human rights, environmental and labour protection and relevant internationally recognised standards and agreements;
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 8 #

2018/0358M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the enhanced political dialogue between the EU and Viet Nam and the upgraded potentialpossibility to address human rights concerns in the framework of the institutional mechanisms established under Article 35 of the PCA and Article 13 of the FTA; believes that those articles provide the necessary tools to address human rights concerns related to the IPAtakes note that even if a Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures when it considers that the other Party has committed a material breach of the PCA, these measures are in full discretion of the parties and have been used in very exceptional circumstances;
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 14 #

2018/0358M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that under Article 35 of the PCA, the Parties agree to cooperate in the promotion and protection of human rights, including with regard to the implementation of international human rights instruments to which they are parties; notes with concern that it has proved to be insufficient as serious human rights violations have continued since the entry into force of the PCA;
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 17 #

2018/0358M(NLE)

4. Fully supports the human rights dialogue between the EU and Viet Nam, which is a very effective way to discuss issues related to human rights; regrets the lack of any tangible result after several rounds of EU- Vietnam human rights dialogues; further regrets that on at least two occasions Vietnam detained activists right before the dialogues; calls for the strengthening of the annual EU-Viet Nam human rights dialogue with the involvement of local and international civil society and taking into account information received from relevant international organisations; calls for the dialogue to be geared around concrete deliverables; notes with concerns that Vietnamese independent civil society has been violently repressed and largely operates underground for fear of persecution and retaliations;
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 25 #

2018/0358M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Underscores the importance of the IPA in contributing to raising living standards, promoting economic growth and stability, helping advance the rule of law, good governance, sustainable development and respect for human rights in Viet Nam, while also enabling the EU to foster its objectives of peace and stability in the region.
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 32 #

2018/0358M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Regrets that the European Commission conducted negotiations with Vietnam towards an IPA without carrying out a human rights impact assessment, thereby violating its own commitments and obligations, and calls on the Commission to carry out one, prior to the entry into force of the agreement
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 33 #

2018/0358M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Regrets that the regimes instituted by the investment protection agreement has insufficient clauses to compel states to respect, protect and implement human rights and have limited guarantees for people whose fundamental rights are violated by the investor or the host State to have an effective recourse;
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 34 #

2018/0358M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Calls, for the establishment of an independent complaint mechanism, providing affected citizens and stakeholders with effective recourse in order to address potential negative impacts on human rights;
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 35 #

2018/0358M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 d (new)
5d. Notes that ICS jurisprudence is insufficient to secure an interpretation conform to human rights standards and investment tribunals have often not taken them into account adequately;
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 36 #

2018/0358M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 e (new)
5e. Believes that the asymmetrical nature of the ICS system, the lack of human rights obligations of investors and the exorbitant costs associated with ICS limit the access and the remedy for civil society; requires that this system does not restrict the ability of the State to fulfil its obligation to protect human rights or prevent businesses from respecting these rights;
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 37 #

2018/0358M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 f (new)
5f. Calls to reform the ICS system in order to ensure that this investment tribunal is able to systematically and rigorously apply international human rights law, environmental and labour law and gives sufficient weight to international human rights obligations and the accountability of corporate investors to respect human rights;
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 38 #

2018/0358M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 g (new)
5g. Regrets that Amicus Curiae can not be considered an effective participation since investment tribunals have full discretion to determine whether they accept amicus curiae and this possibility is often rejected or limited by the courts;
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 39 #

2018/0358M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 h (new)
5h. Calls for a binding and enforceable clause in the IPA for States to protect human rights including by regulating and controlling enterprises and a mandatory clause recalling that businesses have to comply with international human rights and environmental standards;
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 40 #

2018/0358M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 i (new)
5i. Calls the EU and Viet Nam to cooperate to develop an action plan to fight child labour, including the necessary due diligence framework for enterprises;
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 41 #

2018/0358M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 j (new)
5j. Calls therefore the EP to give its consent to the agreements only when these recommendations, are legally and effectively protected;
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 2 #

2018/0358(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
The Committee on Foreign Affairs calls on the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to recommend approvalrejection of the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Investment Protection Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, of the other part.
2019/11/26
Committee: AFET
Amendment 4 #

2018/0358(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
The Committee on Foreign Affairs calls on the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to recommend approvalto postpone its content of the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Investment Protection Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, of the other part until the recommendations listed in the accompanying resolution are legally and effectively enforced.
2019/11/26
Committee: AFET
Amendment 3 #

2018/0356M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that Parliament gave its consent to the EU-Viet Nam Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Partnership and Cooperation (PCA) on 17 December 20151 , which defines future relations and aims to enhance further cooperation on global and regional challenges; notes with concern that serious human rights violations have continued since the entry into force of the PCA; _________________ 1 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0467.
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 10 #

2018/0356M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Acknowledges Viet Nam’s efforts to undertake an ambitious reform agenda, notably on the environmental and labour rights of the sustainable development chapter of the FTA; welcomes the ratification of six out of eight core ILO Conventions, namely No. 29 on forced labour, Nos. 100 and 111 on non- discrimination, Nos. 138 and 182 on child labour and most recently No. 98 on the right to organise and collective bargaining; calls on the Vietnamese Government to quickly ratify and fully implement the outstanding Conventions; regrets that the sustainable development chapter does not create any legal and binding obligation; calls for a public and binding calendar for the ratification of ILO Conventions No. 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize and No. 105 on the Abolition of Forced labour;
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 16 #

2018/0356M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Stresses that labour rights and trade union freedoms, including those enshrined in the fundamental ILO conventions, are not reflected under the actual penal code; Remains concerned that Viet Nam rejected an high number of recommendations made during the Universal Periodic Review 2019 regarding the penal code in order to bring it in line with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Calls on Vietnamese authorities to implement these recommendations, with clear and public benchmarks and calendar;
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 18 #

2018/0356M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Remains concerned about human rights violations, including the application of the death penalty in Viet Nam; calls on Viet Nam to introduce a moratorium and move towards abolition; highlights that human rights constitute a cornerstone of the trade and sustainable development chapter of the FTA; calls for periodic evaluation of the impact of the agreementcalls for periodic evaluation of the impact of the agreement; deeply regrets that the number of political prisoners, human rights, labour, religious and environmental activists, journalists and bloggers has dramatically increased in recent years, and calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all persons detained for the peaceful exercise of their freedom of expression;
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 31 #

2018/0356M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. calls on the authorities of Vietnam to repeal its law on Cybersecurity and to bring legislation regulating public gatherings and demonstrations into conformity with the international legislation on freedom of assembly and association;
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 33 #

2018/0356M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. highlights that human rights should constitute a cornerstone of trade and the sustainable development chapter of the FTA: regrets that instead it only focuses on a limited range of rights; calls therefore for a comprehensive human rights chapter with implementation measures, benchmarks and calendar; calls for the evaluation of the impact of the agreement periodically;
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 34 #

2018/0356M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4 c. Deplores the refusal of the European Commission to carry out a human rights impact assessment on the EU-Vietnam free trade agreement and calls on the Commission to carry out one, prior to the entry into force of the agreement
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 35 #

2018/0356M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 d (new)
4 d. Requests the application of the State to State dispute settlement to TSD Chapter
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 39 #

2018/0356M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines that Article 13 of the FTA embodies a cooperative approach based on common values and interests, taking into account the differences in the Parties’ respective levels of development; welcomes the possibility of first resolving matters that fall under Article 13 on trade and sustainable development through exchange in the Committee on Trade and Sustainable Development; recalls that a Party maygrets that in case that the matters are not resolved, the second mechanism that allows a Party to request that a Panel of Experts be convened to examine such matters in the event that the Committee is unable to resolve them satisfactorilyremains subordinated to the willingness of the parties and lacks legal guarantees;
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 41 #

2018/0356M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. urges the establishment of an independent complaint mechanism providing affected citizens and local stakeholders with effective recourse with a view to addressing potential negative impacts on human rights and the establishment of a dispute settlement mechanism with provision for fines and the suspension of trade benefits;
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 43 #

2018/0356M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Highlights that the FTA creates an institutional and legally binding link to the PCA; points out that Article 1 of the PCA contains a standard human rights clause which can trigger appropriate measures, including, as a last resort, the suspension of the PCA, or parts thereof, without delay; recalls that the European Ombudsman, in case1409/2014/MHZ on the EU-Vietnam FTA, found that the preamble of the EU- Vietnam FTA and other traditional tools, such as the ‘essential element’ clause of PCA and the human rights dialogue, are insufficient to adequately respect EU obligations, especially when the third country´s legislation is not in line with international human rights standards;
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 49 #

2018/0356M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. Encourages the Commission to step up technical assistance and available funding to Viet Nam and its independent civil society in order to support Viet Nam’s compliance with its international human rights obligations and the monitoring of the proper implementation of Article 13 of the FTA.; notes with concerns that Vietnamese independent civil society has been violently repressed; calls on the Commission to indicate which Vietnamese independent civil society groups will be included in the domestic advisory groups and how it will ensure that their independence is preserved;
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 57 #

2018/0356M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. calls for closer interaction with the European Parliament in preparation for the annual Human Rights Dialogues, debriefings and in updating of the EU Human Rights Country Strategy for Vietnam;
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 60 #

2018/0356M(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7 b. Calls therefore the EP to give its consent to the agreements only when these recommendations, are legally and effectively protected;
2019/11/14
Committee: AFET
Amendment 2 #

2018/0356(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
The Committee on Foreign Affairs calls on the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to recommend approvalrejection of the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam.
2019/11/26
Committee: AFET
Amendment 4 #

2018/0356(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
The Committee on Foreign Affairs calls on the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to recommend approvalto postpone its consent of the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam until the recommendations listed in the accompanying resolution are legally and effectively enforced.
2019/11/26
Committee: AFET
Amendment 1 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 a (new)
- having regard to the Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention),
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 10 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 20 a (new)
- having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2019 on the Union’s accession to the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women 14a, _________________ 14a Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0080.
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 11 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 21 a (new)
- having regard to its legislative resolution of 17 April 2019 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Rights and Values programme 16a, _________________ 16a Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0407.
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 53 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Reiterates its position as regards the budget envelope for the new Rights and Values Programme within the next Multiannual Financial Framework, and calls to ensure that adequate funding is provided for national and local civil society organizations to grow grassroots support for democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights in the Member States, including Poland;
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 76 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Is concerned that the new Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Matters of the Supreme Court (hereinafter the ‘Extraordinary Chamber’), which is composed in majority of judges nominated by the new National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ) and risks not to qualify as independent tribunal in the assessment of the CJEU, is to ascertain the validity of general and local elections and to examine electoral disputes; this raises serious concerns as regards the separation of powers and the functioning of Polish democracy, in that it makes judicial review of electoral disputes particularly vulnerable to political influence and is capable of creating legal uncertainty as to the validity of such review22 ; _________________ 22Venice Commission, Opinion of 8-9 December 2017, CDL-AD(2017)031, para. 43; Third Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/1520 of 26 July 2017, para. 135.
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 80 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Is concerned, while recognising the extraordinary circumstances created by the COVID-19 health crisis, about the amendments to the electoral legislation being considered in the Polish parliament shortly before the presidential elections which change the practical organisation of the elections in order to proceed to a vote by postal services, which could impede the elections from taking a fair, secret and equal course, respectful of the right to privacy and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council23 and which moreover run counter to the case law of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal; stresses, moreover, that it is very difficult to organise a genuine election campaign giving an equal share of attention and equal opportunities to all candidates and programmes and allowing for real public debate in the midst of an epidemic24 ; notes with concern that the elections, originally scheduled to be held on 10 May 2020, were eventually postponed without respecting formal legal requirements; _________________ 23Regulation (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). 24OSCE/ODIHR, Opinion on the draft act on special rules for conducting the general election of the President of the Republic of Poland ordered in 2020 (Senate Paper No. 99), 27 April 2020.
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 88 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Recalls that the acts concerning the Constitutional Tribunal adopted on 22 December 2015 and 22 July 2016, as well as the package of three acts adopted at the end of 2016, seriously affected the Constitutional Tribunal’s independence and legitimacy and were therefothat the first two acts were declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Tribunal on respectively 9 March 2016 and 11 August 2016; recalls that those judgments were not published at the time nor implemented by the Polish authorities; seriously deplores the lack of independent and effective constitutional review in Poland since the entry into force of the aforementioned legislative changes25 ; invites the Commission to consider launching an infringement procedure in relation to the legislation on the Constitutional Tribunal; _________________ 25 Venice Commission Opinion of 14-15 October 2016, para. 128; UN, Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Poland, 31 October 2016, paras 7-8; Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/1520.
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 91 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Recalls that, already in 2017, changes in the method of nomination of candidates to the position of the First President of the Supreme Court deprived the participation of the Supreme Court judges in the selection procedure of any meaningful effect and put the decision in the hands of the President of the Republic; denounces that recent amendments to the act on the Supreme Court even further reduce the participation of the judges in the process of selection of the First President of the Supreme Court by introducing a position of First President ad interim appointed by the President of the Republic and by reducing the quorum in the third round to 32 out of 120 judges only, thereby effectively abandoning the model of power-sharing between the President and the judicial community enshrined in Article 183(3) of the Polish Constitution26 ; notes with concern the irregularities surrounding the nomination of the First President ad interim and his further actions; notes that, on 25 May 2020, the President of the Republic of Poland did not choose the candidate with the largest support among the Supreme Court judges as First President of the Supreme Court; _________________ 26Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, CDL-PI(2020)002, paras 51-55.
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 102 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Recalls that, in 2017, two new chambers within the Supreme Court were created, namely the Disciplinary Chamber and the Extraordinary Chamber, which were staffed with newly appointed judges selected by the new NCJ and entrusted with special powers – including the power of the Extraordinary Chamber to quash final judgments taken by lower courts or by the Supreme Court itself by way of extraordinary review, and the power of the Disciplinary Chamber to discipline other (Supreme Court) judgejudges of the Supreme Court and of common courts, creating de facto a “Supreme Court within the Supreme Court”;30 _________________ 30OSCE-ODIHR, Opinion of 13 November 2017, p. 7-20; Venice Commission, Opinion of 8-9 December 2017, para. 43; Recommendation (EU) 2018/103, para. 25; GRECO, Addendum to the Fourth Round Evaluation Report on Poland (Rule 34) of 18-22 June 2018, para. 31; Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, para. 8.
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 106 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Notes that the referring Supreme Court (Labour Chamber) subsequently concluded in its judgment of 5 December 2019 that the Disciplinary Chamber does not fulfil the requirements of an independent and impartial tribunal, and that the Supreme Court (Civil, Criminal and Labour Chambers) adopted a resolution on 23 January 2020 reiterating that the Disciplinary Chamber is not a court due to its lack of independence and therefore its decisions shall be considered null and void; notes with grave concern that the Polish authorities have declared that those decisions are of no legal significance when it comes to the continuing functioning of the Disciplinary Chamber and the NCJ, and that the Constitutional Tribunal has ‘suspended’ the resolution of 23 January 2020, creating a dangerous judiciary duality in Poland and moreover openly defying the primacy of Union law and the status granted to the CJEU by Article 19(1) TEU in that it limits the effectiveness and application of the CJEU’s ruling of 19 November 201932 ; _________________ 32Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, para. 38.
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 112 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Recalls that the Supreme Court (Labour Chamber), implementing the criteria set out by the CJEU in its judgment of 19 November 2019, found in its judgment of 5 December 2019 and in its decisions of 15 and 23 January 2020 that the decisive role of the new NCJ in the selection of the judges of the newly created Disciplinary Chamber undermines the latter’s independence and impartiality; is concerned about the legal status of the judges appointed or promoted by the NCJ in its current composition and about the impact their participation in adjudicating may have on the validity and legality of proceedings;
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 114 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
25. Recalls that the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) suspended the new NCJ on 17 September 2018 for reason of no longer fulfilling the requirements of being independent of the executive and legislature and is now considering expelling the new NCJ entirelyhas initiated the expulsion procedure in April 202035 ; _________________ 35 ENCJ, Letter of 21 February 2020 by the ENCJ Executive Board. See as well the letter of 4 May 2020 by the European Association of Judges in support of the ENCJ.
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 116 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
26. Calls on the Commission to start infringement proceedings against the act of 12 May 2011 on the NCJ as amended in 2017 and to ask the CJEU to suspend the activities of the new NCJ by way of interim measures;
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 126 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)
29a. Expresses concern regarding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against common court judges in reference to their judicial decisions or public statements in defence of judicial independence;
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 139 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
34. Is concerned about reports alleging undue delays in court proceedings, difficulties in accessing legal assistance during arrest, and instances of insufficient respect for the confidentiality of communication between counsel and client44 ; calls on the Commission to closely monitor the situation of lawyers in Poland; reminds of the right of all citizens to being advised, defended and represented by an independent lawyer according to Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; _________________ 44UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Poland, 23 November 2016, para. 33.
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 150 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
36. Recalls that in its resolution of 14 September 2016, Parliament has expressed its concern about already adopted and newly suggested changes to Polish media law; repeats its call on the Commission to carry out an assessment of the legislation adopted as regards its compatibility with Union Law, in particular, regarding the with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Union legislation on public media;
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 151 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 a (new)
36a. Recalls that, in its resolution of 16 January 2020, Parliament has called on the Council to address in the hearings under Article 7(1) of the TEU any new developments in the field of freedom of expression, including media freedom; condemns cases of censoring content by the public broadcasters in Poland;
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 227 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

46. Recalls its stance expressed in its resolution of 18 December 2019, when it strongly denounced any discrimination against LGBTI people and the violation of their fundamental rights by public authorities, including hate speech by public authorities and elected officials, in the context of elections, the banning of and inadequate protection against attacks on Pride marches and awareness-raising programmes, as well as the declarations of zones in Poland free from so-called ‘LGBT ideology’, and called on the Commission to strongly condemn such public discrimination;
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 234 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
47. Notes that the lack of independence of the judiciary in Poland has already started affecting mutual trust between Poland and other Member States, especially in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, given that national courts have refused to or hesitated to release Polish suspects under the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) procedure due to profound doubts about the independence of the Polish judiciary; points out that mutual trust between the Member States can be restored only once respect for the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU is ensured;
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 252 #

2017/0360R(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
50. Calls on the Commission to make full use of the tools available to it, to address a clear risk of a serious breach by Poland of the values on which the Union is founded, in particular expedited infringement procedures and applications for interim measures before the CJEU, as well as budgetary tools; strongly supports the Commission’s approach on inclusion of rule of law conditionality in the future Multiannual Financial Framework; calls on the Commission to continue to keep Parliament regularly informed and closely involved;
2020/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 13 #

2017/0035(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
(2) The system established by Regulation (EC) No 182/2011 has, overall, proven to work wellefficiently in practice and struck an appropriate institutional balance as regards the roles of the Commission and the other actors involved. Thate main elements of the system shcould therefore continue to function unchanged except for. However, certain targeted amendments concerning specific aspects of procedure at the level of the appeal committee seem to be justified. These amendments are intended to ensure wider political accountability and ownership of politically sensitive implementing acts without, however, modifying the legal and institutional responsibilities for implementing acts as organised by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. The further objective underlying the amendments is to improve Union citizens' awareness of procedures related to implementing acts. In order to increase trust in the Union’s institutions and bodies, it is essential not only to inform Union citizens about decision-making but also to explain the reasons behind those decisions, as well as the decision-making process that leads to the decisions.
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 18 #

2017/0035(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4) Experience has shown that, in the vast majority of cases, the appeal committee repeats the outcome of the examination committee and results in no opinion being delivered. The appeal committee has therefore not helped in providing clarity on Member State positions, or to overcome the absence of opinions in the examination procedure.
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 22 #

2017/0035(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a) Where the act concerns the protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, the granting of authorisations with regard to a product or substance should be subject to a qualified majority.
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 30 #

2017/0035(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
(10) The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to ask the Council 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 Commission should take account of anyIn specific cases, at the request of the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council may decide to express their views on the wider implications of the outcome of the vote in the appeal committee, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. In such cases, those views should be expressed within three months of the Commission’s request. In addition, the positions expressed by the Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicaEuropean Parliament, the Council or both should also be sent, as appropriate, to the European Parliament, to the Council, to the European Economic and Social Committee a shorter deadline in the referral. nd to the Committee of the Regions without undue delay.
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 36 #

2017/0035(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
(11) Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives at the appeal committee levelthroughout the advisory and examination procedures should be increased and the individual Member State representatives' votes should be made public. Additionally, the Commission should provide information on the composition of committees, including the persons present and the authorities and organisations to which those persons belong.
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 38 #

2017/0035(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) In order to enhance visibility and Union citizens’ awareness, as well as their understanding of the procedure, each Member State representative’s vote should be accompanied by reasons. Where the act concerns particularly sensitive areas, such as the protection of consumers, the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, or the environment, case-specific and detailed reasons for votes and abstentions should be given by each Member State representative.
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 41 #

2017/0035(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 b (new)
(11b) The accessibility of the register should be further increased and changes to its content should be made in order to ensure greater transparency. Improving the search functions of the register to allow searches by policy area is an essential element in this process.
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 52 #

2017/0035(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 3 a
3a. Where no opinion ishas been delivered inby the appeal committee, the Commission may refer the matter to the Council for an opinion indicating its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commission shall take account of anyask the European Parliament and the Council to express their views on the wider implications of the outcome of the vote in the appeal committee. Those views shall be delivered within three months of the Commission’s request. In addition, the positions expressed by the Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referralEuropean Parliament, the Council or both shall also be sent, as appropriate, to the European Parliament, to the Council, to the European Economic and Social Committee and to the Committee of the Regions without undue delay.
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 55 #

2017/0035(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b a (new)
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 4 a (new)
(ba) the following paragraph is inserted: “4a. By way of derogation from paragraph 3, where the basic act concerns the protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants and the draft implementing act provides for the grant of authorisations for a product or substance, such authorisations shall be approved only if the vote in accordance with paragraph 1 results in a positive opinion. This paragraph shall be without prejudice to the right of the Commission to propose a modified draft implementing act concerning the same subject matter.”
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 56 #

2017/0035(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b b (new)
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 4 b (new)
(bb) the following paragraph is inserted: “4b. The Member State representatives shall provide reasons for their vote or abstention under paragraph 1. Where the act concerns particularly sensitive areas, such as the protection of consumers, the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, or the environment, the Member State representatives shall provide case-specific detailed reasons for their vote or abstention.”;
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 58 #

2017/0035(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point -a (new)
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c
(-a) in paragraph 1, point (c) is replaced by the following: “(c) the summary records, together with the lists of the persons present and the authorities and organisations to which those persons designated by the Member States to represent them belong;
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 59 #

2017/0035(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) the voting results including, in the case of the appeal committee,, broken down by representative of each Member State, together with the reasons for the vote or abstention and, where the act concerns particularly sensitive areas, such as the vprotes expressed by the representative of each Member Statection of consumers, the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, or the environment, the accompanying case- specific and detailed reasons for the vote or abstention;
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 62 #

2017/0035(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a a (new)
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
(aa) in paragraph 1, the following subparagraph is added: “The European Parliament and the Council shall have access to the information referred to in paragraph 1 without undue delay.”;
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 63 #

2017/0035(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. The references of all documents referred to in points (a) to (d), (f) and (g) of paragraph 1 as well as theAll documents and information referred to in points (e) and (h) of that paragraph 1 shall be made public in the register.
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 65 #

2017/0035(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b a (new)
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 5 a (new)
(ba) the following paragraph is added: “5a. For the purpose of greater transparency, the Commission shall ensure that the search functions of the register enable the search by policy area.”
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 70 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
(31) In order to guarantee the rights of the applicant, a decision concerning his or her application should be given in writing. Where the decision does not grant international protection, the applicant should be given reasons in fact and in law, information on the consequences of the decision and the modalities for challenging it. Without prejudice to the applicant’s right to remain and to the principle of non-refoulement, such a decision may include, or may be issued together with, a return decision issued in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 74 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31a
(31a) In orWhere a Member State considers tohat it would increase the efficiency of procedures and to reduce the risk of absconding and the likelihood of unauthorised movements, if there should bare no procedural gasteps between the issuance of a negative decision on an application for international protection and of a return decision. A, it may issue a return decision should immediately be issued to applicants whose applications are rejected. Without prejudice to the right to an effective remedy, the return decision should either be part of the negative decision on an application for intThis possibility should in no way restrict Member States’ discretion as regards the use of Article 6(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 1a or their discretion to issue residence permits or other authorisations under national protection or, if it is a separate act, be issued at the same time and together with the negative decision.’law granting a right to stay on the territory. _________________ 1a Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code).
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 84 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39a
(39a) ‘ In the interest of swift and fair procedures for all applicants, whilst also ensuring that the stay of applicants who do not qualify for international protection in the Union is not unduly prolonged, including those who are nationals of third countries exempt from the requirement to be in a possession of a visa pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 2018/1806, Member States should be able to accelerate the examination of applications of applicants who are nationals or, in the case of stateless persons, formerly habitual residents of a third country for which the share of decisions granting international protection in that Member State is lower than 210% of the total number of decisions for that third country. Where a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant Eurostat data and taking into account the guidance note pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation XX/XX on the European Asylum Agency, or where the applicant belongs to a specific category of persons for whom the low recognition rate cannot be considered as representative of their protection needs due to a specific persecution ground, examination of the application should not be accelerated. Cases where a third country may be considered as a safe country of origin or a safe third country for thApplications from unaccompanied minors, families with children, and other vulnerable applicant withs including the meaning of this Regulation should remain applicable as a separate ground for respectively the accelerated examination procedure or the inadmissible procedureose with special procedural or reception needs should also not be accelerated.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 89 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40
(40) Many applications for international protection are made at the external border or in a transit zone of a Member State, often by persons apprehended in connection with unauthorisedirregular crossings of the external border or disembarked following a search and rescue operation. In order to conduct identification, security and health screening at the external border and direct the third-country nationals and stateless persons concerned to the relevant procedures, a screening is necessary. There should be seamless and efficient links between all stages of the relevant procedures for all irregular arrivals. After the screening, tThird-country nationals and stateless persons should be channelled to the appropriate asylum or return procedure, or refused entry. A pre- entry phase consisting of screening and border procedures for asylum and return should therefore be established.’, or granted entry in accordance with Article 6(5) of the Schengen Borders Code.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 99 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40a
(40a) The purpose of the border procedure for asylum and return should be to quickly assess applications, at the external borders whether applications are unfounded or inadmissible and to, to determine whether they are well founded or unfounded. If unfounded, the procedure should allow for a swiftly return of those with no right to stay and who have been issued a return decision, while ensuring that those with well-founded claims are channelled into the regular procedure and provided quick access to international protection. Member States should therefore be able to require applicants for international protection to stay at the external border or in a transit zone in order to assess the admissibility of applications. In well-defined circumstances, Member States should be able to provide for the examination of the merits of an application and, in the event of rejection of the application, for tha decision on the possible return of the third-country nationals and stateless persons concerned at the externconcerned in a border procedure. However a border procedures should not be applied to unaccompanied minors, families with children, and other vulnerable applicants including those with special procedural border reception needs.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 105 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40b
(40b) Member State should be able to assess applications in a border procedure where the applicant is a danger to national security or public order, where the applicant has misled the authorities by presenting false information or documents or by withholding relevant information or documents with respect to his or her identity or nationality that could have had a negative impact on the decision and where it is likely that the application is unfounded because the applicant is of a nationality for whom the number of decisions granting international protection in that Member State is lower than 210% of the total number of decisions for that third country. In other cases, such as same way, when the applicant is from a safe country of origin or a safe third country, the use of the border procedure should be optional for the Member States.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 116 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40c
(40c) When applying the border procedure for the examination of an application for international protection, Member States should ensure that the necessary arrangements are made to accommodate the apcomplicants at or close to the external border or transit zones, in accordance withce with the provisions of Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Reception Conditions Directive] as regards accommodation for applicants. Member States may process the applications at a different location at the external border than that where the asylum application is made by transferring applicants to a specific location at or in the proximity of the external border ofin that Member States where appropriate facilities exist. Member States should retain discretion in deciding at which specific locations at the external borders such facilities should be set up. However, Member States should seek to limit the need for transferring applicants for this purpose, and therefore aim at setting up such facilities with sufficient capacity atThey should notify the Commission of the specific locations at which the border cprossing points, or sections of the external border, where the majority of the number of applications for international proteccedures will be carried out. In cases where the border procedure is applied and the capacity of the locations are made, also taking into account the length of the external border and the number of border crossing points or transit zones. They should notify the Commission of the specific locations at the external border, transit zones or proximity of the external border where the border procedures will be carried outs notified by a Member State is temporarily exceeded, Member States may process those applications at another location within its territory, for the shortest time possible. In cases where the border procedure is applied and the capacity of the locations at or in proximity of the external border as notified by a Member State is temporarily exceeded, Member States may process those applications at another location within its territory, for the shortest time possible.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 125 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40d
(40d) In case where the use of the border procedure is an obligation, Member States should by way of exception not be required to apply itMember States should not apply the border procedure for the examination of applications for international protection from nationals of a third country that does not cooperate sufficiently on readmission, since a swift return of the persons concerned, following rejection of their applications, would be unlikely in that case. The determination of whether a third country is cooperating sufficiently on readmission should be based on the procedures set out in Article 25a of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 132 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40e
(40e) The duration of the border procedure for examination of applications for international protection should be as short as possible while at the same time guaranteeing a complete and fair examination of the claims. It should in any event not exceed 12 weeks. This deadline should be understood as a stand-alone deadline for the asylum border procedure, encompassing both the decision on the examination of the application as well as the decision of the first level of appeal, if applicable. Within this period, and without prejudice to the independence of the judiciary, Member States are entitled to set the deadline in national law both for the administrative and for the appeal stage, but should set them in a way so as to ensure thatable the examination procedure isto be concluded and that subsequently, if relevant, thea decision on the first level of appeal isto be issued within this maximum 12 weeks. After that period, if the Member State nevertheless failed to take the relevant decisions, the applicant should in principle be authorised to enter the territory of the Member State. Entry into the territory should however not be authorised where the applicant has no right to remain, where he or she has not requested to be allowed to remain for the purpose of an appeal procedure, or where a court or tribunal has decided that he or she should not be allowed to remain pending the outcome of an appeal procedure. In such cases, to ensure continuity between the asylum procedure and the return procedure, the return procedure should also be carried out in the context of a border procedure for a period not exceeding 12 weeks. This period should be counted starting from the moment in which the applicant, third- country national or stateless person no longer has a right to remain or is no longer allowed to remainWhere a final decision is not taken within 12 weeks, the border procedure shall end and the applicant shall be allowed to enter the territory of the Member State.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 140 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40f
(40f) While the border procedure forAdministrative detention during the examination of an application for international protection can be applied without recourse to detention,should remain a measure of last resort. Any detention decision must be based on an individual assessment and determined to be necessary, reasonable and proportionate to a legitimate purpose. Member States should nevertheless be able to apply the grounds for detention during the border procedure in accordance with the provisions of the [Reception Conditions] Directive (EU) XXX/XXX in order to decide on the right of the applicant to enter the territory. If detention is used during such procedure, the provisions on detention of the [Reception Conditions] Directive (EU) XXX/XXX should apply, including the guarantees for detained applicants and the fact that an individual assessment of each case is necessary, judicial control and conditions of detention.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 144 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40 g
(40g) When an application is rejected in the context of the border procedure, the applicant, third-country national or stateless person concerned should be immediately subject to a return decision or, where the conditions ofMember State in question may issue the applicant a return decision provided that it respects Article 145 of Regulation (EU) No 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council10 are met, to a refusal of entry. To guarantee the equal treatment of all third-country nationals whose application has been rejected in the context of the border procedure, where a Member State has decided not to apply the provisions of Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive] by virtue of Article 2(2), point (a), of that Directive and does not issue a return decision to the third-country national concernedthe Directive on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (‘the Returns Directive’)2a and due consideration has been given in the individual case to the application of Article 8, paragraphs 2 to 5 of that Directive. The Member State may also, twhe treatment and level of protecre the conditions of the applicant, third- country national or stateless person concerned should be in accordance with Article 4(4) of Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive] and be equivalent to those applicable to persons subject to a return decision. _________________ 10Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ L 077 23.3.2016, p. 1Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council are met, issue a refusal of entry without prejudice to Article 6(5) of that Regulation. _________________ 2aDirective (EU) xxx/xxx of the European Parliament and of the Council on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (recast).
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 148 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40 h
(40h) When applying the border procedure for carrying out return, certain provisions of the [recastthe Return Directive] should apply as these regulateto all elements of the return procedure that are not determined by this Regulation, notably those on definitions, more favourable provisions, non-refoulement, best interests of the child, family life and state of health, risk of absconding, obligation to cooperate, period for voluntary departure, return decision, removal, postponement of removal, return and removal of unaccompanied minors, entry bans, safeguards pending return, detention, conditions of detention, detention of minors and families and emergency situations. To reduce the risk of unauthorised entry and movement of illegally staying third-country nationals subject to the border procedure for carrying out return, a period for voluntary departure not exceeding 15 days may be granted to illegally staying third-country nationals, without prejudice for the possibility to voluntarily comply with the obligation to return at any moment.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 156 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40i
(40i) Where an applicant, third-country national or stateless person who was detained during the border procedure for the examination of theihis/her application for international protection no longer has a right to remain and has not been allowed to remain, Member States should be able to continue the detention for the purpose of preventing entry into the territory and carrying out the return procedure, respecting the guarantees and conditions for detention laid down in Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive]. AWhere an applicant, third-country national or stateless person who was not detained during the border procedure for the examination of an application for international protection, and whoere that application was unsuccessful, and that applicant no longer has a right to remain and has not been allowed to remain, could also bthe dRetained if there is a risk of absconding, if he or she avoids or hampers return, or if he or she poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security. Detention should be for as short a period as possible and should not exceed the maximum duration of the border procedure for carrying out return. When the illegally staying third-country national does not return or is not removed within that period and the border procedure for carrying out return ceases to apply, the provisions of the [recast Return Directive] should apply. The maximum period of detention set by Article 15 of that Directive should include the period of detention applied duringurn Directive should apply. Member States may detain an applicant where other sufficient but less coercive measures cannot be applied effectively, for as short a period as possible and not exceeding the maximum duration of the border procedure for carrying ourt return.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 169 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44a
(44a) ‘An applicant who lodges a subsequent application at the last minute merely in order to delay or frustrate his or her removal should not be authorised to remain pending the finalisation of the decision declaring the application inadmissible in cases where it is immediately clear to the determining authoritya court or tribunal that no new elements have been presented and there is no risk of refoulement and provided that the application is made within one year of the decision by the determining authority on the first application. The determining authority shall issue a decision under national law confirming that these criteria are fulfilled in order for the applicant not to be authorised to remain. ’may request a court or tribunal to revoke an applicant’s right to remain in such cases.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 173 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 65
(65) For an applicant to be able to exercise his or her right to an effective remedy against a decision rejecting an application for international protection, and where a return decision has also been issued to the applicant, all effects of theat return decision should be automatically suspended for as long as the applicant has the right to remain or has been allowed to remain on the territory of a Member State. To improve the effectiveness of procedures at the external border, while ensuring the respect of the right to an effective remedy, appeals against decisions taken in the context of the border procedure should take place only before a single level of jurisdiction of a court or tribunal.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 178 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 66
(66) Applicants should, in principle, have the right to remain on the territory of a Member State until the time-limit for lodging an appeal before a court or tribunal of first instance expires, and, where such a right is exercised within the set time-limit, pending the outcome of the appeal. It is only in the limited cases set out in this Regulation, where applications are likely to be unfounded, that the applicant should not have an automatic right to remain for the purpose of the appeal.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 182 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 66a
(66a) In cases where the applicant has no automatic right to remain for the purpose of the appeal, a court or tribunal should still be able to allow the applicant to remain on the territory of the Member State pending the outcome of the appeal, upon the applicant’s request or acting of its own motion. In such cases, applicants should have a right to remain until the time-limit for requesting a court or tribunal to be allowed to remain has expired and, where the applicant has presented such a request within the set time-limit, pending the decision of the competent court or tribunal. In order to discourage abusive or last minute subsequent applications, Member States should be able to provide in national law that applicants should have no right to remain during that period in the case of rejected subsequent applications, with a view to preventing further unfounded subsequent applications. In the context of the procedure for determining whether or not the applicant should be allowed to remain pendinga court or tribunal is requested to revoke the applicant’s right to remain for the purpose of the appeal, the applicant’s rights of defence should be adequately guaranteed by providing him or her with the necessary interpretation and legal assistance. Furthermore, the competent court or tribunal should be able to examine the decision refusing to grant international protection in terms of facts and points of law.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 185 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 66b
(66b) In order to ensure effective returns, applicants should not have athe efficacy of the asylum and return procedures, a court or tribunal should be able to revoke an applicant’s right to remain on the Member State’s territory at the stage of a second or further level of appeal before a court or tribunal against a negative decision on the application for international protection, without prejudice to the possibility for a court or tribunal to allow the applicant to remain. Furthermore, Member States should not grant applicants the possibility to lodge a further appeal against a first appeal decision in respect of a decision taken in a border procedure.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 191 #

2016/0224(COD)

(66c) To ensure the consistency of the legal review carried out by a court or tribunal on a decision rejecting an application for international protection and the accompanyingany related return decision, and with a view to accelerating the examination of the case and reducing the burden on the competent judicial authorities, it should be possible that such decisions should bare subject to common proceedings before the same court or tribunal.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 193 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 66d a (new)
(66d a)In order to ensure compliance with EU and international law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, upon irregular arrival at the EU’s external borders, during border surveillance, screening, the asylum procedure or the return procedure, each Member State should establish a monitoring mechanism and put in place adequate safeguards for the independence of that mechanism, in particular by involving national human rights institutions, national ombudspersons, international organisations or relevant non- governmental organisations in the management and operation of the mechanism. The monitoring mechanism should cover in particular the respect for fundamental rights in relation to border surveillance, the screening, asylum and return procedures, as well as the respect for the applicable rules regarding detention and compliance with the principle of non-refoulement as referred to in Article 3(b) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399. The Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) should establish general guidance as to the establishment and the independent functioning of such monitoring mechanism. Member States should furthermore be allowed to request the support of the FRA for developing their national monitoring mechanism. Member States should also be allowed to seek advice from the FRA with regard to establishing the methodology for this monitoring mechanism and with regard to appropriate training measures. The independent monitoring mechanism should be in addition and without prejudice to the monitoring of fundamental rights provided by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency’s fundamental rights monitors provided for in Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, the monitoring mechanism for the purpose of monitoring the operational and technical application of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) as set out in Article 14 of Regulation (EU) xxxx/xxxx [EU Asylum Agency Regulation] and without prejudice to monitoring of fundamental rights carried out by existing national or international monitoring bodies. The Member States should investigate allegations of the breach of fundamental rights during border surveillance, the screening, asylum and return procedures, including by ensuring that complaints are dealt with promptly, expeditiously and capable of leading to the identification and sanction of those responsible in an appropriate manner.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 201 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 3
3. ‘For third-country nationals subject to the screening referred to in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Screening Regulation], paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply only after the screening has ended.’deleted
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 205 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 5
5. ‘For third-country nationals subject to the screening referred to in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX [Screening Regulation], paragraphs 1 to 4 shall apply only after the screening has enddeleted.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 212 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 a
Where an application is rejected as inadmissible, unfounded or manifestly unfounded with regard to both refugee status and subsidiary protection status, or as implicitly or explicitly withdrawn, Member States shallmay issue a return decision that respects Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive]. The return decision shall be issued as part of the decision rejecting the application for international protection or, inAs it is a separate decision, the return decision shall be issued as a separate act. Where tThe return decision is issued as a separate act, it shallmay be issued at the same time and together with the decision rejecting the application for international protection.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 217 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – point a – paragraph 1 – point i
(i) ‘ the applicant is of a nationality or, in the case of stateless persons, a former habitual resident of a third country for which the proportion of decisions by the relevant national determining authority granting international protection is, according to the latest available yearly Union-wide average Eurostat data, 20% or lower,Eurostat data, 10% or lower, unless the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, a minor, an accompanying family member of a minor, or a vulnerable applicant, including those with special procedural or reception needs, or unless a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant Eurostat data or the applicant belongs to a category of persons for whom the proportion of 210% or lower cannot be considered as representative for their protection needs;’
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 221 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – point b – paragraph 5 – point c
(c) ‘the applicant is of a nationality or, in the case of stateless persons, a former habitual residence of a third country for which the proportion of decisions granting international protection by the determining authority is, according to the latest available yearly Union-wide average Eurostat data, 20% or lower, unless a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant Eurostat data or the applicant belongs to a category of persons for whom the proportion of 20% or lower cannot be considered as representative for their protection needs;’deleted
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 229 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Following the screening procedure carried out in accordance with Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX [Screening Regulation], and provided that the applicant has not yet been authorised to enter Member States’ territory, a Member A Member State may examine an application in a border procedure where that application has been made by a third- country national or stateless person who does not fulfil the conditions for entry in the territory of a Member State as set out in Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399. The border procedure may take place:
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 240 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) following apprehension in direct connection with an unauthorised crossing of the external borderirregular border crossing;
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 253 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) the inadmissibility of an application in accordance with Article 36;deleted
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 260 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 3
3. Member State shall examine an application in a border procedure in the cases referred to in paragraph 1 where the circumstances referred to in Article 40(1), point (c), (f) or (i), apply.deleted
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 272 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 4 – first paragraph
4. A Member State may decideshall not to apply paragraph 3a border procedure to nationals or stateless persons who are habitual residents of third countries for which that Member State has submitted a notification to the Commission in accordance with Article 25a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 276 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 4 – second subparagraph
Where, following the examination carried out in accordance with Article 25a(4) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009, the Commission considers that the third country is cooperating sufficiently, the Member State shallmay again apply the provisions of paragraph 3.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 278 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 4 – third subparagraph
Where the Commission considers that the third country concerned is not cooperating sufficiently, the Member State may continue not to apply paragraph 3: (a) previously adopted by the Council in accordance with Article 25a(5) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 is repealed or amended; (b) consider that action is needed in accordance with Article 25a of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009, until the Commission reports in its assessment carried out in accordance with paragraph 2 of that Article that there are substantive changes in the cooperation of the third country concerned.deleted until an implementing act where the Commission does not
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 290 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 5
5. The border procedure may onlyshall not be applied to unaccompanied minors and to minors below the age of 12 and their family members in the cases referred to in Article 40(5) (b)with their family members.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 296 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 6
6. Applicants subject to the border procedure shall not be authorised to enter the territory of the Member State, without prejudice to paragraphs 9 and 11.deleted
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 319 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 9 – point a
(a) the determining authority considers that the grounds for rejecting an application as inadmissible or for applying the accelerated examination procedure are not applicable or no longer applicable;
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 325 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 9 – point b
(b) the necessary support cannot be provided to applicants with special procedural needs in the locations referred to in paragraph 14;re are vulnerable applicants with specific reception needs or in need of special procedural guarantees
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 334 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 2
In such cases, the competent authority shall authorise the applicant to enter the territory of the Member State, if he or she has not already been authorised to do so.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 336 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 10
10. By way of derogation from Article 28 of this Regulation, applications subject to a border procedure shall be lodged no later than five days from registration for the first time or, following a relocation in accordance with Article [x] of Regulation EU (No) XXX/XXX [Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management], five days from when the applicant arrives in the Member State responsible following a transfer pursuant to Article 56(1), point (e), of that Regulation.deleted
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 343 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 11 – subparagraph 1
11. The border procedure shall be as short as possible while at the same time enabling a complete and fair examination of the claims. It shall encompass the decision referred to in paragraph 2 and 3 and anymay include a decision on an appeal if applicable and shall be completed within 12 weeks from when the application is registered. FIf, following that period, the first instance decision and the decision on appeal, if applicable, have not been taken, the applicant shall be authorised to enter the Member State’s territory except when Article 41a(1) is applicableif he or she has not already been to do so.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 348 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 11 – subparagraph 2
By way of derogation from the time limits set in Articles 34, 40(2) and 55, Member States shall lay down provisions on the duration of the examination procedure and of the appeal procedure which ensure that, in case of an appeal against a decision rejecting an application in the framework of the border procedure, the decision on such appeal is issued within 12 weeks from when the application is registered.deleted
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 362 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1– point b
(b) a court or tribunal has revoked the applicant has no’s right to remain in accordance with Article 54 and has not requested to be allowed to remain for the purposes of an appeal procedure within the applicable time-limit;
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 364 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) the applicant has no right to remain in accordance with Article 54 and a court or tribunal has decided that the applicant is not to be allowed to remain pending the outcome of an appeal procedure.deleted
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 370 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 2
In such cases, where the applicant has been subject to a return decision issued in accordance with the Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive] or a refusal of entry in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, Article 41a shallmay be applyied.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 376 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 13
13. During the examination of applications subject to a border procedure, the applicants shall be keptmay be accommodated at or in proximity to the external border or transit zones provided that the conditions of reception comply with Directive (EU) XXX/XXX. Each Member State shall notify to the Commission, [two months after the date of the application of this Regulation] at the latest, the locations where the border procedure will be carried out, at the external borders, in the proximity to the external border or transit zones, including when applying paragraph 3 and ensure that the capacity of those locations is sufficient to process the applications covered by that paragraph. Any changes in the identification of the locations at which the border procedure is applied, shall be notified to the Commission two months in advance of the changes taking effect.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 389 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 14
14. In situations where the capacity of the locations notified by Member States pursuant to paragraph 143 is temporarily insufficient to process the applicants covered by paragraph 3border procedures, Member States may designate other locations within the territory of the Member State and upon notification to the Commission accommodate applicants there, on a temporary basis and for the shortest time necessary.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 400 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 1
1. Third-country nationals and stateless persons whose application is rejected in the context of the procedure referred to in Article 41 and who have not been authorised to enter the territory of the Member State, shall not be authorised to enter the territory of theat Member State, without prejudice to Article 6(5) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/399.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 404 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 2
2. Persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall be keptaccommodated for a period not exceeding 12 weeks in locations at or in proximity to the external border or transit zones; where a Member State cannot accommodate them in those locations, it can resort to the use of other locations within its territory. The 12- week period shall start from when the applicant, third-country national or stateless person no longer has a right to remain and no longer has a right to remain or has had his or her right to remain revoked by a court or tribunal. Unaccompanied minors, minors with their families, and other vulnerable groups including persons with specific reception needs or isn not allowed to remaieed of special procedural guarantees shall be exempted from the border procedure for carrying out return.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 410 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 3
3. For the purposes of this Article, Article 3, Article 4(1), Articles 5 to 7, Article 8(1) to (5), Article 9(2) to (4), Articles 10 to 13, Article 15, Article 17(1), Article 18(2) to (4) and Articles 19 to 21 of Directive XXX/XXX/EU [recast Return Directive] shall applyWhen applying the border procedure for carrying out return, the Return Directive applies to all elements of the return procedure that are not regulated in this Article.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 418 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 4
4. Without prejudice to the possibility to return voluntarily at any moment, persons referred to in paragraph 1 may be granted a period for voluntary departure not exceeding 15of 30 days.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 423 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 5
5. PA persons referred to in paragraph 1 who haves been detained during the procedure referred to in Article 41 and who no longer haves a right to remain and are not allowed to remainor who has had her/ his right to remain revoked by a court or tribunal may continue to be detained for the purpose of preventing entry into the territory of the Member State, preparing the return or carrying out the removal process.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 426 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 6
6. PA persons referred to in paragraph 1 who no longer haves a right to remain and are not allowed to remainor who has had her/his right to remain revoked by a court or tribunal, and who wereas not detained during the procedure referred to in Article 41, may be detained if there is a risk of absconding within the meaning of Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive], if they/she avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process or they pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security. Detention should remain a measure of last resort and may be used if no other sufficient but less coercive measures can be applied effectively. Any detention decision shall be taken on the basis of an individual assessment, and shall be determined to be necessary, reasonable and proportionate to a legitimate purpose.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 433 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 7
7. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible, and only as long as removal arrangements are in progresa reasonable prospect of removal exists and executed with due diligence. The period of detention shall not exceed the period referred to in paragraph 2 and shall be included in the maximum periods of detention set in Article 15 (5) and (6) of Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive].
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 435 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 8
8. Member States that, following the rejection of an application in the context of the procedure referred to in Article 41, issue a refusal of entry in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, and that have decided not to apply Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive] in such cases pursuant to Article 2(2), point (a), of that Directive, shall ensure that the treatment and level of protection of the third-country nationals and stateless persons subject to a refusal of entry are in accordance with Article 4(4) of Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive] and are equivalent to the ones set out in paragraphs 2, 4 and 7 of this Article.’deleted
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 442 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – subparagraph 2 – point c
(c) a first subsequent application has been lodged within one year of the decision of the determining authority on the first application merand a court or tribunal has determined that it has been lodged solely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of a return decision which would result in the applicant’s imminent removal from the Member State, pending the finalisation of the decision declaring that application inadmissible in cases where it is immediately clear to the determining authority that no new elements have been presented in accordance with Article 42(4)’
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 447 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) a decision to channel the applicant into an accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 40;
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 448 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a b (new)
(ab) a decision to channel the applicant into a border procedure in accordance with Article 41;
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 449 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a c (new)
(ac) a decision to apply detention during a border procedure;
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 450 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) a decision rejecting an application as unfounded or manifestly unfounded in relation to both refugee and subsidiary protection status;
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 460 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Return decisions shallmay be appealed before the same court or tribunal and within the same judicial proceedings and the same time-limits as decisions referred to in points (a), (b), (c) and (d).
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 462 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 2
2. Persons recognised as eligible for subsidiary protection shall have the right to an effective remedy against a decision considering their application unfounded in relation to refugee status. Where subsidiary protection status granted by a Member State offers the same rights and benefits as refugee status under Union and national law, the appeal against that decision in that Member State may be considered as inadmissible where provided for in national law.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 467 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 3
3. An effective remedy within the meaning of paragraph 1 shall provide for a full and ex nunc examination of both facts and points of law, at least an oral hearing before a court or tribunal of first instance, including, where applicable, an examination of the international protection needs pursuant to Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX [Qualification Regulation].
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 475 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 6
6. If the documents are not submitted in time for the court or tribunal to ensure their translation, the court or tribunal may refuse to take those documents into account if they are not accompanied by a translation provided by the applicant.deleted
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 478 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 7 – introductory part
7. Member States shall lay down the following time-limits in their national lawin their national law time-limits of at least 15 working days from receipt of the notification of a decision rejecting an application, for applicants to lodge appeals against the decisions referred to in paragraph 1:.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 479 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 7 – point a
(a) at least one week in the case of a decision rejecting an application as inadmissible, as implicitly withdrawn or as unfounded if at the time of the decision any of the circumstances listed in Article 40(1) or (5) apply;deleted
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 484 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 7 – point b
(b) between a minimum of two weeks and a maximum of two months in all other cases.deleted
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 490 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 7 – point b a (new)
(ba) Member States may extend the time limits laid down in this paragraph if the specific circumstances of the application make it necessary.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 493 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 9
9. Member States shall provide for only one level of appeal in relation to a decision taken in the context of the border procedure.deleted
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 499 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 1
1. The effects of a return decision shall be automatically suspended for as long as an applicant has a right to remain or is allowed to remain in accordanceuntil the time-limit within which to exercise their right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal of first instance has expired and, where such a right has been exercised within this Articlee time-limit, pending the outcome of the remedy.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 503 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 2
2. Applicants shall have the right to remain on the territory of the Member States until the time-limit within which to exercise their right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal of first instance has expired and, where such a right has been exercised within the time-limit, pending the outcome of the remedy.deleted
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 509 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The applicant shall not have the right to remain pursuant to paragraph 2 where the competentA court or tribunal shall have the power to revoke the applicant’s right to remain pursuant to paragraph 1, in relation to a second level of appeal, upon request by the determining authority, where that determining authority has taken one of the following decisions:
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 510 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) a decision which rejects an application as unfounded or manifestly unfounded if at the time of the decision any of the circumstances listed in Article 40(1) and (5) apply [including safe country of origin] or in the cases subject to the border procedure;
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 513 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) a decision which rejects an application as inadmissible pursuant to Article 36(1)(a) [first country of asylum] or (c) [subsequent applications without new elements];
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 514 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 3 – point d
(d) a decision which rejects a subsequent application as unfounded or manifestly unfounddeleted;
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 516 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 3 – point e
(e) a decision to withdraw international protection in accordance with Article 14(1), points (b), (d) and (e), and Article 20(1), point (b), of Regulation No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation).deleted
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 519 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 4
4. In the cases referred to in paragraph 3, a court or tribunal shall have the power to decide, following an examination of both facts and points of law, whether or not the applicant shall be allowed to remain on the territory of the Member States pending the outcome of the remedy upon the applicant’s request. The competent court or tribunal may under national law have the power to decide on this matter ex officio.deleted
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 525 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. For the purpose of paragraph 42, the following conditions shall apply:
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 527 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 5 – point a
(a) the applicant shall have a time- limit of at least 5 days from the date when the decision is notified to him or her to request to be allowed to remain on the territory pending the outcome of the remedyrequest to revoke the right to remain shall be made by the determining authority within 5 days from the date when the applicant has lodged her/his appeal;
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 529 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 5 – point d – point i
(i) until the time-limit for requesting a court or tribunal toa court or tribunal has ruled on whether or not he/she shall be allowed to remain has expired;on the territory.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 530 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 5 – point d – point ii
(ii) where the applicant has requested to be allowed to remain within the set time-limit, pending the decision of the court or tribunal on whether or not the applicant shall be allowed remain on the territory.deleted
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 534 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 6
6. In cases of subsequent applications, by way of derogation from paragraph 6, point (d)and only where the application is made within one year of the decision by the determining authority ofn this Articlee first application, Member States may provide in national law that the applicant shall not have a right to remain, without prejudice to the respect of the principle of non-refoulement, if the appeal has been made merely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of a return decision which would result in the applicant’s imminent removal from the Member State, that a court or tribunal, acting on a request from the determining authority, may revoke the applicant’s right to remain in cases where it is immediately clear to the court that no new elements have been presented in accordance with Article 42(4).
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 538 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 7
7. An applicant who lodges a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision shall notmay have athe right to remain on the territory of the Member State, without prejudice to the possibility for a court or tribunal to allow the applicant to remain upon the applicant’s request or acting ex officio.’ revoked by a court or tribunal, acting on a request from the determining authority.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 539 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 7
7. An applicant who lodges a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision shall notmay have athe right to remain on the territory of the Member State, without prejudice to the possibility for a court or tribunal to allow the applicant to remain upon the applicant’s request or acting ex officio.’ revoked by a court or tribunal, acting on a request from the determining authority.
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 540 #

2016/0224(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 a (new)
Article 54a Monitoring of respect for fundamental rights 1. Member States shall adopt relevant provisions to investigate allegations of non-respect for fundamental rights during border surveillance, screening, asylum and return procedures and shall adopt provisions under national law to penalise a failure to respect fundamental rights. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. 2. Each Member State shall establish an independent monitoring mechanism – to ensure compliance with EU and international law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, during border surveillance, the screening, asylum and return procedures; – to monitor investigations, and where necessary trigger such investigations into allegations of non- respect for fundamental rights in all relevant activities in relation to border surveillance, the screening, asylum and return procedures, for all third-country nationals who: (a) are involved in irregularly crossing 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 Regulation (EU) 603/2013 for reasons other than their age; (b) are disembarked in the territory of a Member State following a search and rescue operation, or (c) who apply for international protection at external border crossing points of in transit zones and who do not fulfil the entry conditions set out in Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399. – to ensure that allegations of non- respect for fundamental rights in relation to the screening, including in relation to access to the asylum procedure and non- compliance with the principle of non- refoulement, are dealt with effectively and without undue delay. – where applicable, to ensure compliance with the relevant rules on detention of the person concerned, in particular concerning the grounds, the duration and conditions of the detention; – to ensure compliance with the procedural safeguards applicable to the person concerned. Member States shall put in place adequate safeguards to guarantee the independence of the mechanism and shall involve national human rights institutions, national ombudspersons, international organisations or relevant non- governmental organisations in the management and operation of the mechanism. Insofar as one or more of those institutions, or organisations are not directly involved in the mechanism, the bodies responsible for the monitoring mechanism shall establish and maintain close links with them. In order for the mechanism to be effective, Member States shall provide bodies responsible for the mechanism with access to all relevant locations, individuals and documents, insofar as such access is necessary to allow the body responsible for the mechanism to fulfil its obligations set out in this Article. In addition, the bodies responsible for the monitoring mechanism shall establish and maintain close links with the national data protection authorities and the European Data Protection Supervisor. The Fundamental Rights Agency shall issue general guidance for Member States on the setting up of such mechanism and its independent functioning. Member States may request the Fundamental Rights Agency to support them in developing their national monitoring mechanism, including the safeguards for independence of such mechanism, as well as the monitoring methodology and appropriate training schemes. The mechanisms referred to above shall be without prejudice to the monitoring mechanism for [...] the operational and technical application of the CEAS as set out in Article 13 [EUAA Regulation] and to the role of the fundamental rights monitors in monitoring respect for fundamental rights in all activities of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency as set out in Article 80, Regulation (No) 2019/1896.[European Border and Coast Guard Agency].
2021/12/16
Committee: LIBE