BETA

376 Amendments of Hubert PIRKER

Amendment 72 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital R
R. whereas the transfer of personal data by EU institutions, bodies, offices or agencies or by the Member States to the US for law enforcement purposes in the absence of adequate safeguards and protections for the respect of fundamental rights of EU citizens, in particular the rights to privacy and the protection of personal data, would make that EU institution, body, office or agency or that Member State liable, under Article 340 TFEU or the established case law of the CJEU27 , for breach of EU law – which includes any violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in the EU Charter; __________________ 27 See notably Joined Cases C-6/90 and C- 9/90, Francovich and others v. Italy, judgment of 28 May 1991.deleted
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 77 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital U a (new)
Ua. whereas in its working document 4 on US Surveillance activities with respect to EU data and its possible legal implications on transatlantic agreements and cooperation of 12 December 2013 the Rapporteurs expressed doubts and concerns as to the adequacy of the Safe Harbour and called on the Commission to end the adequacy of Safe Harbour and to find new legal solutions;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 85 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital AJ a (new)
AJa. whereas terrorist finance tracking is an essential tool in the fight against terrorism financing and serious crime, allowing counter terrorism investigators to discover links between targets of investigation and other potential suspects connected with wider terrorist networks suspected of financing terrorism;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 90 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital AM
AM. whereas during the LIBE delegation to Washington of 28-31 October 2013 the delegation met with the US Department of the Treasury; whereas the US Treasury officially stated that since the entry into force of the TFTP Agreethe US government (the NSA is in that sense considered part of the government it) hads not had access to data from SWIFT in the EU except within the framework of the TFTP; whereas the US Treasury refused to comment on whether SWIFT data would have been accessed outside TFTP by any obeen collecting and processing SWIFT data in any other way than as recognised in the agreement, whereas the US Department of the Treasury also gave assurances in relation to access to SWIFT formatted messages in accordance with other legal tools in place; whereas ther US government body or departDepartment of the Treasury did not comment or n whether the US administrationor not it was aware of NSA mass surveillance activities; whereas on 18 Dec24 September 2013 Mr Glenn GreenwEuropol and SWIFT officialds stated before the LIBE Committee inquiry that the NSA and GCHQ had targeted SWIFT networksre were no indications for a breach of the TFTP Agreement by the NSA;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 93 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital AP
AP. whereas the Joint Review fails to mention the fact that iArticle 13 of the agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the cause of proceassieng of personal data for intelligence purposes, under US law, non- US citizens do not enjoy any judicial or administrative avenue to protect their rights, and constitutional protections are only granted to US persons; whereas this lack of judicial or administrative rights nullifies the protections for EU citizens laid down in the existing PNR agreementer name records to the United States Department of Homeland Security allows any individual regardless of nationality, country or origin, or place of residence, whose personal data and personal information has been processed and used in a manner inconsistent with the PNR Agreement, to seek effective administrative and judicial redress in accordance with US law;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 94 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital AR
AR. whereas the purpose of this general agreement is to establish the legal framework for all transfers of personal data between the EU and US for the sole purposes of preventing, investigating, detecting or prosecuting criminal offences, including terrorism, in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters; whereas negotiations were authorised by the Council on 2 December 2010; whereas this agreement is of utmost importance and it would act as the basis to facilitate data transfer in the context of police and judicial cooperation and in criminal matters;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 142 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Recalls EU's firm belief in the need to strike the right balance between security measures and the protection of civil liberties and fundamental rights, while ensuring the utmost respect for privacy and data protection;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 157 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Sees the surveillance programmes as yet another step towards the establishment of a fully fledged preventive state, changing the established paradigm of criminal law in democratic societies, promoting instead a mix of law enforcement and intelligence activities with blurred legal safeguards, often not in line with democratic checks and balances and fundamental rights, especially the presumption of innocence; recalls in that regard the decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court37 on the prohibition of the use of preventive dragnets (‘präventive Rasterfahndung’) unless there is proof of a concrete danger to other high-ranking legally protected rights, whereby a general threat situation or international tensions do not suffice to justify such measures; __________________ 37 No 1 BvR 518/02 of 4 April 2006.deleted
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 219 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
25. Calls on the US to revise its legislation without delay in order to bring it into line with international law, to recognise the privacy and other rights of EU citizens, to provide for judicial redress for EU citizens, to put rights of EU citizens on an equal footing with rights of US citizens and to sign the Additional Protocol allowing for complaints by individuals under the ICCPR;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 246 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
44. Takes the view that the information provided by the European Commission and the US Treasury does not clarify whether US intelligence agencies have access to SWIFT financial messages in the EU by intercepting SWIFT networks or banks’ operating systems or communication networks, alone or in cooperation with EU national intelligence agencies and without having recourse to existing bilateral channels for mutual legal assistance and judicial cooperationclarify that there were no elements showing that the US Government has acted in a manner contrary to the provisions of the Agreement, and that the US has provided written assurance that no direct data collection has taken place contrary to the provisions of the TFTP Agreement;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 264 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
48. Asks for an immediate resumption of the negotiations with the US on the 'Umbrella Agreement', which should provide for clearput rights for EU citizens on an equal footing with rights for EUS citizens and, moreover the agreement should provide effective and enforceable administrative and judicial remedies for all EU citizens in the US without any discrimination;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 277 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
54. Reiterates its serious concerns about the compulsory direct disclosure of EU personal data of EU citizens and information processed under cloud agreements to third-country authorities by cloud providers subject to third-country laws or using storage servers located in third countries, and about direct remote access to personal data and information processed by third-country law enforcement authorities and intelligence services; suggests the creation of a reliable EU cloud, or if necessary a "Schengen cloud", as an useful tool in strengthening EU based IT systems against external threats; relaying on binding legal provisions ensuring that cloud data must be processed within in EU territory and without leaving EU borders;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 297 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59
59. Strongly emphasises, given the importance of the digital economy in the relationship and in the cause of rebuilding EU-US trust, that the European Parliament will only consent to the final TTIP agreement provided theand distinguishes clearly the TTIP negotiations from revelations on the US NSA mass surveillance programme; however the TTIP agreement shall fully respects fundamental rights recognised by the EU Charter, and that the protection of the privacy of individuals in relation to the processing and dissemination of personal data must continue to be governed by Article XIV of the GATS;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 298 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59 a (new)
59a. European Counter Intelligence policy (New heading for additional paragraphs)
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 299 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59 b (new)
59b. Urges Member States to immediately launch a process of setting up permanent structures to better cooperate in the field of counter intelligence at European level on, at first, a multilateral basis taking the conception of Europol in its first years as a blueprint;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 300 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59 c (new)
59c. This European Counter Intelligence Service should be set up in order to protect the European citizens, EU institutions, national governments and parliaments, major European companies, European IT infrastructures and networks as well as European universities, science and research from spying. Therefore, calls on those Member States to provide for an active involvement of EU stakeholders in industries, businesses and science within this structure in order to assure an information and knowledge exchange between the European Counter Intelligence Service, Member State's counter intelligence services and European economical key players.
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 301 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59 d (new)
59d. Strongly demands this concept of a European Counter Intelligence Service to be added into the Treaties when being reformed the next time in order to assure a European oversight mechanism and involvement of the European Parliament in the decision making.
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 312 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62
62. Calls for the setting up of a high-level group to strengthenUrges willing Member States for the setting up of a permanent cooperation in the field of counter intelligence at EU level, combined with a proper oversight mechanism ensuring both democratic legitimacy and adequate technical capacity; stresses that the high-level group should cooperate closely with national parliaments in order to propose further steps to be taken for increased oversight collaboration in the EUuropean level on, at first, a multilateral basis taking the conception of Europol in its first years as a blueprint. This European counter intelligence cooperation should be set up in order to protect the European citizens, economy, businesses and science from spying. This should be combined with a proper oversight mechanism ensuring democratic legitimacy;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 336 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72
72. Calls on the Europol Joint Supervisory Body, together with national data protection authorities, to conduct a joint inspectionreview before the end of 2014 in order to ascertain whether information and personal data shared with Europol has been lawfully acquired by national authorities, particularly if the information or data was initially acquired by intelligence services in the EU or a third country, and whether appropriate measures are in place to prevent the use and further dissemination of such information or data;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 339 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 73
73. Calls on Europol to ask the competent authorities of the Member States, in line with its competences, to initiate investigations with regard to possible cybercrimes and cyber attacks committed by governments or private actors in the course of the activities under scrutiny; calls on the Commission review the activities of the European Cybercrime Centre and to put forward if necessary a proposal for a comprehensive framework for strengthening the competences of the European Cybercrime Centre;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 352 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 76
76. Calls on the Commission to put forward a proposal for a comprehensive framework for the protection of whistleblowers in the EU, with particular attention to the specificities of whistleblowing in the field of intelligence, for which provisions relating to whistleblowing in the financial field may prove insufficient, and including strong guarantees of immunity;deleted
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 357 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 77
77. Points out that recent incidents clearly demonstrate the acute vulnerability of the EU, and in particular the EU institutions, national governments and parliaments, major European companies, European IT infrastructures and networks as well as European universities, science and research, to sophisticated attacks using complex software; notes that these attacks require such financial and human resources that they are likely to originate from state entities acting on behalf of foreign governments or even from certain EU national governments that support them; in this context, regards the case of the hacking or tapping of the telecommunications company Belgacom as a worrying example of an attack against the EU's IT capacity which clearly demonstrates the urgent need of a better protection through a European Counter Intelligence Service;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 363 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 78
78. Takes the view that the mass surveillance revelations that have initiated this crisis can be used as an opportunity for Europe to take the initiative and build up an autonomous IT key-resource capability for the mid termas a strategic priority-one measure and as soon as possible; calls on the Commission and the Member States to use public procurement as leverage to support such resource capability in the EU by making EU security and privacy standards a key requirement in the public procurement of IT goods and services;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 379 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 83
83. Supports the EU cyber strategy but considers that it does not cover all possible threats and should be extended to cover malicious state behaviours; recalls that any necessary gain in powers and competences requires an equivalent increase in funding;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 383 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84 a (new)
84a. Calls for the promotion of - EU search engines and EU social networks as a valuable step in the direction of EU's IT independency; - European IT-service provider; - encrypting communication in general including e-mail and sms communication; - European IT-key elements, for instance solutions for client-server-operating system, using open source standards, developing European elements for grid coupling, e.g. router;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 384 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84 b (new)
84b. Calls on the Commission to present a proposal for a system of product certifying for hard- and software, because there is no structure in the EU for scrutinising hard- and software products regarding backdoors;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 386 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 85
85. Calls on the Commission, in the framework of the next Work Programme of the Horizon 2020 Programme, to assess whetherdirect more resources should be directed towards boosting European research, development, innovation and training in the field of IT technologies, in particular privacy-enhancing technologies and infrastructures, cryptology, secure computing, open-source security solutions and the Information Society; suggests to provide European companies, especially small and medium size enterprises, with financial and / or practical assistance as regards an optimal legal protection of European knowledge and research, for example in filing patent applications or bringing action against cyber-knowledge thefts;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 391 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 85
85. Calls on the Commission, to strengthen the technological European infrastructure and the European digital market and therefore in the framework of the next Work Programme of the Horizon 2020 Programme, to assess whether; more resources should be directed towards boosting European research, development, innovation and training in the field of IT technologies, in particular privacy-enhancing technologies and infrastructures, cryptology, secure computing, open-source security solutions and the Information Society in order to make email and telecommunications safer; to promote the internal market for European soft- and hardware, and to promote cryptophones and to encrypt communication infrastructures;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 393 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 86
86. Asks the Commission to map out current responsibilities and to review, by June 2014 at the latest, the need for a broader mandate, better coordination and/or additional resources and technical capabilities for Europol’s CyberCrime Centre, ENISA, CERT-EU and the EDPS in order to enable them to be more effective in preventing and investigating major IT breaches in the EU and in performing (or assisting Member States and EU bodies to perform) on-site technical investigations regarding major IT breaches;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 399 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 87
87. Deems it necessary for the EU to be supported by an EU IT Academy that brings together the best European experts in all related fields, tasked with providing all relevant EU Institutions and bodies with scientific advice on IT technologies, including security-related strategies; as a first step asks the Commission to set up an independent scientific expert panel;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 403 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 87 a (new)
87a. Calls on the Commission, by January 2015, to evaluate possibilities for the EU to set up an EU-University of Excellence for Information Technologies which should not accept any funding from extra EU entities and require students to pay back scholarships in case they accept jobs in third countries;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 409 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88 – point 3
· the list of non-EUS companies under contract with the European Parliament in the IT and telecom fields, taking into account revelations about NSA contracts with a company such as RSA, whose products the European Parliament is using to supposedly protect remote access to their data by its Members and staff;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 413 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88 – point 5
· the use of more open-source and EU- based systems and fewer off-the-shelf commercial systemsystems of companies from third countries;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 415 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88 – point 6
· the impact ofsteps and measures to take in order to address the increased use of mobile tools (e.g. smartphones, tablets, whether professional or personal) and its effects on the IT security of the system;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 416 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88 – point 10
· the use of cloud storage by the EP, including what kind of data is stored on the cloud, how the content and access to it is protected and where the cloud is-servers are located, clarifying the applicable data protection legal regime as well as an outlook on how it would be possible to assure that these cloud-servers are based on EU-territory only;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 422 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 91
91. Takes the view that the large-scale IT systems used in the area of freedom, security and justice, such as the Schengen Information System II, the Visa Information System, Eurodac and possible future systems, should be developed and operated in such a way as to ensure that data is not compromised as a result of US requests under the Patriot Actby authorities from third countries; asks eu- LISA to report back to Parliament on the reliability of the systems in place by the end of 2014;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 429 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 93 a (new)
93a. Calls on the Commission to present a legal proposal for a EU-routing-system; a EU processing of call detail record (CDR); notes that all routing data and CDR should be processed in accordance with EU legal frameworks and without leaving the EU borders;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 468 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 109 a (new)
109a. Considers tap-proof communication structures (email and telecommunications, including landlines and cell phones) and tap-proof meeting rooms within all relevant EU institutions and EU delegations as absolutely necessary; therefore calls for the establishment of an encrypted internal EU email-system;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 495 #

2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114 – point 4
Action 4: Suspend the TFTP agreement until (i) the Umbrella Agreement negotiations have been concluded; (ii) a thorough investigation has been concluded on the basis of an EU analysis, and all concerns raised by Parliament in its resolution of 23 October have been properly addressedto conclude the on-going negotiations on a data protection agreement for law enforcement purposes ("umbrella agreement") soon as possible;
2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 18 #

2013/2043(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Regrets the fragmentation of the European postal sector into national networks with poor interoperability; calls on the Commission to introducetake initiatives aimed at drawing up common labelling and traceability standards;
2013/09/23
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 25 #

2013/2043(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Notes cross-border weaknesses in competition between delivery operators in some Member States, and deplores the lack of transparency on the pricing conditions and performance of the services concerned; believes, in particular, that tools must be put in place to provide information on offers by all European delivery operators;
2013/09/23
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 31 #

2013/2024(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Takes the view, therefore, that a reform of the electoral procedure will be required in the future in order to enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of Parliament by strengthening the democratic dimension of Europe and dividing seats up more proportionally among the Member States, in accordance with the principles laid down in the Treaties; considers that a reform of this kind will encourage European citizens to take part in European elections in their Member State of residence if they are not nationals of that State;
2013/09/10
Committee: JURILIBEAFCO
Amendment 57 #

2013/2024(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Calls urgently for measures to address the so-called Copenhagen dilemma, describing a situation in which the Union sets high standards for candidate countries to meet but lacks tools for Member States; announces its intention to set up a Copenhagen Commission within the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs;deleted
2013/09/10
Committee: JURILIBEAFCO
Amendment 264 #

2013/2024(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
46. Believes that the external dimension of asylum should be expanded, especially in relation to resettlement;
2013/09/10
Committee: JURILIBEAFCO
Amendment 24 #

2013/0305(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a) Such disparities facilitate illegal trafficking of such substances by criminals, in particular organised criminal gangs.
2014/01/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 48 #

2013/0305(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28 a (new)
(28a) Children and adolescents are particularly vulnerable to the dangers presented by such substances, the risks of which are still largely unknown.
2014/01/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 49 #

2013/0305(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
(29) Prevention, treatment and harm reduction measures are important for addressing the growing use of new psychoactive substances and their potential risks. The internet, which is one of the important distribution channels through which new psychoactive substances are sold, should be used for disseminating information on the health, social and safety risks that they pose. It is essential for children, adolescents and young adults to be made aware of those risks, including by means of information campaigns in schools and other educational environments.
2014/01/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 65 #

2013/0305(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. Where the EMCDDA and Europol, or the Commission, consider that the information shared on a new psychoactive substance notified by several Member States gives rise to concerns across the Union because of the health, social and safety risks that the new psychoactive substance may pose, or in response to a reasoned request from more than one Member State, the EMCDDA and Europol shall draw up a joint report on the new psychoactive substance.
2014/01/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 72 #

2013/0305(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. Within four weeks from the receipt of the joint report referred to in Article 6, or in response to a reasoned request from more than one Member State, the Commission may request the EMCDDA to assess the potential risks posed by the new psychoactive substance and to draw up a risk assessment report. The risk assessment shall be conducted by the Scientific Committee of the EMCDDA.
2014/01/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 75 #

2013/0305(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. The Scientific Committee of the EMCDDA shall assess the risks during a special meeting. The Committee may be extended by not more than five experts, representing the scientific fields relevant for ensuring a balanced assessment of the risks of the new psychoactive substance. The Director of the EMCDDA shall designate them from a list of experts. The Management Board of the EMCDDA shall approve the list of experts every three years. The European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the EMCDDA, Europol and the European Medicines Agency shall each have the right to nominate two observers.
2014/01/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 122 #

2013/0305(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 a (new)
Article 20a Prevention The Commission and the Member States shall promote prevention schemes and measures to raise awareness of the risks posed by psychoactive substances, such as educational information campaigns.
2014/01/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 47 #

2013/0119(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
(5) The scope of this Regulation should cover public documents drawn up bythe following documents issued by the authorities of the Member States and having formal evidentiary value relating to: extracts from registers of birth, or death, name,change of name certificates, extracts from marriage or registeredcivil partnership, parenthood, adoption, residence registers, certification of parenthood, adoption, population registration, citizenship, and nationality, real estate, leg and extracts from real estatus and representation of a company or other undertaking,e, business and intellectual property rights and absence of aegisters and from criminal records. Simplification of the acceptance of these categories of public documents between the Member States should bring tangible benefits to Union citizens and companies or other undertakings. Because of their different legal nature, documents drawn up by private persons should be excluded from its scope. Documents drawn up by authorities of third countries should likewise fall outside the scope of this Regulation.
2013/09/30
Committee: JURI
Amendment 66 #

2013/0119(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – point 1
(1) "public documents" means the following documents issued by authorities of a Member State: and having formal evidentiary value relating to: a)) extracts from register of births; b) extracts from register of deaths; c) name; d)change of name certificates; d) extracts from marriage and registeredcivil partnership; e) register; e) certificates of parenthood; f) adoption; g) residence; h) citizenship and nationality; i) real estate; j) legcertificates of adoption; g) population registry certificates; h) citizenship and nationality certificates; i) extracts from real estatus and representation of a company or other undertaking; k) intellectual property rights; l) absence of ae registers; j) extracts from company registers k) extracts from intellectual property registers; l) extracts from criminal records;
2013/09/30
Committee: JURI
Amendment 79 #

2013/0119(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6
1. Authorities shall accept non-certified translations of public documents issued by the authorities of other Member States. 2. Where an authority has reasonable doubt as to the correctness or quality of the translation of a public document presented to it in an individual case, it may require a certified translation of that public document. In such a case, the authority shall accept certified translations established in other Member States.
2013/09/30
Committee: JURI
Amendment 76 #

2013/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
(7) Longer vehicles may be used in cross- border transport if the two Member States concerned already allow it and if the conditions for derogation under Article 4(3), (4) or (5) of the Directive are met. The European Commission has already provided guidance on the application of Article 4 of the Directive. The transport operations referred to in Article 4(4) do not have a significant impact on international competition if the cross- border use remains limited to two Member States where the existing infrastructure and the road safety requirements allow itVehicles which do not meet the common standards set out in this Directive should be approved only for national transport within a Member State. This balances the Member States’ right under the principle of subsidiarity to decide on transport solutions suited to their specific circumstances with the need to prevent such policies from distorting the internal market. The provisions of Article 4 (4) are clarified in this respect.
2013/12/10
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 95 #

2013/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
(8) Using alternative engines that no longer rely only on fossil fuels and are therefore non-polluting or less polluting, such as electric or hybrid engines for heavy-duty vehicles or buses (mainly in urban or suburban environments) generates extra weight which should not be counted at the expense of the effective load of the vehicle so that the road transport sector is not penalised in economic terms. To ensure that no constraints are placed on research and development in this area, this Directive should comply with the principle of technology neutrality.
2013/12/10
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 101 #

2013/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
(9) The White Paper on Transport also stresses the need to monitor developments in intermodal transport, particularly in the area of containerisation, where 45-foot containers are increasingly used. They are transported by rail or inland waterways. But the road components of intermodal journeys can only be undertaken today if both the Member States and the transporters follow cumbersome administrative procedures or if these containers have patented chamfered corners, the cost of which is prohibitive. Increasing the length of the vehicles transporting them by 15 cm could eliminate these administrative procedures for transporters and facilitate intermodal transport, without risk or prejudice to the infrastructure or other road users. The small increase that this 15 cm represents in relation to the length of an articulated truck (16.50 m) does not constitute an additional risk to road safety. In the policy orientation of the White Paper on Transport, this increase is however authorised only for intermodal transport, for which the road component does not exceed 300 km for operations involving a rail, river or sea component. This distance appeared sufficient should be evaluated differently from region to region and should be set by the individual Member States in order to link an industrial or commercial site with a freight terminal or a river port. To link a seaport and support the development of motorways of the sea, a longer distance is possible for a short intra- European maritime transport operation.
2013/12/10
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 139 #

2013/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – introductory part
Directive 96/53/EC
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
(2) In Article 4 is amended as follows: (4), the following subparagraph is inserted after subparagraph 2: ‘Without prejudice to Member States’ rights laid down in Acts on Accession to the Union, in order to ensure the proper functioning of the EU single market, the use of commercial vehicles exceeding the maximum dimensions and weights stipulated in this Directive shall be permissible only on specified roads and subject to an application procedure within a given Member State. When assessing applications, Member States shall have regard in particular to factors such as the existing infrastructure and road safety requirements.’
2013/12/10
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 158 #

2013/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
‘Transport operations shall be considered to not significantly affect international competition in the transport sector if they take place on the territory of a Member State or, for a cross-border operation, between only two neighbouring Member States who have both adopted measures taken in application of this paragraph, and if one of the conditions under (a) and (b) is fulfilled:’deleted
2013/12/10
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 258 #

2013/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Directive 96/53/EC
Article 10a – paragraph 2
The vehicles with hybrid or electricalternative propulsion must however comply with the limits set out in Annex I point 3: maximum authorized axle weight.
2013/12/10
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 270 #

2013/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10
Directive 96/53/EC
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – second part
For the purposes of this Article, and of point 2.2.2(c) of Annex I, an intermodal transport operation shall include at least rail, river or sea transport at least. It shall also include a road section for its initial and/or terminal journey. Each of these road sections shall be less than 300 km in the territory of the European Uniontablished by the Member States in accordance with existing infrastructural and geographical factors or just as far as the closest terminals between which there is a regular service. A transport operation shall also be regarded as intermodal transport if it uses intra- European short sea shipping, regardless of the lengths of the initial and terminal road journeys. The initial road journey and the terminal road journey for an operation using intra-European short sea shipping takes place from the point where the goods are loaded to the nearest appropriate seaport for the initial leg, and/or where appropriate between the nearest appropriate seaport and the point where the goods are unloaded for the final leg.
2013/12/10
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 350 #

2013/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16 – point c
Directive 96/53/EC
Annex I – point 2.3.1 – indent 3
two-axle buses: 19.5 tonnes
2013/12/10
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 200 #

2013/0091(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) ‘the competent authorities of the Member States’ means all police authorities and other law enforcement services, existing in the Member States which are responsible under national law for preventing and combating criminal offences falling within Europol's remit;
2013/10/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 250 #

2013/0091(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. Each Member State shall establish or designate a National Unit which shall be the liaison body between Europol and the competent authorities in Member States as well as with training institutes for law enforcement officers. Each Member State shall appoint an official as the head of the National Unit.
2013/10/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 288 #

2013/0091(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point i
(i) in accordance with paragraph 2, exercise, with respect to the staff of Europol, the powers conferred by the Staff Regulations on the Appointing Authority and by the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants on the Authority Empowered to Conclude a Contract of Employment (‘the appointing authority powers’);deleted
2013/10/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 290 #

2013/0091(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point j
(j) adopt, on the recommendation of the Executive Director, appropriate implementing rules for giving effect to the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants in accordance with Article 110 of the Staff Regulations;
2013/10/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 297 #

2013/0091(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point p
(p) take all decisions on the establishment of Europol’s internal structures and, where necessary, their modification;deleted
2013/10/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 299 #

2013/0091(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point q a (new)
(qa) may, on a recommendation from the European Data Protection Supervisor under Article 46(3)(f) and with the support a two-thirds majority of its members, impose a temporary or definitive ban on processing;
2013/10/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 302 #

2013/0091(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The Management Board shall adopt, in accordance with Article 110 of the Staff Regulations, a decision based on Article 2(1) of the Staff Regulations and on Article 6 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants delegating the relevant appointing authority powers to the Executive Director and defining the conditions under which this delegations of powers can be suspended. The Executive Director shall be authorised to sub- delegate those powers.deleted
2013/10/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 304 #

2013/0091(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Where exceptional circumstances so require, the Management Board may, by way of a decision, temporarily suspend the delegation of the appointing authority powers to the Executive Director and those sub-delegated by the latter and exercise them itself or delegate those powers to one of its members or to a staff member other than the Executive Director.deleted
2013/10/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 313 #

2013/0091(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. Without prejudice to Articles 14(1)(a), (b), (c) and (cqa), Article 16(1) and Article 56(8), the Management Board shall take decisions by a majority of members.
2013/10/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 316 #

2013/0091(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 5 – point k a (new)
(ka) exercising those powers conferred by the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities on the appointing authority and by the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities on the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment.('powers of the Appointing Authority'), without prejudice to Article 14(1)(j) regarding Europol staff;
2013/10/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 317 #

2013/0091(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 5 – point k b (new)
(kb) taking all decisions on the establishment of Europol’s internal structures and, where necessary, their modification;
2013/10/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 327 #

2013/0091(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3
3. When necessary, because of urgency, the Executive Board may take certain provisional decisions on behalf of the Management Board, in particular on administrative management matters, including the suspension of the delegation of the appointing authority powers.
2013/10/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 342 #

2013/0091(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. In so far as necessary for the achievement of its objectives as laid down in Article 3(1) and (2), Europol shall process information , including personal data. Personal data may be processed only for the purposes of:
2013/10/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 345 #

2013/0091(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) cross-checking aimed at identifying connections or other relevant links between information;
2013/10/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 411 #

2013/0091(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) a cooperation agreement concluded between Europol and that third country or international organisation in accordance with Article 23 of Decision 2009/371/JHA prior to the date of application of this Regulation. These cooperation agreements shall remain in force until they are replaced by a subsequent agreement in accordance with point (b).
2013/10/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 421 #

2013/0091(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) the transfer of the data is absolutely necessary to safeguard the essential interests of one or more Member States within the scope of Europol’s objectives;deleted
2013/10/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 425 #

2013/0091(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) the transfer of the data is absolutely necessary in the interests of preventing imminent danger associated with crime or terrorist offencis necessary in individual cases for the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties;
2013/10/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 429 #

2013/0091(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) the transfer is otherwise necessary or legally required on important public interest grounds, or for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claimsnecessary in individual cases for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims relating to the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of a specific criminal offence or the execution of a specific criminal penalty; or
2013/10/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 586 #

2013/0091(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 3 – point f
(f) impropose to the Management Board that a temporary or definitive ban be imposed on processing;
2013/10/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 635 #

2013/0091(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The appointing authority shall make full use of the possibilities given by the Staff Regulation and provide specialised staff such as IT-experts with a higher function group and grade according to their qualification to fulfil the tasks of the Agency pursuant to Article 4 in an ideal manner.
2013/10/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 645 #

2013/0091(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 67 – paragraph 1
1. Regulation (EC) No 1049/200143 shall apply to administrative documents held by Europol.
2013/10/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 123 #

2013/0072(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
(8) At present, passengers are sometimes penalised for spelling errors in their names by the application of punitive administrative fees. Reasonable cCorrections of formal booking errors such as misspelt names should be provided free of charge provided they do not imply a change of times, date, itinerary or passenger.
2013/10/09
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 130 #

2013/0072(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
(11) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 should explicitly include the right to compensation for passengers suffering long delays, in line with the judgement of the European Court of Justice in the Joined cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 (Sturgeon). At the same time, the thresholds above which delays give rise to a right to compensation should be increased to take account of the financial impact on the sector and to avoid any increase in the frequency of cancellations as a consequence. To ensure that citizens travelling within the EU face homogenous conditions for compensation, the threshold should be the same for all travel within the Union, but it should depend upon the journey distance for travel to and from third countries to take into account the operational difficulties encountered by air carriers to deal with delays onat remote airports.
2013/10/09
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 306 #

2013/0072(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point a
fivthree hours or more after the scheduled time of arrival for all journeys within the Union and for journeys to/from third countries of 3 500 kilometres or less;
2013/10/09
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 315 #

2013/0072(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b
ninfive hours or more after the scheduled time of arrival for journeys to/from third countries between 3 500 and 6 0of more than 3 500 kilometres;
2013/10/09
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 322 #

2013/0072(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point c
twelve hours or more after the scheduled time of arrival for journeys to/from third countries of 6 000 kilometres or more.deleted
2013/10/09
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 348 #

2013/0072(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
Article 6 – paragraph 5
Subject to safety constraints, where a tarmac delay exceeds one hour, the operating air carrier shall provide free of charge access to toilet facilities and drinking water, shall ensure adequate heating or cooling of the passenger cabin, and shall ensure that adequate medical attention is available if needed. Where a tarmac delay reaches a maximum of fivetwo hours, the aircraft shall return to the gate or another suitable disembarkation point where passengers shall be allowed to disembark and to benefit from the same assistance as specified in paragraph 1, unless there are safety-related or security- related reasons why the aircraft cannot leave its position on the tarmac.'
2013/10/09
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 448 #

2013/0072(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
Article 14 – paragraph 1 a (new)
In Article 14, the following paragraph shall be inserted: 1a. Operating air carriers shall set up contact points during their operating hours that will provide their passengers with information on their rights and the corresponding complaint procedures in the event of delays, flight disruptions, flight cancellations and denied boarding, and lost or delayed baggage.
2013/10/09
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 70 #

2013/0029(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
(8) In order to enssecure equal access to the infrastructure, any conflicts of interest resulting from integrated structures encompassing infrastructure management and transport activities should be removed. Removing incentives to discriminate against competitors is the only way to guarantee equal access to the railway infrastructure. It key role is played by the national regulatory body which is independent in its organisation, funding decisions, legal structure and decision- making from any infrastructure manager, charging body, allocation body and notified body. It must therefore be given corresponding powers. Only in this way can fair competition be guaranteed. Independent regulation is a requirement for the successful opening of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail. This should also reFurthermovre the potential should be removed for cross-subsidisation, which exists in such integrated structures, and which also leads to market distortions.
2013/09/26
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 155 #

2013/0029(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point -1
Directive 2012/34/EU
Article 2 – paragraph 4 a (new)
-1. The following paragraph 4a (new) is added to Article 2: Integrated railway undertakings which are not of strategic importance for the functioning of the European rail transport market and which operate rail networks covering a distance of less than 400 km shall be exempt from the provisions of Articles 7 and 7a to 7e.
2013/09/26
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 186 #

2013/0029(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 2
2. In Article 6, paragraph 2 is deleted;
2013/09/26
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 193 #

2013/0029(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
3. [...]deleted
2013/09/26
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 245 #

2013/0029(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
4. [...]deleted
2013/09/26
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 93 #

2013/0028(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
(15) Equal conditions are the prerequisite for fair competition. Preparing railway undertakings for mandatory competitive tendering for public service contracts requires some extra time to allow effective and sustainable internal restructuring of companies to which such contracts were directly awarded in the past. Transitional measures are therefore necessary for contracts directly awarded between the date of entry into force of this Regulation and 3 December 2019hey should therefore already take action to phase-in this form of tendering, although it is not until 2029 that all public service contracts in the field of public rail passenger transport have to be awarded in accordance with the procurement procedures laid down in this Regulation.
2013/09/23
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 316 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 3
3. When assessing money laundering and terrorist financing risks, Member States shall require obliged entities to take into account at least the variables set out in Annex I. SMEs may be exempted from this obligation if, as obliged entities, the extent of the business relationship means that they cannot be expected, for reasons of proportionality, to carry out continuous assessment of the risks.
2013/12/09
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 92 #

2013/0012(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
(8) It is also vital to develop incentive schemes for the purchase of the corresponding vehicles in parallel with European and national support measures for the area-wide deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure. Support measures for alternative fuels infrastructure shall be implemented in compliance with the State aid rules contained in TFEU.
2013/10/03
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 213 #

2013/0012(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that a minimum number of recharging points for electric vehicles are put into place, at least the number given in the table in Annex II, by 31 December 2020 at the latest. Member States may, in close cooperation with regional and local authorities and the sector concerned, diverge from these figures if the recharging infrastructure for various kinds of electric vehicles such as hybrid electric vehicles pursuant to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles1, is put in place. __________________ 1 OJ L 263, 9.10.2007, p. 5
2013/10/03
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 2 #

2012/2298(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas investment in research and innovation in the transport sector is simultaneously an investment in the economy and in job creation and therefore can have a three-pronged effect;
2013/04/11
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 16 #

2012/2298(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that technology lock-in is liable to prevent the full attainment of the potential of transport innovation and can hamper the development of new innovative ideas; considers, therefore, that Union policies should be technologically neutral with regard to alternative technologies for transport (‘technology neutrality’), with priorities and funding being decided on the basis of results over the entire life-cycle of specific fields;
2013/04/11
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 18 #

2012/2298(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Emphasises that in order to help businesses and public bodies absorb new solutions and innovative technologies, there needs to be more efficiency in the innovation chain and more investment in measures such as economic incentives in order to overcome barriers to deployment and market uptake (‘full-cycle commitments’); encourages the Commission, therefore, in its idea that, in order to release the full innovative potential of the transport sector and support innovative undertakings, subsidies should also be used to help launch new solutions on the market, demonstrate them and implement them fully and that appropriate management and financing tools can guarantee the swift implementation of research results;
2013/04/11
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 26 #

2012/2298(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Believes that R&I in the area of sustainable mobility should be based on the principle of integration, in particular through the abolition trans-border missing links (interconnections), increased compatibility between and within the systems (interoperability) and aobjectives for shifts to more sustainable modes, such as rail and sustainable waterborne transport (inter in the context of efficient co-modality);
2013/04/11
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 31 #

2012/2298(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Emphasises theat new approaches to mobility cannot be imposed and that in order to promote more sustainable behaviour there is a need for stronger research efforts in relation to eco-social knowledge, urban and spatial planning, and technologies in the field of mobility demand and behavioural change aimed at the reduction and avoidance of transport flows, through, inter alia, innovative mobility management instruments, seamless door-to-door mobility chains, eco-driving and the use of information and communication technologies with information in real time;
2013/04/11
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 37 #

2012/2298(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Underlines the need for research on fair competition in the transport sector, including technological tools for improving the consistent and effective enforcement of, and controls on, social conditions and minimum working conditions and wprovisions relating to road transport and cabotages;
2013/04/11
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 43 #

2012/2298(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Recalls emphatically, in this context, its resolution on a Single European Transport Area1 and the objectives which it calls for as regards reducing noise from, and the energy consumption of, rail vehicles by 20% by 2020 (in relation to the reference values of 2010) and stresses once again that noise emissions should, from the outset, play a prominent part in the development of new technologies, strategies and infrastructure in the field of transport; __________________ 1 European Parliament resolution of 15 December 2011 on the Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system (2011/2096(INI))
2013/04/11
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 54 #

2012/2298(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Strongly supports R&I in the area of individual mobility, for example walking, cycling and other mobility tools whose average weight and volume is significantly less than that of the transported body/object and on behaviour of transport users, with the aim of creating incentives to opt for sustainable, safe and healthy modes of transport and types of mobility, which are associated with physical exercise; considers in this context that new, innovative approaches should particularly promote environmentally less damaging public transport and walking and cycling in towns;
2013/04/11
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 65 #

2012/2298(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Calls for moreSupports R&I in relation to the shift from ownership to sharing mobility models, including car- and bike-sharing; encourages the Commission to intensify its promotion of moreinter alia of collectivised individual mobility and more individualised public and collective transport systems;
2013/04/11
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 69 #

2012/2298(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Highlights the potential for improving collective and interonce again the need to improve and promote multimodal transport systems through integrated information and ticketing schemes in order to guarantee efficiencyand E-ticketing systems; points out that research and innovation in this field should particularly be geared to freedom from barriers, interoperability, affordability and, user- friendly access for all citizensiness and efficiency;
2013/04/11
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 73 #

2012/2298(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses that the need to develop innovative infrastructure and solutions – including greater development of information, payment and reservation systems – that lead to win-win situations in terms ofparticularly take into account barrier-free accessibility for disabled people and persons with reduced mobility (PRMs), such as users with wheelchairs, buggies, bicycles or heavy luggage;
2013/04/11
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 84 #

2012/2298(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the Commission to focus its research efforts inter alia on further reducing the climate impact of different aviation emissions (such as CO2, NOx, sulphur, vapour contrails) in the higher atmosphere while, inter alia, developing observation technologies and cooperation between meteorological services and air traffic management and control systems (ATM/ATC);
2013/04/11
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 22 #

2012/2067(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Is aware that there are structural differences within individual transport modes and that a single cross-cutting regulation on passenger rights as a whole cannot be drawn up at present, because the regulations on passenger rights in waterborne and bus and coach transport have not yet entered into force, although it must be the declared aim in the long term;
2012/06/04
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 33 #

2012/2067(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Takes the view that passengers’ rights and passenger service must be adapted to changes in patterns of travel, and draws particular attention, in that regard, to new challenges that intermodal travel and the associated information and reservation systems pose for passengers and for travel companies; underscores the need to adapt travellers’ rights and operators’ obligations inter alia in the field of package travel1 to reflect the status quo, and calls on the Commission speedily to bring forward a revised proposal to remedy, as a matter of priority, current shortcomings with regard to the scope of the rules, the online sale of travel packages and abusive clauses in contracts; __________________ 1 Council Directive of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours, (90/314/EEC)
2012/06/04
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 7 #

2012/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas effectiveproviding support in carrying out asylum procedures in the sense of solidarity and shared responsibility-sharing must be perceived as a means to assist Member States inso that they complying with their obligation to provide protection to those in need of international protection and assistance to third countries hosting the largest numbers of refugees, with the aim of strengthening the common area of protection as a whole;
2012/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 16 #

2012/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines the fact that there has been a sharp decrease in the number of asylum applications in the past decade in the EU, while noting that in recent years the number of applications has started to rise again; highlights that certain Member States face disproportionate asylum requests compared to others, and that asylum applications are unevenly spread across the EU; stresses that it is crucial to identify these inequalities by, inter alia, comparing absolute numbers and capacity indicators;
2012/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 21 #

2012/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that a high level of protection for asylum applicants and beneficiaries ofquick and definite decision-taking on whether to grant or not to grant international protection cannot only be achieved if the discrepancies in the proportionnumber of asylum applications and in the technical and administrative capacities inof the different Member States are not redressedin a proportionate relation;
2012/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 27 #

2012/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. NotEmphasises that a significant gap remains between the actions Member States at the external borders of the Union are expected to take under the CEAS and the support available to themll Member States have the obligation to fully implement and apply Union law and international obligations on asylum; notes that Member States at the external borders of the Union face different challenges under the CEAS than Member States without external borders and hence also need different support to carry out those respective tasks adequately; points out that Article 80 TFEU requires the activation of existing measures as well as the development of new measures to assist those Member States when necessary;
2012/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 46 #

2012/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Takes note of the recommendation of the Commission and Council regarding inter-agency cooperation between EASO and, Frontex and Europol, and stresses that the full and swift implementation of Frontex's Fundamental Rights Strategy is a sine qua non for any such cooperation in the context of international protection; emphasises that any cooperation must be viewed in the context of increasing protection standards for asylum seekers; in accordance with the agencies' mandates must be viewed in the context of fulfilling the legal obligations within international and EU law with regard to safeguarding the rights of asylum seekers; underlines that against this backdrop the fight against the trafficking of human beings and smuggling of migrants is essential in order to improve and guarantee the access to protection for those in need;
2012/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 54 #

2012/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Welcomes the creation as from 2014 of a simpler and more flexible Asylum and Migration Fund (AMF) and underlines the need to allocate substantial and sufficient resources to support the protection of beneficiaries of international protection and asylum seekers; stresses, in this respect, the importance of including safeguards within the AMF, in order to prevent excessive allocation of funds to only one policy area at the expense of the CEAS as a whole; at the same time considers it necessary, in the context of the reform of allocation of funds in the home affairs area for the MFF 2014-2020, to as well allocate sufficient recources for border protection in order to achieve increasing solidarity in this area as well;
2012/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 68 #

2012/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Underlines the importance of financial responsibility-sharing in the field of asylum, and recommends creating a well- resourced mechanism to compensateadequate support of Member States receiving higher numbers of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection, in either absolute or proportional terms, and to help those with less developed asylum systems; considers that further research is required to identify and quantify the real costs of hosting and processing asylum claims;
2012/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 82 #

2012/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. WelcomesTakes note of the Commission's commitment to performing a comprehensive evaluation of the Dublin system in 2014, reviewing its legal, economic, social and human rights effects; points out that a review of the Dublin Regulation is currently under way and that effects of its possible changes will only become evident some time after the adoption and implemention of the revised legislative act;
2012/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 86 #

2012/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Considernotes that the Dublin Regulation, which governs the allocation of responsibility for asylum applications, while placing a disproportionate burden on Member States constituting entry points into the EU, does not provide the means for them to respond adequately to the administrative and financial demands involved; notes that the Dublin system as it has been applied so far has led to the unequal treatment of asylum seekers across the EU while also having an adverse impact on family reunification and integration; stresses, moreover, its shortcomings in terms of efficiency and cost-effectivenessinsufficient application of common standards has led to the unequal treatment of asylum seekers across the EU; stresses, that the Dublin system should be improved, since more than half of agreed transfers never take place and there are still multiple applications are still the rule;
2012/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 93 #

2012/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Stresses that the relevant case-law suspending transfers under the Dublin Regulation, while providing an answer to individual cases, fails to overcome the structural shortcomings of the Dublin system as a whole; welcomes, therefore, the efforts to include additional criteria in Dublin II in order to mitigate the system's unwanted adverse effect is a strong indication of poor implementation of European legal standards in some Member States and that increased efforts are needed to ensure the application of standards of EU asylum law in order to rebuild mutual trust in the compliance with these standards amongst Member States;
2012/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 102 #

2012/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
26. Notes that joint processing does not necessarily entail a common decision, but could involve support and common processing with respect to other aspects of the asylum procedure, such as identification, preparation of first-instance procedures, interviews, or recommendations with regard to asylum decisionsassessment of the political situation in the country of origin;
2012/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 122 #

2012/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
30. Calls on the Commission to include strong procedural safeguards and clear criteria in its proposal for a permanent voluntary EU relocation scheme, in order to guarantee potential beneficiaries‘ best interests; recommends involving the host community, civil society and local authorities from the outset in relocation initiatives;
2012/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 129 #

2012/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
32. Welcomes the funding possibilities provided under the AMF for relocating asylum seekers, and encourages Member States to engage in voluntary initiatives, while fully respecting asylum seekers' rights and the need for their consent; calls on the Commission to investigate the feasibility of developing an EU system for relocating asylum seekers, and to submit a proposal for a viable and sustainable programme for the internal relocation of asylum seekers;
2012/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 135 #

2012/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
33 a. Insists that mutual trust is based on a shared understanding of responsibilities; stresses that the compliance with EU law is an indispensable element for trust among Member States;
2012/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 137 #

2012/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
34. Acknowledges that while compliance with international protection obligations enhances mutual trust, this cannot result in developing policies on the basis of conclusive presumpdoes not necessarily result in a uniform applications of compliancerules, given that the interpretation and application of international and EU asylum law still varies widely among Member States, as is clear from the recent ECHR and CJEU case-law relating to the Dublin Regulation; emphasises that it is the responsibility of the European Commission and the Courts to monitor and evaluate the application of asylum rules in accordance with international and EU law;
2012/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 141 #

2012/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
35. Stresses that while infringement proceedings can be appropriate under certain circumstances to ensure the proper functioning of a Member State's asylum system, they should be considered a measure of last resort and must be accompanied by support measures, operational plans and oversight mechanisms, in order to yield results and not overwhelm already burdened systems;
2012/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 144 #

2012/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
36. Notes that the Dublin system is based on mutual trust and that its implementation amounts to a mutual recognition of rejection decisions among Member States, given that an asylum claim can only be considered in the EU once; considers, nevertheless, that this is not mirrored by the mutual recognition of decisions recognising international protection needs, and that this gives rise to legal obstacles, administrative problems and legal uncertainty, as well as overall imbalance and human costs; calls on the Commission to submit a communication on a framework for the transfer of protection of beneficiaries of international protection and mutual recognition of asylum decisions by 2014, in line with the Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme;
2012/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 148 #

2012/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)
37 a. Stresses that visa regimes govern a multitude of entry and exit authorisations and that those entry and exit rules do not restrict the legal obligations on providing access to asylum in any way;
2012/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 150 #

2012/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
38. Notes that restrictive visa regimes and enhanced border controls can have adverse effects on access to international protection in preventing persons in need from reaching the EU and reiterates the need to apply measures in a protection- sensitive manner;delete
2012/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 156 #

2012/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
39. Considers that a significant effect of a protection-sensitive application of visa policies would be a reduction in the numbers of asylum seekers subject to procedures under the Dublin II geographical distance and travel facilities;deleted
2012/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 158 #

2012/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 a (new)
39 a. Return Takes the view that an enhanced intra-EU solidarity also requires joint efforts in dealing with unfounded asylum claims; emphasises that a common policy on return must offer particular support to Member States who encounter political and logistical obstacles when initiating return procedures for persons whose asylum claims have been rejected; notes that the Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme foresaw a Commission Communication on the Evaluation of the common policy on return for 2011; regrets that this Communication is now only expected to be adopted in 2013;
2012/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 27 #

2012/0261(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 1 – point b
Regulation (EC) No 273/2004
Article 2 – point h
(h) 'user' means any natural or legal person who is not an operator and who possesses a scheduled substance and is engaged in the processing, formulation, consumption, storage, keeping, treatment, filling into containers, transfer from one container to another, mixing, transformation or any other utilisation of scheduled substances.
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 37 #

2012/0261(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 9
TIn accordance with the delegated acts referred to in Article 3(9), the Commission shall developestablish a European Database on drug precursors with the following functions:
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 39 #

2012/0261(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 9
Regulation (EC) No 273/2004
Article 13а – paragraph 1 a (new)
The information collected pursuant to this Regulation may be used only for the purposes of combating the illegal trade in drugs and drug precursors and related criminal activities and may not be retained for any longer than is necessary for those purposes. Processing of the special categories of data referred to in Article 8(1) of Directive 95/46/EC and in Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 shall be prohibited.
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 40 #

2012/0261(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 9
Regulation (EC) No 273/2004
Article 13а – paragraph 1 b (new)
A data subject shall be provided with information concerning the purposes of the processing and retention of data, the categories of data processed and retained, the identity of the controller of the data, the identity of the recipients of the data, information regarding the right of access to and rectification or erasure of personal data, the administrative and judicial remedies available and the contact details of the supervisory authority referred to in Article 13b(1). Some or all of this information may be withheld if it would compromise administrative or judicial investigations or procedures, hamper the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or jeopardise public safety or national security.
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 45 #

2012/0261(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 12
Regulation (EC) No 273/2004
Article 16 – paragraph 3
(3) The Commission shall evaluate the implementation and functioning of this Regulation by [7860 months after of the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation]."
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 164 #

2012/0186(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 4 – part 1 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Deficiencies shall bein connection with the securing of the cargo shall be subject to an overall assessment and classified into one of the deficiency groups:
2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 165 #

2012/0186(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 4 – part 1 – paragraph 2
When several deficiencies are present, the transport is classified in accordance with the highest deficiency group. If, in the event that there are several deficiencies, as the effects based on the combination of these deficiencies are expected to reinforce one another, the transport shall be classified in the next higher deficiency level.deleted
2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 66 #

2012/0184(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
(10) Roadworthiness testing is a sovereign activity and should thereforeas such should be done by the Member States, or by entrusted bodies under their supervision. Member States should remain responsible for roadworthiness testing in any cases even if the national system allows for authorisation of private bodies, including those involved in performing repairsa public body entrusted with the task by the State or by bodies or establishments designated and directly supervised by the State, including duly authorised private bodies. In particular, where establishments designated as vehicle testing centres also perform motor vehicle repairs, Member States shall make every effort to ensure the objectivity and high quality of the vehicle testing.
2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 71 #

2012/0184(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
(13) Inspectors, when performing roadworthiness tests, should act independently and any conflict of interests should be avoided. The result of roadworthiness tests should not thus be linked toMember States shall ensure that assessments are carried out properly and shalary or any economic or personal benefitl pay particular attention to the objectivity of the assessments drawn up by traders authorised to repair vehicles.
2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 222 #

2012/0184(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. The holder of the registration certificate may request the testing centre, or the competent authority if relevant, to carry out the roadworthiness test during a period extending from the beginning of the month preceding the month of the anniversary date referred to in paragraph 1 until the end of the secondixth month following this date, without affecting the date for the next roadworthiness test.
2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 271 #

2012/0184(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4
4. When carrying out a roadworthiness test, the inspector shall be free of any conflict of interests, in particular as regards economic, personal or family links with the holder of the registration certificate of the vehicle subject to testingMember States shall ensure that roadworthiness tests are carried out properly and shall pay particular attention to the objectivity of the appraisals drawn up by traders authorised to repair vehicles.
2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 25 #

2012/0082(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point d a (new)
(da) if the date of the next mandatory roadworthiness certificate has passed.
2012/10/23
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 29 #

2012/0082(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) where no motor vehicle civil liability insurance exists, but is a precondition for registration of the vehicle.
2012/10/23
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 32 #

2012/0082(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d – point iii
(iii) the date of the next mandatory roadworthiness certificate has passdeleted.
2012/10/23
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 35 #

2012/0082(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point b – point ii
(ii) the vehicle registration documents arehave been lost or stolen unless the holder of the registration certificate can clearly demonstrate ownership of the vehicle or that he is the legitimate holder of the registration documents;
2012/10/23
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 47 #

2012/0036(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 a (new)
(12a) In individual cases it should be possible to dispense, wholly or in part, with a confiscation order. Thus this would be possible in cases where the measure would disproportionately burden the person affected or lead to the loss of his livelihood, or if the cost of the confiscation disproportionately exceeds the amount being confiscated.
2013/01/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 48 #

2012/0036(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 b (new)
(12b) Confiscation should not hinder or prevent justified claims by victims of criminal offences committed by the person affected. It should be possible to dispense with confiscation where the victim has a claim against the perpetrator as a result of a criminal offence and confiscation would prevent this claim from being fulfilled.
2013/01/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 76 #

2012/0036(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
(4) ‘confiscation’ means a penalty or a measure, ordered by a court following proceedings in relation to a criminal offencein a judgment or following criminal proceedings resulting in the final deprivation of property;
2013/01/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 121 #

2012/0036(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The confiscation of proceeds or property referred to in paragraph 1 shall be possible where the property is subject to restitution or where
2013/01/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 153 #

2012/0036(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 (new)
The confiscation of a set of assets shall have the effect of preventing further confiscation in respect of the same assets. The Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that multiple confiscations in respect of the same assets are avoided.
2013/01/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 154 #

2012/0036(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2 (new)
All Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, where as a result of a criminal offence injured parties have claims against the accused, confiscation does not jeopardise the enforcement of such claims.
2013/01/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 161 #

2012/0036(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)
In individual cases it may be possible, in accordance with the proportionality principle, to dispense, wholly or in part, with a confiscation order if confiscation would create undue hardship for the person affected or his family members. Such a case shall be deemed to exist if the measure would disproportionately burden the person affected or lead to destruction of his livelihood, or if the cost of the confiscation disproportionately exceeds the amount being confiscated.
2013/01/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 175 #

2012/0036(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Member States shall regularly collect and maintain comprehensive statistics from the relevant authorities in order to review the effectiveness of their confiscation systems. The statistics collected shall be sent to the Commission each year and shall include for all criminal offences falling within the scope of this directive:
2013/01/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 414 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
(25) Consent should be given explicitunambiguously by any appropriate method within the context of the product or the service being offered enabling a freely given specific and informed indication of the data subject’s wishes, either by a statement or by a clear affirmative action by the data subject, ensuring that individuals are aware that they give their consent to the processing of personal data, including by ticking a box when visiting an Internet website or by any other statement or conduct which clearly indicates in this context the data subject’s acceptance of the proposed processing of their personal data. Silence or inactivity should therefore not constitute consent. This nevertheless leaves the provisions of 2002/58/EC untouched which state that under certain circumstances consent can be expressed via appropriate settings in the user’s device. Consent should cover all processing activities carried out for the same purpose or purposes. If the data subject’s consent is to be given following an electronic request, the request must be clear, concise and not unnecessarily disruptive to the use of the service for which it is provided.
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 443 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
(34) Consent should not provide a valid legal ground for the processing of personal data, where there is a clear imbalance between the data subject and the controller. This is especially the case where the data subject is in a situation of dependence from the controller, among others, where personal data are processed by the employer of employees’ personal data in the employment context. Where the controller is a public authority, there would be an imbalance only in the specific data processing operations where the public authority can impose an obligation by virtue of its relevant public powers and the consent cannot be deemed as freely given, taking into account the interest of the data subject.deleted
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 455 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
(38) The legitimate interests of a controller or the third party to which the data have been transferred may provide a legal basis for processing, provided that the interests or the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject are not overriding. This would need careful assessment in particular where the data subject is a child, given that children deserve specific protection. The data subject should have the right to object the processing, on grounds relating to their particular situation and free of charge. To ensure transparency, the controller should be obliged to explicitly inform the data subject on the legitimate interests pursued and on the right to object, and also be obliged to document these legitimate interests. Given that it is for the legislator to provide by law the legal basis for public authorities to process data, this legal ground should not apply for the processing by public authorities in the performance of their tasks.
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 610 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 112
(112) Any body, organisation or association which aims to protects the rights and interests of data subjects in relation to the protection of their data and is constituted according to the law of a Member State should have the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority or exercise the right to a judicial remedy on behalf of data subjects, or to lodge, independently of a data subject’s complaint, an own complaint where it considers that a personal data breach has occurred.deleted
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 615 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 114
(114) In order to strengthen the judicial protection of the data subject in situations where the competent supervisory authority is established in another Member State than the one where the data subject is residing, the data subject may request any body, organisation or association aiming to protect the rights and interests of data subjects in relation to the protection of their data to bring on the data subject’s behalf proceedings against that supervisory authority to the competent court in the other Member State.deleted
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 765 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 8
(8) ‘the data subject’s consent’ means any freely given specific, informed and explicitunambiguous indication of his or her wishes by which the data subject, either by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies agreement to personal data relating to them being processed; Silence or inactivity does not in itself indicate acceptance;
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 878 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by a controller, or on behalf of a controller or a processor, or by a third party or parties in whose interest the data is processed, including for the security of processing, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. This shall not apply tosuch as in the case of processing data pertaining to a child. The interest or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject shall not override processing carried out by public authorities in the performance of their tasks.
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 890 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
(fa) the data are collected from public registers lists or documents accessible by everyone;
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 988 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4
4. Consent shall not provide a legal basis for the processing, where there is a significant imbalance between the position of the data subject and the controller.deleted
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1176 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Where personal data relating to a data subject are collected, the controller shall provide the data subject with at least the following information:. The following paragraphs do not apply to small enterprises in the course of their own activity and for data which is strictly and exclusively for their internal use.
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1248 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point b
(b) the data are not collected from the data subject or the data processes do not allow the verification of identity and the provision of such information proves impossible or would involve a disproportionate effort such as by generating excessive administrative burden, especially when the processing is carried out by a SME; or
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1266 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point d b (new)
(db) the data must be kept secret in accordance with legislation or by virtue of their nature, particularly because of a legitimate overriding interest of a third party.
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1268 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point d c (new)
(dc) the data are processed in the exercise of his profession by, or are entrusted or become known to, a person who is subject to an obligation of professional secrecy regulated by the State or to a statutory obligation of secrecy.
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1296 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. TOnly the data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller at any time, on request, confirmation as to whether or not personal data relating to the data subject are being processed unless this request is manifestly excessive according to 12 (4). Where such personal data are being processed, the controller shall - so far as the data subject has not received - provide the following information:
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1357 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 86 for the purpose of further specifying the criteria and requirements for the communication to the data subject of the contentdata subject shall have the right, where personal data are processed by electronic means and in a structured and commonly used format, to obtain from the controller a copy of data which were provided by the data subject itself and that undergoing processing in an electronic and structured format which is commonly used and allows for further use by the data subject. This right shall not restrict rights of others as trade secrets or intellectual property rights. This does not apply on the processing of anonymised and pseudonymised data, insofar as the data subject is not sufficiently identifiable ofn the personal data referbasis of such data or identification would required to in point (g) of paragraph 1he controller to undo the process of pseudonymisation.
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1358 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. There shall be no right to information where: (a) data are involved which a person bound by professional secrecy is required to protect; (b) data must be kept secret in accordance with legislation or by virtue of their nature, particularly because of the overriding interest of a third party; (c) the public entity responsible has ascertained in relation to the entity responsible that disclosure of the data would endanger public safety or order; (d) data comprise trade secrets.
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1492 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18
Article 18 Right to data portability 1. The data subject shall have the right, where personal data are processed by electronic means and in a structured and commonly used format, to obtain from the controller a copy of data undergoing processing in an electronic and structured format which is commonly used and allows for further use by the data subject. 2. Where the data subject has provided the personal data and the processing is based on consent or on a contract, the data subject shall have the right to transmit those personal data and any other information provided by the data subject and retained by an automated processing system, into another one, in an electronic format which is commonly used, without hindrance from the controller from whom the personal data are withdrawn. 3. The Commission may specify the electronic format referred to in paragraph 1 and the technical standards, modalities and procedures for the transmission of personal data pursuant to paragraph 2. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 87(2).deleted
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2779 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 73 – paragraph 2
2. Any body, organisation or association which aims to protect data subjects‘ rights and interests concerning the protection of their personal data and has been properly constituted according to the law of a Member State shall have the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority in any Member State on behalf of one or more data subjects if it considers that a data subject's rights under this Regulation have been infringed as a result of the processing of personal data.deleted
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2789 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 73 – paragraph 3
3. Independently of a data subject's complaint, any body, organisation or association referred to in paragraph 2 shall have the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority in any Member State, if it considers that a personal data breach has occurred.deleted
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2853 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 1
1. Each competent supervisory authority shall be empowered to impose administrative sanctions in accordance with this Article.
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2865 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 2
2. The administrative sanction shall be in each individual case effective, proportionate and dissuasive. The amount of the administrative fine shall be fixed with due regard to the nature, gravity and duration of the breach, the intentional or negligent character of the infringement, the specific category of personal data, the seriousness of the damage or risk of damage caused by the breach, the degree of responsibility of the natural or legal person and of previous breaches by this person, the technical and organisational measures and procedures implemented pursuant to Article 23 and the degree of co- operation with the supervisory authority in order to remedy the breach.
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 4 #

2011/2196(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas it will be essential in the ongoing debate on regional airports to determine their various roles and in particular to distinguish between island airports, airports in cities, seasonal airports and airports serving inaccessible or economically weak regions;
2012/02/07
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 8 #

2011/2196(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas 90% of Europe’s citizensregional aviation, livke in the regions and regional aviationother modes of transport, is a key enabler in providing them withcitizens’ mobility; whereas it also enables business to move into the regiomproved connectivity of regional aviation to other modes of transport and the resulting efficient mobility chains cand to spread economic prosperity; contribute considerably to business moving into the regions
2012/02/07
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 14 #

2011/2196(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas the connectivity offered by aviation to EU regions, citizens and businesses is unique and cannot be replaced; winaccessible regions and islands is often difficult to replace with other means Europe’s airports provide a network of 150 000 city pairs, while Europe’s high-speed trains provide a network of about 100 city pairof transport and helps ensure the economic viability of such areas;
2012/02/07
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 40 #

2011/2196(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Believes that it is desirable to avoid a proliferation of regional airports, and notes that the development of regional airports should be targeted to a specific and well-defined scope, in order to avoid the creation of unused or not efficiently used airport infrastructures which would result in an economic burden for the responsible authorities and could alter competition with the main hubs;
2012/02/07
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 55 #

2011/2196(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Understands that commercial activities are a major source of income for regional airports and is concerned by ‘one-bag’ and other restrictions to the cabin baggage allowance imposed by certain airlines; deplores the fact that it threatens the viability of retail sales as a source of airport revenue for regional airports that have negotiated competitive landing charges to attract airlines; believes that these restrictions may constitute an abuse of a carrier’s position;
2012/02/07
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 81 #

2011/2196(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that the Commission study on the allocation of slots states that the ‘European regions are losing direct links to some of the most congested airports’3, and is disappointed that this study deals only with major airports; calls on the Member States and the Commission to improve, as far as possible, the connectivity of regional airports to the hub airports, thereby helping to boost the economy in the areas around regional airports;
2012/02/07
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 83 #

2011/2196(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Regrets that regional airports situated away from urban centres are often not adequately connected to the transport network on the ground; believes that improved interlinking of regional airports with other parts of the transport network will lead to greater use of regional airports when hub airports are suffering capacity bottlenecks, as efficient comodality will ensure prompt onward travel;
2012/02/07
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 100 #

2011/2196(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Notes the need for better integration between modes of transport, as well as the fact that traffic share must be determined by the market; urges the Commission to come forward with a communication encouraging industry to develop multi- modal through ticketing between the rail and air sector; points to the fact that schemes of this kind are already in operation, such as the ‘rail and fly’ tickets being offered by certain carriers in Germany in certain Member States and hence urges all parties to exchange best practice in this field;
2012/02/07
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 119 #

2011/2196(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Urges the Council to adopt a position on aviation security charges and believes that more stringent security measures should be paid for out of general taxationby the Member State concerned, as aviation security is a matter of national security;
2012/02/07
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 131 #

2011/2196(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Strongly believes that major regional airports with consistent year-round traffic should be included in the planning deliberations for the TEN-T Core Network, especially those with high- volume connectivity with third countries and intra-European traffic and those regional airports which can serve to relieve bottlenecks;
2012/02/07
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 5 #

2011/2150(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas the most important passenger right is to services provided as scheduled, based on the contractual obligation which arises from selling a ticket; whereas it is essential to provide passengers with understandable, accurate and timely information, accessible to all;
2012/01/16
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 16 #

2011/2150(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. StrRegrets that the enforcement bodies sest up by thate Member States must ensure th(hereinafter referred as ‘EBs’) do not always ensure the effective provistection of independent enforcement bodies (hereinafter referred as ‘EBs’) to sanction infringements and to resolve disputes between passengers and industrpassenger rights, to the detriment of air passengers; calls therefore on Member States to devise working methods for the EBs, particularly as regards the handling of complaints and sanctions, that enable enforcement of passenger rights from the viewpoint of legal certainty;
2012/01/16
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 26 #

2011/2150(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that there is a need for a better definition of the EBs’ role, that EBs should have no conflict of interest with air carriers or airports and that national sanctions applicable to air carriers in case of breach of EU rules should be made more effective; considers that EBs should be obliged to publish details of therelevant complaints they receive on a yearly basis and that the Commission should publish a league table based on air carriers’ performance on the basis of this information;
2012/01/16
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 38 #

2011/2150(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that passengers should receive information detailing passengers’ rights should be communicated in a simple, appropriate and understandable way throughout the key stages of the journey, starting from when the passenger is cat is standard throughout Europe when making any form of ticket booking, regardless of the vendor or airline; considers that this information should include contact data for the customer relationsi dering whether to book a ticketpartment of the airline concerned and for the appropriate Member State EB;
2012/01/16
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 56 #

2011/2150(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that passengers should have the right to be informed about the ‘Passenger Name Record’ (PNR) kept on them by the air carrier; stresses that passengers should notonly be denied boarding oin the basis of their PNR, except if they are suspected of terrorist crimjustified cases;
2012/01/16
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 113 #

2011/2150(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Commission to incorporatalso use the European Court of Justice’s interpretations of various definitions and terms, in particularthe upcoming revision of the Regulation; points out that there is a particular need for clarification of the notion of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ and the rules for compensation, in any upcoming revision of the Regulation;
2012/01/16
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 122 #

2011/2150(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Is of the opinion that due consideration should be given in the upcoming revision of the Regulation to extreme situations such as the volcanic ash crisis of April 2010;
2012/01/16
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 23 #

2011/2096(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
F a. whereas specific transposition measures are required for the development of the European transport policy, and thus in future, for the purposes of intelligent regulation in the European Union1, the focus must also be very strongly directed at consistent transposition and monitoring, __________________ 1 COM(2010)543 final
2011/09/21
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 102 #

2011/2096(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that efficient co-modality in passenger and goods transport – measured in terms of economic efficiency, environmental protection, social and employment conditions and safety aspects, and geared to existing and planned infrastructure and to the geographic circumstances in individual countries and regions – should be the guiding idea for future transport policy, and that these parameters should be used to determine modal distribution in countries and regions rather than retaining the proposed 300 km threshold for goods transport by road;
2011/09/21
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 251 #

2011/2096(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Highlights the fact that direct improvements to, and the standardisation of, loading units and the dimensions of transport vehicles would optimise multi- modal transport; points out that new dimensions and weights of motorised vehicles must conform to the principle of cost transparency and must not entail any additional investments for the adaptation of road infrastructure;
2011/09/21
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 86 #

2011/0427(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. This Regulation may also apply to surveillance of air borders as well as to checks at border crossing points if Member States voluntarily provide such information to EUROSUR.
2012/09/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 105 #

2011/0427(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – point f a (new)
(fa) ‘Agency’ means the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 (Frontex).
2012/09/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 114 #

2011/0427(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) ensure the timely information exchange and cooperation between all national authorities with a responsibility for external border surveillance and with relevant law enforcement, asylum and immigration authorities at national level as well as with other national coordination centres and the Agency;
2012/09/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 213 #

2011/0427(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) selective monitoring of designated third country ports and coasts which have been identified through risk analysis and intelligence as embarkation or transit points for vessels used for irregular migration andor cross-border crime;
2012/09/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 215 #

2011/0427(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) tracking of a vessel over high seas which is suspected of or has been identified as being used for irregular migration and or cross-border crime;
2012/09/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 217 #

2011/0427(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point c
c) monitoring of designated areas in the maritime domain in order to detect, identify and track vessels suspected of or used for irregular migration andor cross- border crime;
2012/09/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 219 #

2011/0427(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point e
(e) selective monitoring of designated pre- frontier areas at the external land border, which have been identified through risk analysis and intelligence as potential departure or transit areas for irregular migration andor cross-border crime.
2012/09/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 261 #

2011/0427(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Any information provided by the Agency, in particular on the basis of risk analyses, information provided by liaison officers or on the basis of the use of surveillance tools defined in Article 12, may be shared with any third country under any agreement referred to in paragraph 1 or under any network referred to in point (h) of Article 9(2) only with prior approval of the Agency.
2012/09/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 146 #

2011/0389(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 19 c (new)
Directive 2006/43/EC
Articles 42 and 43
19c. Articles 42 and 43 are replaced by the following: Article 42 Appointment of the statutory auditors or audited firms 1. Member States shall ensure that for the purposes of the application of Article 37 (1) of this Directive, for the appointment of statutory auditors or audit firms by public-interest entities, the conditions set out in paragraphs 2 to 6 of this Article shall apply. Where Article 37(2) of Directive 2006/43/EC applies, the public-interest entity shall only inform the competent authority designated in accordance with Art 35 of Regulation XX/XX of the use of the alternative systems or modalities referred to in that Article. In this case paragraphs 2 to 7 of this Article shall not apply. 2. The audit committee shall submit a recommendation to the administrative or supervisory board of the audited entity for the appointment of statutory auditors or audit firms. The audit committee shall justify the recommendation made. The audit committee shall state that its recommendation is free from influence by a third party and that no contractual clause as referred to in paragraph 7 has been imposed upon it. 3. The recommendation of the audit committee referred to in paragraph 2 shall be prepared following a selection procedure organised by the audited entity respecting the following criteria: (a) the audited entity shall be free to invite any statutory auditors or audit firms to submit proposals for the provision of the statutory audit service and shall consider at least one of the invited auditors or firms which does not receive more than 15% of the total audit fees from public- interest entities in the Member State concerned in the previous calendar year; (b) the audited entity shall be free to choose the method to contact the invited statutory auditor(s) or audit firm(s) and shall not be required to publish a call for tenders in the Official Journal of the European Union and/or in national gazettes or newspapers; (c) the audited entity shall prepare tender documents for the attention of the invited statutory auditor(s) or audit firm(s). Those tender documents shall allow them to understand the business of the audited entity and the type of statutory audit that is to be carried out. The tender documents shall contain transparent and non- discriminatory selection criteria that shall be used by the audited entity to evaluate the proposals made by statutory auditors or audit firms. (d) the audited entity shall be free to define the selection procedure and may conduct direct negotiations with interested tenderers in the course of the procedure where it shall also address audit quality and remuneration aspects; (e) where, in accordance with national law or Union law, the competent authorities referred to in Article 35 of Regulation XX/XX, require statutory auditors and audit firms to comply with certain quality standards, those standards shall be included in the tender documents; (f) the audited entity shall evaluate the proposals made by the statutory auditors or audit firms in accordance with the selection criteria predefined in the tender documents. The audited entity shall prepare a report on the conclusions of the selection procedure, which shall be validated by the audit committee. (g) the audited entity shall be able to demonstrate to the competent authority referred to in Article 35 Regulation XX/XX that the selection procedure was conducted in a fair manner and that audit quality and remuneration aspects were duly taken into account. The audit committee shall be responsible for the selection procedure referred to in the first subparagraph. For the purposes of point (a) of the first subparagraph, the competent authority referred to in Article 35(1) of Regulation XX/XX shall make public a list of the auditors and audit firms concerned which shall be updated on an annual basis. The competent authority shall use the information provided by statutory auditors and audit firms pursuant to Article 28 to make the relevant calculations. (4) Public-interest entities which meet the criteria set out in points (f) and (t) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/71/EC shall not be required to apply the selection procedure referred to in paragraph 3. (5) The proposal of the administrative or supervisory board to the general meeting of shareholders or members of the audited entity for the appointment of statutory auditors or audit firms shall include the recommendation made by the audit committee. If the proposal of the administrative or supervisory board departs from the recommendation of the audit committee, the proposal shall justify the reasons for not following the recommendation of the audit committee. However, the auditor or auditors recommended by the administrative or supervisory board must have participated in the selection procedure described in paragraph 3. (6) In the case of a credit institution or insurance undertaking, the administrative or supervisory board shall submit its draft proposal to the competent authority referred to in Article 35(2) of Regulation XX/XX. The competent authority referred to in Article 35(2) of Regulation XX/XX shall have the right to veto the choice proposed in the recommendation. Any such opposition shall be duly justified. The absence of a reply by the competent authority within the prescribed time-limit following submission of the audit committee's recommendation shall be considered as constituting an implied consent to the recommendation. (7) Any contractual clause entered into between a public-interest entity and a third party restricting the choice by the general meeting of shareholders or members of that entity pursuant to Article 37 of Directive 2006/43/EC to certain categories or lists of statutory auditors or audit firms to carry out the statutory audit of that entity shall be null and void. The public-interest entity shall inform the competent authorities referred to in Article 35 Regulation XX/XX of any attempt by a third party to impose such a contractual clause or to otherwise influence the decision of the general meeting of shareholders on the selection of a statutory auditor or audit firm. 7a. The audit committee or supervisory board/non-executive directors shall issue the audit engagement without delay following the election. (8) Where the audited entity is exempted from the obligation to have an audit committee, the audited entity shall decide which body or organ of the entity shall perform its functions for the purposes of the obligations set out in this Article. (9) Member States may decide that a minimum number of statutory auditors or audit firms shall be appointed by public- interest entities in certain circumstances and establish the conditions governing the relations between the auditors or firms appointed. If a Member State establishes such requirement, it shall inform the Commission thereof.
2012/11/14
Committee: JURI
Amendment 59 #

2011/0368(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) enhancing the capacity of Member States to cooperate with Europol and to make a better use of Europol's products and services. The achievement of this objective shall be measured against indicators such as, inter alia, the number of contributions sent to Europol databases and the number of cases initiated.
2012/09/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 69 #

2011/0368(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) actions improving police cooperation and coordination between law enforcement authorities, including joint investigation teams and any other form of cross-border joint operation, the access to and exchange of information and interoperable technologies; such as the extension of Europol Secure Information Exchange Network Application (SIENA) or the implementation of data loaders for the Europol information system;
2012/09/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 86 #

2011/0368(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2
2. The delegation of powers referred to in this Regulation shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of 7 years from [date of entry into force of this Regulation]. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period.
2012/09/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 87 #

2011/0368(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 5
5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to this Regulation shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of 23 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 23 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.
2012/09/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 56 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The Commission and the Member States shall ensure that all actions which get support from the Union budget constitute an added value for the Union.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 60 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 7
7. The Commission and the Member States shall carry out their respective roles in relation to this Regulation and the Specific Regulations with the aim ofthereby reducing the administrative burden for beneficiaries.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 65 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
136. The Commission or its representatives and the Court of Auditors shall have the power of audit, on the basis of documents and unannounced checks on-the-spot, over all grant beneficiaries, contractors and subcontractors who have received Union funds.. (Numbering erroneous in German version of Commission text)
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 66 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2
The European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) may carry out on-the-spot controls and inspections which may be unannounced on economic operators concerned directly or indirectly by such funding in accordance with the procedures laid down in Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 with a view to establishing whether there has been fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the European Union in connection with a grant agreement or grant decision or a contract concerning Union funding. (Numbering erroneous in German version of Commission text)
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 70 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall establish the overall amount made available for Union actions, emergency assistance and technical assistance and the distribution of this amount in accordance with the amount established by each Specific Regulation at the initiative of the Commission under the annual appropriations of the Union budget.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 75 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. Within the limits of the available resources, the emergency assistance may amount to 1080% of the eligible expenditure.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 79 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) international organisations, including their regional subsidiary organisations, UN bodies, departments and missions, international financial institutions and development banks and institutions of international jurisdiction in so far as they contribute to the objectives of the Specific Regulation(s) concerned;;
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 82 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point f
(f) the installation, updating, operation and interconnection of computerised systems for management, monitoring, audit, control and evaluation;
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 85 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Different partnership arrangements may be adopted in the various programme stages.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 86 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Such authorities and bodies shallmay, where judged appropriate, include the competent regional, local, urban and other public authorities, and, where judged appropriate and provided for by the Member State, international organisations and bodies representing civil society, such as non- governmental organisations or social partners.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 91 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3
3. The partners shallmay be involved in the preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of national programmes.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 95 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. To launch the programming period, the Commission and each Member State shall have a top-level policy dialogue on the national requirements andcentred on the overall result to be achieved by national programmes, as well as on the requirements of the Member State and on the contribution that the Union budget could provide to achieving these requirements, bearing in mind the base line situation in the Member State concerned and the objectives of the Specific Regulations. The policy dialogue shall result in the conclusion of agreed minutes or an exchange of letters which shall identify the specific needs and priorities of the Member State concerned and serve as the framework for the preparation of the national programmes, specifying for example when national programmes should be submitted to the Commission.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 106 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
(da) information on the added value for the Union to be accomplished by the national programme;
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 112 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall submit the proposed national programmes to the Commission referred to in no later than three monat the time established in thse after the policy dialoguegreed minutes referred to in Article 13(1) is concluded.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 116 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point a a (new)
(aa) its relevance for accomplishing the tasks and services which constitute an added value for the Union;
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 124 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6
6. The Commission shall make observations within three months of the date of submission of the proposed national programme. Where the Commission considerfinds that a proposed national programme is inconsistent with the objectives of the Specific Regulations, insufficient in light of the strategy or does not comply with Union lawfails to meet the criteria set out in paragraph 5, it shall invite the Member State concerned to provide all necessary additional information and, where appropriate, to revise the proposed national programme. The Member State shall provide to the Commission all necessary additional information and, where appropriate, revise the proposed national programme.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 132 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 5
5. The contribution from the Union budget may also be increased to 90% in duly justified circumstances, in particular if projects could otherwise not have been implemented and the objectives of the national programme would not have been achieved.deleted
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 134 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. In accordance with the Specific Regulations, for it to be eligible, expenditure must in particular be:
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 137 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 7
7. Grants for which the support from the Union budget does not exceed 50,000 EUR shallmay take the form of lump sums or standard scale of unit costs, provided that this is in accordance with national rules.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 139 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 9 – point c
(c) the costs relate exclusively to the period of support for the project; and
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 143 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall set up rules and transparent procedures for the selection and implementation of projects in accordance with this Regulation..
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 145 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1
1. Responsible Authorities shall carry out a systematic administrative control of all payment requests from the beneficiaries and shall supplement them by announced and unannounced on-the-spot controls of the expenditure related to the final payment requests from the beneficiaries that are declared in the annual accounts in view of obtaining a sufficient level of assurance.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 147 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2
2. As regards these on-the-spot controls, the Responsible Authority shall draw its control sample from the entire population of beneficiaries comprising, where appropriate, a random part and a risk-based part, in order to obtain a representative error rate and a minimum confidence level, while targeting also highest errors.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 149 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 4
4. Where problems detected appear to be systemic in nature and may therefore entail a risk to other projects, the Responsible Authority shall ensure that further examination is carried out, including additional controls where necessary, to establish the scale of such problems and whether the error rate is above the materiality level. The necessary preventive and corrective measures shall be taken by the Responsible Authority and communicated to the Commission in the summary report referred to in Article 39(1)(c).
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 151 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) the rules on the minimum level of announced and unannounced on- the-spot controls necessary for an effective management of the risks, as well as the conditions under which Member States have to increase such controls, or may reduce them where the management and control systems function properly and the error rates are at an acceptable level;
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 152 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1
Responsible Authorities shall ensure that the beneficiaries receive the total amount of the public support as quickly as possible and in full. No amount shall be deducted or withheld and no specific charge or other charge with equivalent effect shall be levied that would reduce these amounts for the beneficiaries, where permissible under national provisions.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 155 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
The provisions of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions1 shall apply mutatis mutandis. 1 OJ. L 48, 23.2.2011, p. 1.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 157 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 2
2. Without prejudice to audits carried out by Member States, Commission officials or authorised Commission representatives may carry out on-the-spot audits or controls upon giving adequate prior notice. These may also be unannounced. Officials or authorised representatives of the Member State may take part in such audits or controls.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 158 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
4. Commission officials or authorised Commission representatives, duly empowered to carry out on-the-spot audits, shall have access to all records, documents and metadata, irrespective of the medium in which they are stored, relating to expenditure or to management and control systems. Member States shall provide copies of such records, documents and metadata to the Commission upon request and facilitate the provision of transcripts or copies, irrespective of the storage medium.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 162 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1
1. Following the Commission decision approving the national programme, an initial pre-financing amount for the whole programming period shall be paid by the Commission. This shall represent 4% of the total contribution from the Union budget to the national programme concerned. It may be split into two instalments depending on budget availability.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 164 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. An annual pre-financing amount of 2.5 % of the total contribution from the Union budget to the national programme concerned shall be paid before 1 February every year.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 165 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 2
2. If a national programme is approved in 2015 or later, the instalments shall be paid in the year of approvalnot later than sixty days after the approval of the national programme depending on budget availability.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 166 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. In case of amendments to the total contribution from the Union budget to a national programme, the initial as well as the annual pre-financing amounts shall be revised accordingly and reflected in the financing decision.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 167 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 3
3. Pre-financing shall be used only for making payments to beneficiaries implementing the national programme as well as for expenditure relating to technical assistance. It shall be made available without delay to the Responsible Authority for thisese purposes.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 169 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) there is a serious deficiency in the management and control system of the programme which affects the reliability of the procedure for certification of payments and for which demonstrably effective corrective measures have not been taken; or
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 181 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Notwithstanding the general obligation to publish evaluation reports, exceptions may be made regarding sections of reports falling within the scope of the Internal Security Fund, where publication thereof would compromise internal security or public order.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 187 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 2
2. The delegation of power referred to in this Regulation shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of seven years from the entry into force of this Regulation. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for a period of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension no later than 3 months before the end of each period.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 189 #

2011/0367(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 5
5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to this Regulation shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of twohree 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 twohree months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.
2012/10/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 229 #

2011/0365(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2
2. The delegation of power referred to in this Regulation shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of seven years from the entry into force of this Regulation. The delegation of powers shall be tacitly extended for periods of identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period.
2012/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 230 #

2011/0365(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 5
5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to this Regulation shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of twohree 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 twohree months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.
2012/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 200 #

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a) Where a cooperative within the meaning of Article 2(14), or a similar entity as referred to in Article 45 of Directive 86/635/EEC, a subsidiary or a legal successor, a savings bank or similar entity as referred to in Article 45 of Directive 86/635/EEC is required or permitted under national provisions to be a member of a non-profit-making auditing entity, an objective, reasonable and informed party would not conclude that the membership-based relationship compromises the statutory auditor's independence, provided that when such an auditing entity is conducting a statutory audit of one of its members, the principles of independence in Chapter I are applied to the auditors carrying out the audit and those persons who may be in a position to exert influence on the statutory audit.
2012/11/09
Committee: JURI
Amendment 247 #

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States may exempt public- interest entities which have not issued transferable securities admitted to trading on a regulated market within the meaning of point 14 of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC and their statutory auditor(s) or audit firm(s) from one or more of the requirements of this Regulation.
2012/11/09
Committee: JURI
Amendment 272 #

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Where Article 37 (2) of Directive 2006/43/EC applies paragraph 2 and 3 of this Article shall not apply.
2012/11/09
Committee: JURI
Amendment 640 #

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point c
(c) the competent authorityies referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2006/43/EC.
2012/11/09
Committee: JURI
Amendment 222 #

2011/0302(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 47 a (new)
(47a) In order to guarantee broad and fair competition for projects funded under the CEF, the form of the contract must be consistent with the aims and circumstances of the project. The terms of the contract must be drafted in such a way as to spread the risks associated with the work to be carried out fairly, in order to maximise cost-effectiveness and ensure that the work is performed as efficiently as possible. This principle shall apply irrespective of whether a national or international contract model is employed.
2012/10/10
Committee: TRANITRE
Amendment 369 #

2011/0302(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point f
(f) actions to reduce rail freight noise by means of infrastructure measures and retrofitting of existing rolling stock;
2012/10/10
Committee: TRANITRE
Amendment 435 #

2011/0302(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point b – point ii
ii) inland transport connections to ports and airports, actions to reduce rail freight noise by means of infrastructure measures and retrofitting of existing rolling stock, as well as development of maritime and inland ports and multi- modal platforms: the amount of Union financial aid shall not exceed 20% of the eligible costs.
2012/10/10
Committee: TRANITRE
Amendment 523 #

2011/0302(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13a In order to guarantee broad and fair competition for projects funded under the CEF, the form of the contract must be consistent with the aims and circumstances of the project. The terms of the contract must be drafted in such a way as to spread the risks associated with the work to be carried out fairly, in order to maximise cost-effectiveness and ensure that the work is performed as efficiently as possible. This principle shall apply irrespective of whether a national or international contract model is employed.
2012/10/10
Committee: TRANITRE
Amendment 572 #

2011/0302(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. If a large-scale project fails to comply with the general principles laid down in Article 13a, it may not be supported using CEF funds. The Commission shall give the Member State concerned the opportunity to bring the project into line with the general principles in question.
2012/10/10
Committee: TRANITRE
Amendment 128 #

2011/0294(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14 a (new)
(14a) In order for infrastructure projects to be carried out and for a success to be made of them, it is of immense importance to foster general acceptance on the part of local residents. The interests of regional and local authorities as well as of local civil society affected by a project of common interest should be appropriately taken into account in the planning and construction phases of a project.
2012/10/04
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 145 #

2011/0294(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25 a (new)
(25a) The core network has been identified on the basis of an objective planning methodology. This methodology has identified the most important urban nodes, ports, airports and border crossing points. These nodes are connected with multimodal links, wherever possible, and are economically viable, environmentally sustainable and feasible until 2030. The methodology has ensured the connection of all Member States and the integration of the main islands into the core network. Detours are justified in order to circumvent unavoidable obstacles or ecologically sensitive areas or else to link smaller towns, airports, terminals, etc., so long as the disadvantages arising from these detours do not exceed the benefits in terms of improved regional or local accessibility. Traffic flows should be combined wherever possible, taking due account of topographical features, environmental impact, user requirements and potential capacity bottlenecks.
2012/10/04
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 260 #

2011/0294(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – title
Resource efficient network and special circumstances
2012/10/04
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 275 #

2011/0294(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
In planning and developing the trans- European Transport Network, Member States, regional and local authorities, infrastructure managers, transport undertakings and public and private agencies shall take account of the particular circumstances in the various parts of the Union, such as, in particular, tourism aspects and topographical features of the regions concerned, and shall, where necessary, propose alternative routes or special construction measures which respect the methodology laid down in this Regulation.
2012/10/04
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 396 #

2011/0294(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) mitigatpreventing noise and reducing theits impact of noise caused by rail transport; by means of infrastructure measures and by retrofitting existing rolling stock;
2012/10/04
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 512 #

2011/0294(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) port facilities, freight terminals and logistics platforms located outside the port area but constructed for the port operations, information and communication technologies (ICT) such as electronic logistics management systems, safety and security and administrative and customs procedures in at least one Member State;
2012/10/08
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 92 #

2011/0275(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)
(3a) Investments in tourism projects and promotion of measures consistent with the European Tourism Strategy;
2012/05/23
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 7 #

2011/0273(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
(5) Cross-border cooperation should aim to tackle common challenges identified jointly in the border regions (such as poor accessibility, inappropriate business environment, lack of networks among local and regional administrations, research and innovation and take-up of information and communication technologies, environmental pollution, risk prevention, negative attitudes towards neighbouring country citizens) and exploit the untapped potentials in the border area (development of cross-border research and innovation facilities and clusters, cross-border labour market integration, support for cross- border transport routes, promotion of cross-border tourism and joint marketing, cooperation among universities or health centres), while enhancing the cooperation process for the purpose of the overall harmonious development of the Union. In the case of any cross-border programme between Northern Ireland and the border counties of Ireland in support of peace and reconciliation, the ERDF shall also contribute to promoting social and economic stability in the regions concerned, notably by actions to promote cohesion between communities.
2012/05/03
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 30 #

2011/0273(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – point a – point iii a (new)
(iiia) promoting cross-border tourism and joint marketing (as part of the thematic objective on enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium- sized enterprises, the agricultural sector (for the EAFRD) and the fisheries and aquaculture sector (for the EMFF);
2012/05/03
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 35 #

2011/0273(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – point b
b) under transnational cooperation: development and implementation of macro-regional and sea-basin strategies (within the thematic objective of enhancing institutional capacity and, an efficient public administration and targeted actions in the tourism sector).
2012/05/03
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 110 #

2011/0196(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4) In order to ensure coherence between the different exemptions set out in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, and to reduce the administrative burden on transport undertakings, to reduce bureaucracy and to ensure that recording equipment continues to develop in line with practice, whilst respecting the objectives of that Regulation, the maximum permissible distances set out in its Articles 13(d), (f) and (p) should be revised.
2012/03/29
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 128 #

2011/0196(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16 a (new)
(16 a) Differing rules for calculating daily driving times lead to a lack of uniformity in the application of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 and create legal uncertainty for international drivers and transport undertakings. In the interest of a clear, effective, proportionate and uniform implementation of social security rules in road transport it is essential that the Member States’ authorities apply the rules in a uniform manner.
2012/03/29
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 148 #

2011/0196(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 1
Council Regulation (EEC) 3821/85
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point j
j) ‘daily work period’ means the period comprising the driving time, all other periods of work, the periods of availability, breaks in work and periods of rest not exceeding nine hours.deleted
2012/03/29
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 201 #

2011/0196(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 1
Council Regulation (EEC) 3821/85
Article 5 – paragraph 7
7. The competent control authority, on the basis of the data exchanged, may decide to carry out a check on the vehicle and the recording equipment. Fines or periodic penalty payments may, however, only be imposed on the driver or transport undertaking after the competent control authorities have carried out a physical check.
2012/03/29
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 250 #

2011/0196(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 1
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85
Article 29 – paragraph 3
(3) A transport undertaking shall be liable for infringements against this Regulation committed by drivers of the undertaking. Without prejudice to the right of Member States to hold transport undertakings fully liable, Member States may consider any evidence thatmake this liability of the transport undertaking cannot reasonably be held responsible for the infringement committeddependent on an infringement of the requirements set out in Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 concerning Regulation (EEC) No. 3281/85.
2012/03/29
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 261 #

2011/0196(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 1
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85
Article 30 – paragraph 1
(1) Drivers shall use the record sheets or driver cards every day on which they are driving, starting from the moment they take over the vehicle. The record sheet or driver card shall not be withdrawn before the end of the daily workinguntil the beginning of the rest period unless its withdrawal is otherwise authorised. No record sheet or driver card may be used to cover a period longer than that for which it is intended.
2012/03/29
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 325 #

2011/0196(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Regulation (EC) No 561/2006
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – points d, f, p
- The distance of ‘50 km’ referred to in points (d), (f) and (p) of Article 13(1) is replaced by ‘1050 km’.
2012/03/29
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 332 #

2011/0196(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Regulation (EC) No 561/2006
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point q (new)
- The following new point (q) is added to Article 13(1): ‘vehicles used in construction traffic for the supply and delivery of building materials’.
2012/03/29
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 46 #

2011/0154(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6 a (new)
(6a) The term ‘lawyer’ should be regarded as including any person who is qualified under the national law of the Member State concerned to provide legal advice and assistance to suspects and accused persons and to represent them in court.
2012/03/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 58 #

2011/0154(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
(9) A similar right to the presence of a lawyer should be granted every time that national law expressly allows or demands the presence of the suspected or accused person at a procedural step or evidence gathering such as a search; in these cases, in fact, the presence of the lawyer can strengthen the rights of the defence without affecting the need to preserve the confidentiality of certain investigative acts, since the presence of the person excludes the confidential nature of the acts in question; tOnce appointed, the lawyer should be able to ask to be notified that such acts are to be performed. If he was notified in sufficiently good time to enable him to be present when the acts in question are performed, but is not present, this should not prevent the competent authorities from carrying out the investigative measures concerned. This right should be without prejudice to the need to secure evidence which by its very nature is liable to be altered, removed or destroyed if the competent authority was to wait until the arrival of a lawyer.
2012/03/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 61 #

2011/0154(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
(10) To be effective, access to a lawyer should entail the possibility for the lawyer to carry out all the wide range of activities which pertain to legal counselling, as the European Court of Human Rights has held. This should include active participation in any interrogation orparticipation in any interrogation, with the possibility, once the law-enforcement or judicial authorities have completed their work, of putting additional questions, requesting clarification or making statements, and active participation in court hearings, meetings with the client to discuss the case and prepare the defence, the search for exculpatory evidence, support to a distressed client and control of detention conditions;
2012/03/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 66 #

2011/0154(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
(14) Since confidentiality of communication between a suspect or accused person and their lawyer is key to ensuring the effective exercise of the rights of the defence, Member States should be required to uphold and safeguard the confidentiality of meetings between the lawyer and the client and of any other form of communication permitted under national law. CExceptions to the confidentiality rule should not be subject to any exception; be made only on the basis of strict legal criteria.
2012/03/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 67 #

2011/0154(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 14 a (new)
(14a) It should be permissible to monitor contacts between a suspect or an accused person and his lawyer only in exceptional circumstances and if both the suspect or accused person and the lawyer have been notified in advance, so that the monitoring is not carried out in secret.
2012/03/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 68 #

2011/0154(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 14 a (new)
(14a) Since the purpose of any criminal proceedings must be to establish the truth, in exceptional, serious circumstances Member States should continue to enjoy the option of departing from the principle of confidentiality if there is a danger that a confidential conversation could give rise to interference with evidence.
2012/03/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 80 #

2011/0154(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
(27) Since the European Court of Human Rights has established that irretrievable damage to the rights of the defence results from the use of an incriminating statement made by the suspect or accused person without access to a lawyer, Member States should be required in principle to prohibit the use of any statements given in breach of the right of access to a lawyer as evidence against the suspect or accused person unless the use of such evidence would not prejudice the rights of the defence. This should be without prejudice to the use of statements for other purposes permitted under national law, such as the need to execute urgent investigative acts or to avoid the perpetration of other offences or serious adverse consequences for any person; This should not affect the right guaranteed in some Member States to the judge hearing a case to decide independently on the admissibility of statements or other evidence.
2012/03/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 112 #

2011/0154(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. The lawyer shall have the right to be present at any questioning and hearing. He shall have the right to ask, once the law- enforcement or judicial authorities have completed the questioning, to ask additional questions, request clarification and make statements, which shall be recorded in accordance with national law.
2012/03/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 137 #

2011/0154(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7
Member States shall ensure that the confidentiality of meetings between the suspect or accused persona person to whom Article 2 applies and his lawyer is guaranteed. They shall also ensure the confidentiality of correspondence, telephone conversations and other forms of communication permitted under national law between the suspect or accused person and his lawyer. On the basis of instructions from the competent judicial authority, exceptions to the principle of confidentiality shall be considered only if there are grounds for suspecting that the lawyer could be implicated in the offences committed by the accused person or when this is necessary to avert a present danger to a person’s life or freedom.
2012/03/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 161 #

2011/0154(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that any statement made by such person before he is made aware that he is a suspect or an accused person may not be used against him.deleted
2012/03/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 175 #

2011/0154(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that the question of which value to be given to statements made by the suspect or accused person or evidence obtained in breach of his right to a lawyer or in cases where a derogation to this right was authorised in accordance with Article 8, may not be used at any stage of the procedure as evidence against him, unless the use of such evidence would not prejudice the rights of the defencethis Directive, shall be determined by that court being responsible for ensuring the overall fairness of the proceedings, in accordance with national legal procedures.
2012/03/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 65 #

2011/0023(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) ‘air carrier’ means an air transport undertaking with a valid operating licence or equivalent for take-off or landing in the European Union permitting it to carry out carriage by air of passengers;
2011/09/15
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 84 #

2011/0023(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point i – introductory part
(i) ‘serious transnational crime’ means the offences under national law referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA if they are punishable by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years under the national law of a Member State, although Member States may exclude those offences for which, under their respective criminal law, the processing of PNR data pursuant to this Directive would not be in line with the principle of proportionality, and if:
2011/09/15
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 97 #

2011/0023(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 13 a (new)
(13a) The Commission should ensure that all institutions and agencies of the Union, for example agencies whose workload in the Member States is increased by the provisions of this directive or by the implementing provisions derived from it receive sufficient additional financial and staff resources.
2012/04/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 138 #

2011/0023(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 6
6. Exchange of information under this Article may take place using any existing channels for European and international law enforcement cooperation, in particular Europol and national units under Article 8 of Council Decision 2009/371/JHA of 6 April 2009. The language used for the request and the exchange of information shall be the one applicable to the channel used. Member States shall, when making their notifications in accordance with Article 3(3), also inform the Commission with details of the contacts to which requests may be sent in cases of urgency. The Commission shall communicate to the Member States the notifications received.
2011/09/15
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 151 #

2011/0023(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that the PNR data are deleted upon expiry of the period specified in paragraph 2. This obligation shall be without prejudice to cases where specific PNR data have been transferred to a competent authority and are used in the context of specific criminal investigations or prosecutions actions targeted at a particular person or a particular group of people, in which case the retention of such data by the competent authority shall be regulated by the national law of the Member State.
2011/09/15
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 163 #

2011/0023(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 3
3. Any processing of PNR data revealing a person’s race or ethnic origin, religious or philosophical belief, political opinion, trade union membership, health or sexual life shall be prohibited. In the event that PNR data characteristics revealing such information are received by the Passenger Information Unit they shall be deleted immediately.
2011/09/15
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 163 #

2011/0023(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
(28) This Directive does not affect the possibility for Member States to provide, under their domestic law, for a system of collection and handling of PNR data for purposes other than those specified in this Directive, or from transportation providers other than those specified in the Directive, regarding internal flights subject to compliance with relevant data protection provisions, provided that such domestic law respects the Union acquis. The issue of the collection of PNR data on internal flights should be the subject of specific reflection at a future date.
2012/04/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 206 #

2011/0023(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) ‘international flight’ means any scheduled or non-scheduled flight by an air carrier planned to land on the territory of a Member State originating in a third country or to depart from the territory of a Member State with a final destination in a third country, including in both cases any transfer or transit flights, with the exception of air ambulance flights for the transport of patients and organs;
2012/03/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 238 #

2011/0023(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. Two or more Member States may establish a single body or designate a single authoritybody, such as Europol, for instance, to serve as their Passenger Information Unit. SuchThe Passenger Information Unit shall be established in one of the participating Member States or at the headquarters of the higher-level body, such as Europol, for instance, and shall be considered the national Passenger Information Unit of all such participating Member States. The participating Member States shall agree on the detailed rules for the operation of the Passenger Information Unit and shall respect the requirements laid down in this Directive.
2012/03/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 333 #

2011/0023(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that, wWith regard to persons identified by a Passenger Information Unit in accordance with Article 4(2)(a) and (b), the result of the processing of PNR data ishall be transmitted by that Passenger Information Unit to the Passenger Information Units of other Member States, and, where the former Passenger Information Unit considersconditions of Council Decision 2009/371/JI of 6 April 2009 are met, to Europol irrespective of whether Europol is acting as the Passenger Information Unit within the meaning of Article 3, where the first Passenger Information Unit comes to the conclusion that such transfer to beis necessary for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences or serious crime. The Passenger Information Units of the receiving Member States shall transmit such PNR data or the result of the processing of PNR data to their relevant competent authorities.
2012/03/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 339 #

2011/0023(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. The Passenger Information Unit of a Member State and, where the conditions of Council Decision 2009/371/JI of 6 April 2009 are met, Europol shall have the right to request, if necessary, the Passenger Information Unit of any other Member State to provide it with PNR data that are kept in the latter’s database in accordance with Article 9(1), and, if necessary, also the result of the processing of PNR data. The request for such data may be based on any one or a combination of data elements, as deemed necessary by the requesting Passenger Information Unitbody for a specific case of prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences or serious crime. Passenger Information Units shall provide the requested data as soon as practicable and shall provide also the result of the processing of PNR data, if it has already been prepared pursuant to Article 4(2)(a) and (b).
2012/03/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 345 #

2011/0023(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. The Passenger Information Unit of a Member State and, where the conditions of Council Decision 2009/371/JI of 6 April 2009 are met, Europol shall have the right to request, if necessary, the Passenger Information Unit of any other Member State to provide it with PNR data that are kept in the latter’s database in accordance with Article 9(2), and, if necessary, also the result of the processing of PNR data. The Passenger Information Unitrequesting body may request access to specific PNR data kept by the Passenger Information Unit of another Member State in their full form without the masking out only in exceptional circumstances in response to a specific threat or a specific investigation or prosecution related to terrorist offences or serious crime.
2012/03/28
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1957 #

2011/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1
1. In the case of a personal data breach, the controller shall without undue delay and, where relating to special categories of personal data, personal data which are subject to profeassible, not later than 24 hours after having become aware of it, notify theonal secrecy, personal data relating to criminal offences or to the suspicion of a criminal act or personal data breach to the supervisory authority. The notification to the supervisory authority shall be accompanied by a reasoned justification in cases where it is not made within 24 hourslating to bank or credit card accounts, which seriously threaten the rights or legitimate interests of the data subject, the controller shall without undue delay notify the personal data breach to the supervisory authority.
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1987 #

2011/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 5
5. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 86 for the purpose of further specifying the criteria and requirements for establishing the data breach referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 and for the particular circumstances in which a controller and a processor is required to notify the personal data breach.
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1999 #

2011/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1
1. When the personal data breach is likely to adversely affect the protection of the personal data or, the privacy, the right or the legitimate interests of the data subject, the controller shall, after the notification referred to in Article 31, communicate the personal data breach to the data subject without undue delay. A breach should be considered as adversely affecting the personal data or privacy of a data subject where it could result in, for example, identity theft or fraud, physical harm, significant humiliation or damage to reputation.
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2003 #

2011/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 3
3. The communication of a personal data breach to the data subject shall not be required if the controller demonstrates to the satisfaction of the supervisory authority that itdata breach has not produced significant harm and the controller has implemented appropriate technological protection measures, and that those measures were applied to the data concerned by the personal data breach. Such technological protection measures shall render the data unintelligible, unusable or anonymised to any person who is not authorised to access to it.
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 19 #

2010/2308(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that freedom, security and justice are indivisible objectives and areas of action, given that ‘freedom loses much of its meaning if it cannot be enjoyed in a secure environment and with the full backing of a system of justice in which all Union citizens and residents can have confidence’; in this context, emphasises Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which guarantees everyone the right to liberty and security.
2012/02/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 29 #

2010/2308(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Takes the view that a comprehensive EU evidence- and knowledge-based analysis of the threats to be addressed is an essential prerequisite for an effective ISS, and is concerned that such EU-wide analysis is still lacking at presenttakes the view that Europol should conduct such EU-wide analysis; highlights the need for additional efforts to improve the coherence of the information and data on which the threat assessments undertaken by EU bodies and agencies are based, including additional efforts to ensure transparency as regards the methodology used6;
2012/02/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 55 #

2010/2308(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Reiterates that enhancing EU police and judicial cooperation, in particular in the context of Europol and Eurojust, is critical to a proper ISS, and must involve the competent authorities in the Member States as well as EU institutions and agencies, and calls upon the Commission and the Member States to make this a priority for the ISS;
2012/02/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 71 #

2010/2308(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Welcomes the focus on border security in the context of the ISS, butand believes that border management and human mobility are not merely security issues, but key features of a wider political strategy involving not only the security dimension, but also – more importantly – immigration, asylum, development and employment policies at EU levelnd migration in general always constitute a security issue and can only be considered in isolation if immigration, asylum, development and employment policies are interpreted in such a way that migration is controlled in an orderly and targeted way, based on need;
2012/02/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 69 #

2010/0312(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 4
4. The Member State concerned shall ensure that the team of experts can directly address relevant persons. It shall ensure that the team has access to all areas, premises and documents required for the evaluation. It shall ensure that the team is able to exercise its mandate to verify the activities in the areas to be evaluated, in particular by making people available for ad hoc translation and interpreting tasks from the language of the Member State into the common language, as set out in Article 9(4).
2011/05/30
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 332 #

2010/0253(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. In order to ensure the independence of decision-making in the performance of essential functions under this paragraph, Member States shall ensure that, from the date of transposition of this directive, the staff responsible for the performance of essential functions must be: (a) legally or contractually independent from any railway undertaking or from a company controlling one or more railway companies, (b) located in separate premises of any railway undertaking, or of a company controlling one or more railway companies, (c) legally or contractually subject to respect for confidentiality of information relating to their functions;
2011/05/31
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 332 #

2010/0253(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. In order to ensure the independence of decision-making in the performance of essential functions under this paragraph, Member States shall ensure that, from the date of transposition of this directive, the staff responsible for the performance of essential functions must be: (a) legally or contractually independent from any railway undertaking or from a company controlling one or more railway companies, (b) located in separate premises of any railway undertaking, or of a company controlling one or more railway companies, (c) legally or contractually subject to respect for confidentiality of information relating to their functions;
2011/05/31
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 411 #

2010/0253(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
RA requests by a railway undertakings for access to the service facility may only be rejected if there are viable alternatives allowing them to operate the freight or passenger service concerned on the same route under economically acceptable conditions. The burden of proving for the existence of a viable alternative lies with the operator of the servIf a request is rejected, the operator of the service facility shall be required to justify that decision to the requestor and the regulatory body. The regulatory body shall examine the reasons given and, if necessary, take corrective action. Article facilit56(5)(2) shall apply to decisions by the regulatory body.
2011/05/31
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 411 #

2010/0253(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
RA requests by a railway undertakings for access to the service facility may only be rejected if there are viable alternatives allowing them to operate the freight or passenger service concerned on the same route under economically acceptable conditions. The burden of proving for the existence of a viable alternative lies with the operator of the servIf a request is rejected, the operator of the service facility shall be required to justify that decision to the requestor and the regulatory body. The regulatory body shall examine the reasons given and, if necessary, take corrective action. Article facilit56(5)(2) shall apply to decisions by the regulatory body.
2011/05/31
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 443 #

2010/0253(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 5
Where the service facility has not been in use for at least two consecutive years its owner shall publicise the operation of the facility as being for lease or rent. , concession or rent for railway related activities. In case of non-allocation due to lack of appropriate requests, after an assessment on the public interest of the service by the regulatory body referred to in Article 55, it is possible to proceed with the disposal and sale of the service.
2011/05/31
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 443 #

2010/0253(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 5
Where the service facility has not been in use for at least two consecutive years its owner shall publicise the operation of the facility as being for lease or rent. , concession or rent for railway related activities. In case of non-allocation due to lack of appropriate requests, after an assessment on the public interest of the service by the regulatory body referred to in Article 55, it is possible to proceed with the disposal and sale of the service.
2011/05/31
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 517 #

2010/0253(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
When charging for the cost of noise effects is allowed by Unational legislation for road freight transport in a Member State, the infrastructure charges in the Member State concerned shall be modified so as to take account of the cost of noise effects caused by the operation of the train in accordance with Annex VIII, point 2.
2011/05/31
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 517 #

2010/0253(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
When charging for the cost of noise effects is allowed by Unational legislation for road freight transport in a Member State, the infrastructure charges in the Member State concerned shall be modified so as to take account of the cost of noise effects caused by the operation of the train in accordance with Annex VIII, point 2.
2011/05/31
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 95 #

2010/0210(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
(16) The duration of stay should be limited to a maximum period per calendar year which, together with the definifixed by the Member States at a maximum period within any 12 months, which, to ensure that the employment in question is of a seasonal worknature, should ensure that the work is of genuinely seasonal naturenot exceed nine months. Provision should be made that within thate maximum duration of stay officially granted to the seasonal worker, an extension of the contract or change of employer is possible. This should serve to reduce risks of abuses that seasonal workers may face if tied to a single employer and at the same time provide for a flexible response to employers’ actual workforce needs.
2011/07/20
Committee: LIBEEMPL
Amendment 103 #

2010/0210(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
(17) Circular migration of third-country national seasonal workers should be promoted. In order for seasonal workers to have employment prospects in the EU for periods beyond a single season and for EU employers to be able to rely on a more stable and already trained workforce, the possibility of access to seasonal employment for several consecutive years should be provided, either through a multi- seasonal worker permit or a facilitated procedure. This procedure should include preference over admissions of third- country nationals applying to be admitted as seasonal workers for the first time or reduced processing times, or less documentary evidence being required. Such arrangements should not affect, or circumvent, the requirement that the employment be of a seasonal nature.
2011/07/20
Committee: LIBEEMPL
Amendment 109 #

2010/0210(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
(19) In order to ensure that seasonal workers have adequate accommodation during their stay, including at a price that ais reasonable costand reflects the market rate in the area in question, provision should be made to require employers to provide the evidence of the accommodation they or third- parties can provide.
2011/07/20
Committee: LIBEEMPL
Amendment 137 #

2010/0210(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point c
(c) ‘activity dependent on the passing of the seasons’ means an activity that is tied to a certain time of the year by an event or patternrecurring series of events during which labour levels are required that are far above those necessary for usually ongoing operations;
2011/07/20
Committee: LIBEEMPL
Amendment 166 #

2010/0210(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall require that the seasonal worker will have sufficient resources duringfor the duration of his/her stay to maintain him/herself in the Member State concerned without having recourse to the social assistance system of theat Member State concerned.
2011/07/20
Committee: LIBEEMPL
Amendment 179 #

2010/0210(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. Member States may reject an application if the employer has been sanctioned repeatedly in conformity with national law for undeclared work and/or illegal employment.
2011/07/20
Committee: LIBEEMPL
Amendment 227 #

2010/0210(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Seasonal workers shall be allowed to reside for a maximum of sixnine months in any calendar year, after which12-month period, the Member States having discretion to fix a maximum duration of stay within that limit according to the needs of their respective national labour markets. On expiry of the maximum duration of stay in the country in question, they shall return to a third country.
2011/07/20
Committee: LIBEEMPL
Amendment 232 #

2010/0210(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 2
2. Within the period referred to under paragraph 1maximum period of stay granted in the individual case, and provided that the criteria of Article 5 are met, seasonal workers shall be allowed to extend their contract or to be employed as seasonal worker with a different employer if the first employer has infringed workers’ rights.
2011/07/20
Committee: LIBEEMPL
Amendment 246 #

2010/0210(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) a third-country national who has not complied with the obligations arising from the admission decision during a previous stay as a seasonal worker, and in particular with the obligation to return to a third country on the expiry of the seasonal worker permit, shall be excluded from admission as seasonal worker for one or more subsequent years; the duration of the exclusion shall be determined under national law.
2011/07/20
Committee: LIBEEMPL
Amendment 60 #

2010/0209(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
(13) As intra-corporate transfers consist of temporary migrationare linked to a limited residence and work permit in each Member State, the applicant should provide evidence that the third-country national will be able to transfer back to an entity belonging to the same group and established in a third country at the end of the assignment, in accordance with the contract that he/she has with the group. That evidence may consist of the relevant provisions under the work contract. An assignment letter should be produced providing evidence that the third- country national manager or specialist possesses the professional qualifications and the experience needed in the Member State to which they have been admitted to occupy the post or the regulated profession.
2011/07/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 75 #

2010/0209(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
(20) A fast-track procedure may be set up for groups of undertakings which have been recognised for that purpose. Recognition shouldall be granted on the basis of objective criteria made publicly available by the Member State and ensuring equal treatment between applicants. It should be granted for a maximum of three years, as the criteria need to be reassessed on a regular basis. Such recognition should be restricted to transnational corporations presenting credentials showing their ability to comply with their obligations and supplying information about the expected intra- corporate transfers. Any major change affecting the ability of the corporation to meet those obligations and any complementary information on future transfers should be reported without delay to the relevant authority. Appropriate sanctions such as financial sanctions, the possibility of withdrawing recognition, and rejections of future applications for permit should be provided for.
2011/07/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 142 #

2010/0209(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) provide evidence that the host entity and the undertaking established in a third country belong to the same undertaking or group of undertakings; this evidence can also be provided by the host undertaking in the first Member State;
2011/07/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 187 #

2010/0209(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2
(2) Member States shall reject an application if the employer or the host entity has been repeatedly sanctioned in conformity with national law for undeclared work and/or illegal employment.
2011/07/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 212 #

2010/0209(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 3
(3) The application shall be lodged to the authorities of the Member State where the intra-corporate transfer mainly takes place. Where it is impossible to anticipate with certainty in which Member State the third-country national will mainly be located, he/she shall be able to choose the Member State of application.
2011/07/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 216 #

2010/0209(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2 – introductory part
Recognition shall be granted for a minimum of one year and a maximum of three years on the basis of the following information:
2011/07/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 217 #

2010/0209(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2 – point a
(a) information relating to the financial standing of the group of undertakings aiming to ensure that the intra-corporate transferee will be guaranteed the requiredat least the level of remuneration in accordance with the universally applicable collective agreement and rights as provided for in Article 14;
2011/07/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 218 #

2010/0209(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2 – point b
(b) evidence provided by the competent authority that the conditions of admission regarding prior transfers have been complied with;
2011/07/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 219 #

2010/0209(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2 – point d
(d) information related to forthcoming transfers.deleted
2011/07/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 220 #

2010/0209(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 8 – point b
(b) a fast-track admission procedure allowing intra-corporate transferee permits to be issued within a shorter time thanhalf the time specified in Article 12(1);
2011/07/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 230 #

2010/0209(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 3
(3) Any decision rejecting an application or any decision not to renew or to withdraw intra-corporate transferee permits, shall be notified in writing to the applicant and shall be open to a legal challenge by means of redress either administratively or in the courts in the Member State concerned, in accordance with national law. The notification shall specify the reasons for the decision, the possible redress procedures available and the time limit for taking action.
2011/07/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 233 #

2010/0209(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – point 4
(4) the right to carry out his/her assignment at the sites of clients and potential business partners of the entities belonging to the group of undertakings listed in the additional document provided for in Article 11 (4), as long as the employment relationship is maintained with the undertaking established in a third country.
2011/07/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 273 #

2010/0209(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3
(3) The maximum duration of the transfer to the European Union shall not exceed threefour years for managers and specialists and onetwo years for graduate trainees.
2011/07/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 28 #

2008/0244(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
(11) Minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers that will suffice to ensure them a dignified standard of living and comparable living conditions in all Member States taking into consideration the level of social assistance available for nationals in the hosting Member State, should be laid down.
2009/03/30
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 31 #

2008/0244(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
(16) Detention of asylum seekers should be applied in line with the underlying principle that a person should not be held in detention for the sole reason that he/she is seeking international protection, notably in accordance with Article 31 of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951. In particular Member States should not impose penalties on asylum seekers on account of illegal entry or presence and any restrictions to movement should be necessary. In this respect, detention of asylum seekers should only be possible under very clearly defined exceptional circumstances laid down in this Directive and subject to the principle of necessity and proportionality with regard both to the manner and to the purpose of such detention. Where an asylum seeker is held in detention he/she should have a right to a judicial remedy before national court.
2009/03/30
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 37 #

2008/0244(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point c – point iii
(iii) the married minor children of couples referred to in point (i) or of the applicant, regardless of whether they were born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under the national law, where it is in their best interests to reside with the applicant;deleted
2009/03/30
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 39 #

2008/0244(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point c – point iv
(iv) the father, mother or guardian of the applicant, when the latter is a minor and unmarried, or when he/she is a minor and married but it is in his/her best interests to reside with his/her father, mother or guardian;deleted
2009/03/30
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 41 #

2008/0244(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point c – point v
(v) the minor unmarried siblings of the applicant, when the latter is a minor and unmarried, or when the applicant or his/her siblings are minors and unmarried but it is in the best interests of one or more of them that they reside together;deleted
2009/03/30
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 79 #

2008/0244(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that applicants have access to the labour market no later than 6 months following the date when the application for international protection was lodgdeleted.
2009/03/30
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 82 #

2008/0244(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a(new)
1a. Member States shall set a period, beginning at the time of submission of the asylum application, during which the applicant shall not have access to the labour market.
2009/03/30
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 83 #

2008/0244(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall decide the conditions for granting access to the labour market for the applicant, in accordance with their national legislation, without unduly restricting asylum seekers' access to the labour market.
2009/03/30
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 84 #

2008/0244(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Die Mitgliedstaaten tragen dafür Sorge, dass diese Voraussetzungen den Zugang des Asylbewerbers zum Arbeitsmarkt nicht verzögern oder in unangemessener Weise beschränken. Translator's note: this paragraph does not appear in the English version of the Commission document.deleted
2009/03/30
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 85 #

2008/0244(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 3
3. Access to the labour market shall not be withdrawn during appeals procedures, where an appeal against a negative decision in a regular procedure has suspensive effect, until such time as a negative decision on the appeal is notified.deleted
2009/03/30
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 86 #

2008/0244(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall ensure that material reception conditions provide an adequate standard of living for applicants for international protection, which guarantees their subsistence and protects their physical and mental health.deleted
2009/03/30
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 87 #

2008/0244(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Member States shall ensure that that standard of living is met in the specific situation of persons who have special needs, in accordance with Article 21, as well as in relation to the situation of persons who are in detention.deleted
2009/03/30
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 90 #

2008/0244(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 5
5. In calculating the amount of assistance to be granted to asylum seekers Member States shall ensure that the total value of material reception conditions to be made available to asylum seekers is equivalent to the amount of social assistance granted to nationals requiring such assistance. Any differences in this respect shall be duly justified.deleted
2009/03/30
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 102 #

2008/0244(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall provide necessary medical or other assistance to applicants who have special needs, including appropriate mental health care when needed, under the same conditions as nationals.deleted
2009/03/30
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 105 #

2008/0244(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall take into account the specific situation of persons with special needs in the national legislation implementing this Directive. Vulnerable persons such as minors, unaccompanied minors, disabled people, elderly people, pregnant women, single parents with minor children , victims of trafficking, persons with mental health problems and persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence, shall always be considered as persons with special needs.
2009/03/30
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 109 #

2008/0244(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 2
2. In assessing the best interests of the child, Member States shall in particular take due account of the following factors: (a) family reunification possibilities; (b) the minor’s well-being and social development, taking into particular consideration the minor’s ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background; (c) safety and security considerations, in particular where there is a risk of the child being a victim of trafficking; (d) the views of the minor in accordance with his/her age and maturity.deleted
2009/03/30
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 110 #

2008/0244(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that minors have access to leisure-activities, including play and recreational activities appropriate to their age within the premises and accommodation centres referred to in Article 18 1(a) and (b).deleted
2009/03/30
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 113 #

2008/0244(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure access to legal assistance and/or representation in the cases referred to in paragraph 1. Such legal assistance and/or representation shall be free of charge where the asylum seeker cannot afford the costs involved. Procedures for access to legal assistance and/or representation in such cases shall be laid down in national law.deleted
2009/03/30
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 29 #

2008/0243(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5 a (new)
(5a) As regards the introduction in successive phases of a common European asylum system that should lead, in the longer term, to a common procedure and a uniform status, valid throughout the Union, for those granted asylum, it is appropriate at this stage, while making the necessary improvements in the light of experience, to confirm the principles underlying the Convention determining the State responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the Member States of the European Communities, signed in Dublin on 15 June 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Dublin Convention), whose implementation has stimulated the process of harmonising asylum policies.
2009/04/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 42 #

2008/0243(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph (i) – subparagraph (iii)
(iii) the married minor children of couples referred to in point (i) or of the applicant, regardless of whether they were born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under the national law, where it is in their best interests to reside with the applicant;Deleted
2009/04/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 43 #

2008/0243(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph (i) – subparagraph (iv)
(iv) the father, mother or guardian of the applicant when the latter is a minor and unmarried, or when he is a minor and married but it is in his/her best interests to reside with his/her father, mother or guardian ;deleted
2009/04/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 45 #

2008/0243(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph (i) – subparagraph (v)
(v) the minor unmarried siblings of the applicant, when the latter is a minor and unmarried, or when the applicant or his/her siblings are minors and married but it is in the best interests of one or more of them that they reside together;Deleted
2009/04/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 60 #

2008/0243(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. By way of derogation from paragraph 2, in order to ensure respect for the principle of family unity and of the bests interests of the child, the Member State responsible in accordance with the criteria laid down in Articles 8 to 12 shall be determined on the basis of the situation obtaining when the asylum seeker lodged his/her most recent application for international protection. This paragraph shall apply on condition that the previous applications of the asylum seeker have not yet been subject of a first decision regarding the substance.deleted
2009/04/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 63 #

2008/0243(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. In the absence of a family member or of another relative, the Member State responsible for examining the application shall be that where the minor has lodged his or her most recent application for international protection, provided that this is in the best interests of the minor.Deleted
2009/04/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 67 #

2008/0243(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Where the asylum seeker is dependent on the assistance of a relative on account of pregnancy or a new-born child, serious illness, severe handicap or old age, or where a relative is dependent on the assistance of the asylum seeker for the same reasons, the Member State responsible for examining the application shall be the one considered the most appropriate for keeping them together or reunifying them, provided that family ties existed in the country of origin and that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing. In determining the most appropriate Member State, the best interests of the persons concerned shall be taken into account, such as the ability of the dependent person to travel.deleted
2009/04/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 70 #

2008/0243(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17
1. By way of derogation from Article 3, (1), each Member State may in particular for humanitarian and compassionate reasons, decide to examine an application for international protection lodged with it by a third-country national or a stateless person, even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation, provided that the applicant agrees thereto. In such an event, that Member State shall become the Member State responsible within the meaning of this Regulation and shall assume the obligations associated with that responsibility. Where applicable , it shall inform the Member State previously responsible, the Member State conducting a procedure for determining the Member State responsible or the Member State which has been requested to take charge of or take back the applicant by using the ‘DubliNet’ electronic communication network set up under Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1560/200 . The Member State becoming responsible in accordance with this paragraph shall also forthwith indicate in EURODAC that it assumed responsibility pursuant to Article 17(6) of Regulation (EC) No [.../...] [concerning the establishment of "EURODAC" for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Regulation]. 2. The Member State in which an application for international protection is made and which is carrying out the process of determining the Member State responsible, or the Member State responsible, may, at any time, request another Member State to take charge of an applicant in order to bring together family members, as well as other relatives, on humanitarian grounds based in particular on family or cultural considerations, even where this latter Member State is not responsible under the criteria laid down in Articles 8 to 12 of this Regulation The request to take charge shall contain all the material in the possession of the requesting Member State to allow the requested Member State to assess the situation. The requested Member State shall carry out any necessary checks to substantiate the humanitarian reasons cited, and shall give a decision on the request within two months of the date on which the request was received. A decision refusing the request shall state the reasons on which it is based. Where the requested Member State accepts the request, responsibility for examining the application shall be transferred to it.Article 17 Discretionary clauses deleted
2009/04/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 74 #

2008/0243(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point (d)
(d) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 23, 24 and 28, a third- country national or a stateless person whose application has been rejected and who made an application in another Member State or who is in the territory of another Member State without a residence document.Deleted
2009/04/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 78 #

2008/0243(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2
2. The Member State responsible shall in allthe circumstances referred to in paragraph 1 (a) toand (db) examine or complete the examination of the application for international protection made by the applicant, within the meaning of Article 2(d). When the Member State responsible had discontinued the examination of an application following its withdrawal by the applicant, it shall revoke that decision and complete the examination of the application, within the meaning of Article 2(d).
2009/04/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 79 #

2008/0243(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
This obligation shall cease where the Member State requested to complete the process of determining the responsible Member State can establish, in cooperation with the Member State in which the asylum seeker resides, that the asylum seeker has in the meantime left the territories of the Member States for a period of at least three months or has obtained a residence document from another Member State.
2009/04/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 82 #

2008/0243(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1
1. Where the requested Member State agrees to take charge or to take back an applicant or another person as referred to in Article 18(1)(d), the requesting Member State shall notify the person concerned of the decision to transfer him/her to the responsible Member State and, where applicable, of not examining his/her application for international protection . Such notification shall be made in writing, in a language which the person is reasonably supposed to understand and within no more than fifteen working days from the date of receipt of the reply from the requested Member State.
2009/04/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 88 #

2008/0243(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 4
4. No transfer shall take place before the decision referred to in paragraph 3 is taken. A decision not to allow the person concerned to remain on the territory of the Member State concerned pending the outcome of his/her appeal or review, shall state the reasons on which it is based.deleted
2009/04/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 94 #

2008/0243(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27
1. Member States shall not hold a person in detention for the sole reason that he/she is an applicant for international protection in accordance with Directive 2005/85/EC. 2. Without prejudice to Article 8(2) of Directive […/…/EC] [laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers], when it proves necessary, on the basis of an individual assessment of each case, and if other less coercive measures cannot be applied effectively, Member States may detain an asylum- seeker or another person as referred to in Article 18(1)(d), who is subject of a decision of transfer to the responsible Member State, to a particular place only if there is a significant risk of him/her absconding. 3. When assessing the application of other less coercive measures for the purpose of paragraph 2, Member States shall take into consideration alternatives to detention such as regular reporting to the authorities, the deposit of a financial guarantee, an obligation to stay at a designated place or other measures to prevent the risk of absconding. 4. Detention pursuant to paragraph 2 may only be applied from the moment a decision of transfer to the responsible Member State has been notified to the person concerned in accordance with Article 25, until that person is transferred to the responsible Member State. 5. Detention pursuant to paragraph 2 shall be ordered for the shortest period possible. It shall be no longer than the time reasonably necessary to fulfil the required administrative procedures for carrying out a transfer. 6. Detention pursuant to paragraph 2 shall be ordered by judicial authorities. In urgent cases it may be ordered by administrative authorities, in which case the detention order shall be confirmed by judicial authorities within 72 hours from the beginning of the detention. Where the judicial authority finds detention to be unlawful, the person concerned shall be released immediately. 7. Detention pursuant to paragraph 2 shall be ordered in writing with reasons in fact and in law, in particular specifying the reasons on the basis of which it is considered that there is a significant risk of the person concerned absconding as well as the time period of its duration. Detained persons shall immediately be informed of the reasons for detention, the intended duration of the detention and the procedures laid down in national law for challenging the detention order, in a language they are reasonably supposed to understand. 8. In every case of a detained person pursuant to paragraph 2, the continued detention shall be reviewed by a judicial authority at reasonable intervals of time either on request by the person concerned or ex-officio. Detention shall never be unduly prolonged. 9. Member States shall ensure access to legal assistance and/or representation in cases of detention pursuant to paragraph 2 that shall be free of charge where the person concerned cannot afford the costs involved. Procedures for access to legal assistance and/or representation in such cases shall be laid down in national law. 10. Minors shall not be detained unless it is in their best interests, as prescribed in Article 7 of this Regulation and in accordance with an individual examination of their situation in accordance with Article 11(5) of Directive […/…/EC] [laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers]. 11. Unaccompanied minors shall never be detained. 12. Member States shall ensure that asylum-seekers detained in accordance with this Article enjoy the same level of reception conditions for detained applicants as those laid down in particular in Articles 10 and 11 of Directive […/…/EC] [laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers].Article 27 Deleted Detention
2009/04/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 108 #

2008/0243(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Section VII – Article 31
Section VII: Temporary suspension of 1. When a Member State is faced with a particularly urgent situation which places an exceptionally heavy burden on its reception capacities, asylum system or infrastructure, and when the transfer of applicants for international protection in accordance with this Regulation to that Member State could add to that burden, that Member State may request that such transfers be suspended. The request shall be addressed to the Commission. It shall indicate the grounds on which it is based and shall in particular include: (a) a detailed description of the particularly urgent situation which places an exceptionally heavy burden on the requesting Member State’s reception capacities, asylum system or infrastructure, including relevant statistics and supporting evidence; (b) a substantiated forecast of the likely evolution of this situation in the short- term; (c) a substantiated explanation of the further burden that the transfer of applicants for international protection in accordance with this Regulation could add to the requesting Member State’s reception capacities, asylum system or infrastructure, including relevant statistics and other supporting evidence. 2. When the Commission considers that the circumstances prevailing in a Member State may lead to a level of protection for applicants for international protection which is not in conformity with Community legislation, in particular with Directive […/…/EC] laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers and with Directive 2005/85/EC, it may decide in conformity with the procedure laid down in paragraph 4, that all transfers of applicants in accordance with this Regulation to the Member State concerned be suspended. 3. When a Member State is concerned that the circumstances prevailing in another Member State may lead to a level of protection for applicants for international protection which is not in conformity with Community legislation, in particular with Directive […/…/EC] laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers and with Directive 2005/85/EC, it may request that all transfers of applicants in accordance with this Regulation to the Member State concerned be suspended. The request shall be addressed to the Commission. It shall indicate the grounds on which it is based and shall in particular include detailed information on the situation in the concerned Member State pointing to a possible lack of conformity with Community legislation, in particular Directive […/…/EC] laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers and Directive 2005/85/EC. 4. Following the receipt of a request pursuant to paragraphs 1 or 3, or upon its own initiative pursuant to paragraph 2, the Commission may decide that all transfers of applicants in accordance with this Regulation to the Member State concerned be suspended. Such decision shall be taken as soon as possible and at the latest one month following the receipt of a request. The decision to suspend transfers shall state the reasons on which it is based and shall in particular include: (a) an examination of all the relevant circumstances prevailing in the Member State towards which transfers could be suspended; (b) an examination of the potential impact of the suspension of transfers on the other Member States; (c) the proposed date on which the suspension of transfers shall take effect; (d) any particular conditions attached to such suspension. 5. The Commission shall notify the Council and the Member States of the decision to suspend all transfers of applicants in accordance with this Regulation to the Member State concerned. Any Member State may refer the decision of the Commission to the Council within one month from the receipt of the notification. The Council, acting by qualified majority, may take a different decision in one month from the date of the referral by a Member State. 6. Following the decision of the Commission to suspend transfers to a Member State, the other Member States in which the applicants whose transfers have been suspended are present, shall be responsible for examining the applications for international protection of those persons. The decision to suspend transfers to a Member State shall take due account of the need to ensure the protection of minors and of family unity. 7. A decision to suspend transfers to a Member State pursuant to paragraph 1 shall justify the granting of assistance for the emergency measures laid down in Article 5 of Decision No 573/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, following a request for assistance from that Member State. 8. Transfers may be suspended for a period which cannot exceed six months. Where the grounds for the measures still persist after six months, the Commission may decide, upon a request from the Member State concerned referred to paragraph 1 or upon its own initiative, to extend their application for a further six months period. Paragraph 5 applies. 9. Nothing in this Article shall be interpreted as allowing Member States to derogate from their general obligation to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of their obligations arising out of the Community legislation on asylum, in particular this Regulation, Directive […/…/EC] laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, and Directive 2005/85/EC.deleted transfers Article 31
2009/04/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 126 #

2007/0228(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 - paragraph 3
3. Any decision rejecting an application for an EU Blue Card, or non-renewing or withdrawing an EU Blue Card, shall be notified in writing to the third- country national concerned and, where relevant, to his/her employer in accordance with the notification procedures under the relevant national legislation and shall be open to challenge before the courtsunder the national legislation of the Member State concerned. The notification shall specify the reasons for the decision, the possible redress procedures available and the time limit for taking action.
2008/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 135 #

2007/0228(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 - paragraph 1
1. Unemployment in itself shall not constitute a reason for revoking or not renewing an EU Blue Card, unless the period of unemployment exceeds three consecutive months; the holder of an EU Blue Card must notify the competent authorities of his or her Member State of residence when he or she becomes unemployed, in accordance with national procedures.
2008/09/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 98 #

2007/0094(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 - point c
(c) recovery of public benefits, aid, or subsidies, including EU funding managed by Member States, granted to the employer during the 12 months preceding the detection of illegal employmentactual period of the work relationship or, where the duration of that period is unknown, the duration of the relationship as presumed in accordance with Article 7, paragraph 2(b);
2008/10/01
Committee: LIBE