70 Amendments of Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ related to 2021/0411(COD)
Amendment 119 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Transnational threats involving criminal activities pose a significant threat to the internal security of the Union and call for a coordinated, targeted and adapted response. While national authorities operating on the ground are on the frontline in the fight against serious and organised crime and terrorism, action at Union level is paramount to ensure efficient and effective cooperation, including as regards the exchange of information. Furthermore, serious and organised crime and terrorism, in particular, are emblematic of the link between internal and external security. Those threats spread across borders and manifest themselves in organised crime and terrorist groups that engage in a wide range of criminal activitieincreasingly dynamic and complex criminal activities calling for an adaptation of our police and law enforcement authorities towards more efficient detection, prevention and investigation systems.
Amendment 120 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
Amendment 122 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) In an area without internal border controls, policeFor the development of the European area of freedom, security and justice, characterised by the absence of internal border controls, it is essential that police and law enforcement officers in one Member State should have, within the framework of the applicable Union and national law, the possibility to obtain equivalent access to the information available to their colleagues in another Member State. In this regard, law enforcement authorities should cooperate effectively and by default across the Union. Therefore, an essential component of the measures that underpin public security in an interdependent area without internal border controls is police cooperation on the exchange of relevant information for law enforcement purposes. Exchange of information on crime and criminal activities, including terrorism, serves the overall objective of protecting the internal security of natural personsand legal persons in the Union.
Amendment 125 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Therefore, the existing legal framework consisting of the relevant provisions of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement and Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA should be updated and replaced, so as to facilitate and ensure, through the establishment of clear and harmonised rules, the adequate and rapid exchange of information between the competent law enforcement authorities of different Member States to adapt to a rapidly changing and expanding organised crime landscape, in the context of the globalisation and the digitalisation of the society.
Amendment 129 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) It is necessary to lay down rules governing the cross-cutting aspects of such information exchange between Member States. The rules of this Directive should not affect the application of rules of Union law on specific systems or frameworks for such exchanges, such as under Regulations (EU) 2018/186050 , (EU) 2018/186151 , (EU) 2018/186222/...52 , and (EU) 2016/79453 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directives (EU) 2016/68154 and 2019/115355 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and Council Decisions 2008/615/JHA56 and 2008/616/JHA57 . _________________ 50 Regulation (EU) 2018/1860 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 2018 on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ L 312, 7.12.2018, p. 1). 51 Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 2018 on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of border checks, and amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, and amending and repealing Regulation No 1987/2006 (OJ L 312, 7.12.2018, p. 14). 52 Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 201822/... amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, as regards the entry of alerts by Europol amending and repealing Council Decision 2007/533/JHA, and repealing Regulation No 1986/2006 and Commission Decision 2010/261/EU (OJ L 312, 7.12.2018, p. 56). 53 Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council Decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA (OJ L 135, 24.5.2016, p. 53). 54 Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 132). 55 Directive (EU) 2019/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 laying down rules facilitating the use of financial and other information for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of certain criminal offences, and repealing Council Decision 2000/642/JHA (OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 122). 56 Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross- border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 1). 57 Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 12). A proposal for a Regulation on automated data exchange for police cooperation ("Prüm II"), intends to repeal parts of those Council Decisions.
Amendment 130 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) All exchanges of information under this Directive should be subject to three general principles, namely those of availability, equivalent access and, confidentiality and data minimisation. While those principles are without prejudice to the more specific provisions of this Directive, they should guide its interpretation and application where relevant. For example, tThe principle of availability should be understood as indicating that relevant information available to the Single Point of Contact or the law enforcement authorities of one Member State should also be available, to the largest extent possible, to those of other Member States. However, the principle should not affect the application, where justified, of specific provisions of this Directive restricting the availability of information, such as those on the grounds for refusal of requests for information and judicial authorisation. In addition, pPursuant to the principle of equivalent access, the access of the Single Point of Contact and the law enforcement authorities of other Member States to relevant information should be substantially the same as, and thus be neither stricter nor less strict than, the access of those of one and the same Member State, subject to the Directive’s more specific provisions. The principle of confidentiality requires that Member States respect each other’s confidentiality requirements when treating such information by ensuring a similar level of protection. The principle of data minimisation requires to defining exhaustively the categories of personal data that may be exchanged between law enforcement authorities.
Amendment 133 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) In order to achieve the objective to facilitate and ensure the adequate and rapid exchange of information between Member States, provision should be made for obtaining such information by addressing a request for information to the Single Point of Contact of the other Member State concerned, in accordance with certain clear, simplified and harmonised requirements. Concerning the content of such requests for information, it should in particular be specified, in an exhaustive and sufficiently detailed manner and without prejudice to the need for a case-by- case assessment, when they are to be considered as urgent and, which explanations they are to contain as minimum and the language to be used.
Amendment 135 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Whilst the Single Points of Contact of each Member State should in any event have the possibility to submit requests for information to the Single Point of Contact of another Member State, in the interest of flexibility, Member States should be allowed to decide that, in addition, their law enforcement authorities may also submit such requests. In order for Single Points of Contact to be able to perform their coordinating functions under this Directive, it is however necessary that, where a Member State takes such a decision, its Single Point of Contact is made aware of all such outgoing requests, as well as of any communications relating thereto, by always being put in copy. Meanwhile, the Member States should seek to reduce the duplication of personal data to a strict minimum.
Amendment 138 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Time limits are necessary to ensure rapid processing of requests for information submitted to a Single Point of Contact or a Member State law enforcement authority. Such time limits should be clear and proportionate and take into account whether the request for information is urgent and whether a prior judicial authorisation is required. In order to ensure compliance with the applicable time limits whilst nonetheless allowing for a degree of flexibility where objectively justified, it is necessary to allow, on an exceptional basis, for deviations only where, and in as far as, the competent judicial authority of the requested Member State needs additional time to decide on granting the necessary judicial authorisation. Such a need could arise, for example, because of the broad scope or the complexity of the matters raised by the request for information.
Amendment 139 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) In exceptional cases, it may be objectively justified for a Member State to refuse a request for information submitted to a Single Point of Contact. In order to ensure the effective functioning of the system created by this Directive, those cases should be exhaustively specified and interpreted restrictively. In particular, necessary safeguards should be established to prevent any misuse of the mechanism for exchanging information for any purpose that falls outside the scope and objectives of this Directive, for example in the case of politically- motivated objectives or manifest breaches of fundamental rights. Specific attention should be kept on requests formulated by a Single Point of Contact or a law enforcement authority from a Member State subject to a procedure under Article 7 of the Treaty on the European Union. When only parts of the information concerned by such a request for information relate to the reasons for refusing the request, the remaining information is to be provided within the time limits set by this Directive. Provision should be made for the possibility to ask for clarifications, which should suspend the applicable time limits. However, such possibility should only exist where the clarifications are objectively necessary and proportionate, in that to evaluate the request of information or in case the request for information would otherwise have to be refused for one of the reasons listed in this Directive. In the interest of effective cooperation, it should remain possible to request necessary clarifications also in other situations, without this however leading to suspension of the time limits.
Amendment 140 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) In order to allow for the necessary flexibility in view of operational needs that may vary in practice, provision should be made for two other means of exchanging information, in addition to requests for information submitted to the Single Points of Contact. The first one is the spontaneous provision of information, that is, on the own initiative of either the Single Point of Contact or the law enforcement authorities without a prior request. The second one is the provision of information upon requests for information submitted either by Single Points of Contact or by law enforcement authorities not to the Single Point of Contact, but rather directly to the law enforcement authorities of another Member State. In respect of both means, only a limited number of minimum requirements should be set, in particular on keeping the relevant Single Points of Contact informed and, as regards own-initiative provision of information, the situations in which information is to be provided and the language to be used.
Amendment 141 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) The requirement of a prior judicial authorisation for the provision of information can be an important safeguard and should be respected when provided in national law. The Member States' legal systems are different in this respect and this Directive should not be understood as affecting such requirements established under national law, other than subjecting them to the condition that domestic exchanges and exchanges between Member States are treated in an equivalent manner, both on the substance and procedurally. Furthermore, in order to keep any delays and complications relating to the application of such a requirement to a minimum, the Single Point of Contact or the law enforcement authorities, as applicable, of the Member State of the competent judicial authority should take all practical and legal steps, where relevant in cooperation with the Single Point of Contact or the law enforcement authority of another Member State that requested the information, to obtain the judicial authorisation as soon as possible.
Amendment 143 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) It is particularly important that the protection of personal data, in accordance with Union law, is ensured in connection to all exchanges of information under this Directive. To that aim, the rules of this Directive should be aligned with Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council60 . In particular, it should be specified that any personal data exchanged by Single Points of Contacts and law enforcement authorities is to remain limited to the categories of data listed in Section B point 2, of Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council61 . Furthermore, as far as possible, any such personal data should be distinguished according to their degree of accuracy and reliability, whereby facts should be distinguished from personal assessments, in order to ensure both the protection of individuals and the quality and reliability of the information exchanged. The processing and storage of personal data by Single Points of Contact or law enforcement authorities following a request of information pursuant to this Directive should be as quick as possible to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the personal data, to avoid unnecessary duplication of data and to reduce the risk that such data is outdated or not available to the initial competent authority anymore. If it appears that the personal data are incorrect, they should be rectified or erased without delay. Such rectification or erasure, as well as any other processing of personal data in connection to the activities under this Directive, should be carried out in compliance with the applicable rules of Union law, in particular Directive (EU) 2016/680 and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council62 , which rules this Directive leaves unaffected. _________________ 60 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 89). 61 Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council Decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA (OJ L 135, 24.5.2016, p. 53). 62 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).
Amendment 149 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16 a (new)
Recital 16 a (new)
(16 a) For the purpose of this Directive, Member States should make sure that their Single Point of Contact and competent law enforcement authorities respect a clear distinction between personal data of different categories pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/680 and Annex II of Regulation (EU) 2022/794.
Amendment 150 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) In order to allow for adequate and rapid provision of information by Single Points of Contact, either upon request or on their own initiative, it is important that the relevant officials of the Member States concerned understand each other. Language barriers often hamper the cross- border exchange of information. For this reason, rules should be established on the use of languages in which requests for information submitted to the Single Points of Contact, the information to be provided by Single Points of Contact as well as any other communications relating thereto, such as on refusals and clarifications, are to be provided. Those rules should strike a balance between, on the one hand, respecting the linguistic diversity within the Union and keeping costs of translation as limited as possible and, on the other hand, operational needs associated with adequate and rapid exchanges of information across borders. Therefore, Member States should establish a list containing one or more official languages of the Union of their choice, but containing also one language that is broadly understood and used in practice, namely, English. Besides, Member States should also engage in the overall improvement of their staff’s foreign language skills, such as by delivering specific trainings.
Amendment 153 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) The further development of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) as the Union’s criminal information hub is a priority for supporting the Member States’ law enforcement authorities. That is why, when information or any related communications are exchanged, irrespective of whether that is done pursuant to a request for information submitted to a Single Point of Contact or law enforcement authority, or on their own-imitative, a copy should be sent to Europol, however only insofar as it concerns offences falling within the scope of the objectives of Europol. In practice, this can be done through the ticking by default of the corresponding SIENA boxMember States should ensure adequate support and training of their staff to quickly and accurately identify which information exchanged in the context of this Directive falls within the mandate of Europol and is necessary for the Agency to fulfil its objectives.
Amendment 158 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) The proliferation of communication channels used for the transmission of law enforcement information between Member States and of communications relating thereto should be remedied, as it hinders the adequate and rapid exchange of such information and increase the risk towards the security of personal data. Therefore, the use of the secure information exchange network application called SIENA, managed by Europol in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/794, should be made mandatory for all such transmissions and communications under this Directive, including the sending of requests for information submitted to Single Points of Contact and directly to law enforcement authorities, the provision of information upon such requests and on their own initiative, communications on refusals and clarifications, as well as copies to Single Points of Contact and Europol. To that aim, all Single Points of Contact, as well as all law enforcement authorities that may be involved in such exchanges, should be directly connected to SIENA. In this regard, a transition period should be provided for, however, in order to allow for the full roll-out of SIENA.
Amendment 161 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) In order to simplify, facilitate and better manage information flows, Member States should each establish or designate one Single Point of Contact competent for coordinating information exchanges under this Directive. The Single Points of Contact should, in particular, contribute to mitigating the obstacles resulting from the fragmentation of the law enforcement authorities' landscape, specifically in relation to information flows, in response to the growing need to jointly tackle cross- border crime, such as drug trafficking, cybercrime, trafficking of human beings and terrorism. For the Single Points of Contact to be able to effectively fulfil their coordinating functions in respect of the cross-border exchange of information for law enforcement purposes under this Directive, they should be assigned a number of specific, minimum tasks and also have certain minimum capabilities.
Amendment 163 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) Those capabilities of the Single Points of Contact should include having access to all information available within its own Member State, including by having user-friendly access to all relevant Union and international databases and platforms, in accordance with the modalities specified in the applicable Union and national law. In order to be able to meet the requirements of this Directive, especially those on the time limits, the Single Points of Contact should be provided with adequate resources in terms of budget and staff, including adequate translation capabilities, and function around the clock. In that regard, having a front desk that is able to screen, process and channel incoming requests for information may increase their efficiency and effectiveness. Those capabilities should also include having at their disposition, at all times, judicial authorities competent to grant necessary judicial authorisations. In practice, this can be done, for example, by ensuring the physical presence or the functional availability of such judicial authorities, either within the premises of the Single Point of Contact or directly available on call.
Amendment 165 #
(22 a) The emergence of a European common police culture between Member States law enforcement forces is a key objective for the purpose of exchange of information in criminal matters. To this end, adequate training, including in Union law for data protection and foreign languages, and cooperation exercises at regular intervals should be strengthened at the EU level, with the support of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) as well as programmes and projects funded under the Union budget.
Amendment 166 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22 b (new)
Recital 22 b (new)
(22 b) Regular meetings between Single Points of Contact, and at least once a year with all of them, should also be established to foster a European common police culture between Member States and share good practices in the field of exchange of information for the purpose of this Directive.
Amendment 167 #
(23) The deployment and operation of an electronic single Case Management System having certain minimum functions and capabilities by the Single Points of Contact is necessary to allow them to carry out their tasks under this Directive in an effective and efficient manner, in particular as regards information managementexchange, processing and storage. The storage of personal metadata and content data should be for the sole purpose of the processing of such data by the requesting law enforcement authorities and be as quick as possible to limit the duplication of the same data to the strict minimum. At the end of this process, the data should be irrevocably deleted.
Amendment 169 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) To enable the necessary monitoring and evaluation of the application of this Directive, Member States should be required to collect and annually provide to the Commission certain data. This requirement is necessary, in particular, to remedy the lack of comparable data quantifying relevant information exchanges and also facilitates the reporting obligation of the Commission regarding the implementation and application of this Directive.
Amendment 171 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) The cross-border nature of crime and terrorism requires Member States to rely on one another to tackle such criminal offences. Adequate and rapid information flows between relevant law enforcement authorities and to Europol cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States acting alone. Due to the scale and effects of the action, this can be better achieved at Union level through the establishment of a common culture and rules on the exchange of information. Thus, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.
Amendment 175 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. This Directive establishes rules for the exchange of information between the law enforcement authorities of the Member States where necessary and proportionate for the purpose of preventing, detecting or investigating criminal offences.
Amendment 180 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) requests for information submitted to the Single Points of Contact established or designated by the Member States, in particular on the content of such requests, mandatory time limits for providing the requested information, reasons for refusals of such requests and the single channel of communication to be used in connection to such requests;
Amendment 183 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) the single channel of communication to be used for all exchanges of information pursuant to this directive and the information to be provided to the Single Points of Contact in relation to exchanges of information directly between the law enforcement authorities of the Member States;
Amendment 185 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d
(d) the establishment or designation, organisation, tasks, composition and capabilities of theMember States’ Single Point of Contact, including on the deployment of a single electronic Case Management System for the fulfilment of its tasks.
Amendment 194 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1
(1) 'law enforcement authority' means any authority of the Member States competent under national law for the purpose of preventing, detecting or investigating criminal offences;, such as national police, customs or other authority that is authorised by national law to detect, prevent and investigate serious or organised criminal activities.
Amendment 208 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
(4) 'available' information means information that is either held by the Single Point of Contact or the law enforcement authorities of the requested Member State, or information that those Single Points of Contact or those law enforcement authorities can obtain from other public authorities or from private parties established in that Member State without coercive measures, in compliance with Regulation (EU) 2016/794;
Amendment 213 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6
(6) ‘personal data’ means personal data as defined in Article 43, point (12) of Regulation (EU) 2016/6794.
Amendment 220 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) information provided to the Single Point of Contact or the law enforcement authorities of another Member State that is marked as confidential is protected by those law enforcement authorities in accordance with the requirements set out in the national law of that Member State offering a similar level of confidentiality (‘principle of confidentiality’).;
Amendment 221 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) information falling in the scope of this Directive shall be defined exhaustively, namely the categories of personal data that can be exchanged between law enforcement authorities (‘principle of data minimisation’).
Amendment 227 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) necessary in order to protect a person’s vital interests which are at imminent risk or prevent an imminent threat to life or physical integrity;
Amendment 229 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) necessary to adopt a decision that may involve the maintenance of restrictive measures amounting to a restriction or deprivation of liberty;
Amendment 232 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. Requests for information to the Single Point of Contact of another Member State shall contain all necessary details and explanations to allow for their adequate and rapid processing in accordance with this Directive, including at least the following:
Amendment 233 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point e
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point e
(e) the reasons for which the request is considered urgent, where applicable, in accordance to paragraph 3.
Amendment 236 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) seven calendar days, for all requests that are not urgent., and do not require a judicial authorisation;
Amendment 238 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) nine calendar days, for all requests that are not urgent, and require a judicial authorisation.
Amendment 239 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The time periodlimits laid down in the first subparagraph shall commence at the moment of the reception of the request for information.
Amendment 240 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Where under its national law in accordance with Article 9 the requested information is available only after having obtained a judicial authorisation, the requested Member State may deviate from the time limits referred to paragraph 1 insofar as necessary for obtaining suchMember States shall ensure that their Single Point of Contact keep the Single Point of Contact or, where applicable, the law enforcement authority of the requesting Member State updated and provide the requested information as soon as possible after obtaining the judicial authorisation.
Amendment 241 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 242 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point i
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point i
Amendment 243 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point ii
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point ii
Amendment 247 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e – point i
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e – point i
(i) be contrary to the essential interests of the internal security of the requested Member State;
Amendment 249 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e – point iii
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e – point iii
(iii) unduly harm the vital interests of a natural or legal person. or pose an imminent threat to life or the physical integrity of a natural person;
Amendment 253 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e – point iii a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e – point iii a (new)
(iii a) depart from the scope and objectives of this Directive, including the fight against serious and organised crimes and terrorism, such as in the case of politically-motivated purposes or manifest breach of fundamental rights
Amendment 254 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that their Single Point of Contact informs the Single Point of Contact or, where applicable, the law enforcement authority of the requesting Member State of the refusal, specifying the reasons for the refusal, within the time limits provided for in Article 5(1). The Single Point of Contact or, where applicable, the law enforcement authority of the requesting Member State subject to a refusal shall have the possibility to provide clarifications or request a reassessment of such a decision.
Amendment 260 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that, where Single Points of Contact or law enforcement authorities submit requests for information directly to the law enforcement authorities of another Member State, their Single Points of Contact or their law enforcement authorities send, at the same time as they send such requests, provide information pursuant to such requests or send any other communications relating thereto, a copy thereof to the Single Point of Contact of that other Member State and, where the sender is a law enforcement authority, also to the Single Point of Contact of its own Member State.
Amendment 261 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 1 a (new)
2. Member States shall ensure that their Single Point of Contact or, where relevant, their law enforcement authority, reply to requests for information pursuant to this Directive within the time limits referred to Article 5, except where Article 6(1) applies.
Amendment 263 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that, where their national law requires a judicial authorisation for the provision of information to the Single Points of Contact or the law enforcement authority of another Member State in accordance with paragraph 1, their Single Points of Contact or their law enforcement authorities immediately take all necessary steps, in accordance with their national law, to obtain such judicial authorisation as soon as possible and within the time limits foreseen in Article 5(1).
Amendment 264 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 3
3. The requests for judicial authorisation referred to in paragraph 12 shall be assessed and decided upon in accordance with the national law of the Member State of the competent judicial authority.
Amendment 274 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point ii
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point ii
(ii) their Single Point of Contact or their law enforcement authorities also provide, at the same time and insofar as possible, the necessary elements enabling the Single Point of Contact or the law enforcement authority of the other Member State to assess the degree of accuracy, completeness and reliability of the personal data, as well as the extent to which the personal data are up to date and their period of validity where relevant.
Amendment 275 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall establish and keep up to date a list with one or more of the official languages of the Union in which their Single Point of Contact is able to receive and provide information upon a request for information or on its own initiative. That list shall include English.
Amendment 279 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that, where their Single Point of Contact or their law enforcement authorities send requests for information, provide information pursuant to such requests, provide information on their own initiative or send other communications relating thereto under Chapters II and III, they also send, at the same time, a copy thereof to Europol, insofar as the information to which the communication relates concerns offences falling within the scope of the objectives of Europol in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/794 following a thorough assessment made by qualified staff.
Amendment 281 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 1 a (new)
2. In application to the first paragraph and pursuant to Article 7(6)(a) and Article 19 of Regulation (EU) 2022/791 [Europol Regulation], when supplying information to Europol, Member States shall determine the purpose of, and the restriction on, the processing of such information.
Amendment 284 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall establish or designate ona single national Single Point of Contact, which shall be the central entity responsible for coordinating exchanges of information under this Directive.
Amendment 286 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) receive and evaluate requests for information in the language used;
Amendment 287 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) their Single Point of Contact has access to all information available to their law enforcement authorities, insofar as necessary to carry out its tasks under this Directive and in compliance with the protection of personal data related to Regulation (EU) 2016/680;
Amendment 290 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – point c
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) their Single Point of Contact is provided with the qualified staff, resources and capabilities, including for translation, necessary to carry out its tasks in an adequate and rapid manner in accordance with this Directive and in particular the time limits set out in Article 5(1);
Amendment 292 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – title
Article 15 – title
Amendment 294 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Amendment 296 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2 b (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 2 b (new)
Amendment 297 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) recording incoming and outgoing requests for information referred to in Articles 5 and 8, as well as any other communications with Single Points of Contact and, where applicable, law enforcement authorities of other Member States relating to such requests, including the information about refusals and the requests for and provision of clarifications referred to in Article 6(2) and (3) respectively, as well as the request for reassessment of a refusal, pursuant to Article 6(2);
Amendment 299 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3
Article 16 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that any personal data processed by their Single Point of Contact are contained in the Case Management System only for as long as is necessary and proportionate for the purposes for which the personal data are processed and are subsequently irrevocably deletedto limit the duplication of such data to the strict minimum, and are subsequently irrevocably deleted. Member States may impose time limits for the processing and storage of such personal data to their Single Point of Contact and competent law enforcement authorities.
Amendment 304 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 a (new)
Article 16 a (new)
Article 16 a Cooperation between national Single Point of Contact 1. Member States shall encourage practical cooperation between their Single Point of Contact and competent law enforcement authorities for the purpose of the present Directive. 2. The Commission shall organise regular meetings between Single Points of Contact, and at least once a year with all of them, to support the sharing of best practices related to the exchange of information between law enforcement authorities.
Amendment 307 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall, by [date of entry into force + 32 years], submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council, assessing the implementation of this Directive. In this context, the Commission shall pay particular attention to the efficiency of exchange of information between competent authorities, the grounds for refusal of requests, in particular where the request falls outside the scope of the objectives of this Directive, as well as the compliance with provisions on data protection and the transferring of information to Europol.
Amendment 310 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall, by [date of entry into force + 54 years], submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council assessing the effectivity and effectiveness of this Directive. The Commission shall take into account the information provided by Member States and any other relevant information related to the transposition and implementation of this Directive. On the basis of this evaluation, the Commission shall decide on appropriate follow-up actions, including, if necessary, a legislative proposal.
Amendment 311 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [date of entry into force + 12 yearmonths]. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.
Amendment 314 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
They shall apply those provisions from that date. However, they shall apply Article 13 from [date of entry into force + 42 years].