BETA

266 Amendments of Jacek PROTASIEWICZ

Amendment 1 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)
- having regard to the Statement by the Vice-President of the Commission/ High Representative of the Union for Foreign affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) Catherine Ashton of 20 March 2013 on the Magnitsky case in the Russian Federation,
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 2 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 b (new)
- having regard to the Statement by the spokesperson of VP/HR Catherine Ashton of 12 July 2013 on the case of Sergei Magnitsky,
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 3 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 c (new)
- having regard to the Resolution and the Recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe of 28 January 2014 on Refusing impunity for the killers of Sergei Magnitsky,
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 5 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas two independent investigations, conducted by the Public Oversight Commission for Human Rights Observance in Moscow Detention Centres and by the Russian Presidential Council on the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights, revealed that Sergei Magnitsky was subjected to inhumane conditions, deliberate neglect and torture;
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 16 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – introductory part
d. to place the following Russian citizens on an EU-wide visa ban liston an EU-wide visa ban list the persons affected by the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012, and to seize any financial assets that they may hold within the EU:;
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 17 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 1
ALISOV, Igor, born 11 March 1968;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 18 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 2
DROGANOV, Aleksey (a.k.a. DROGANOV, Alexei), born 11 October 1975;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 19 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 3
EGOROVA, Olga, born 29 June 1955;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 20 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 4
GAUS, Alexandra, born 29 March 1975;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 21 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 5
GERASIMOVA, Anastasia, born 22 January 1982;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 22 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 6
GRIN, Victor, born 1 January 1951;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 23 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 7
KARPOV, Pavel, born 27 August 1977;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 24 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 8
KHIMINA, Yelena (a.k.a. KHIMINA, Elena), born 11 February 1953;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 25 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 9
KLYUEV, Dmitry (a.k.a. KLYUEV, Dmitriy or KLYUEV, Dmitri), born 10 August 1967;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 26 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 10
KOMNOV, Dmitriy (a.k.a. KOMNOV, Dmitri), born 17 May 1977;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 27 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 11
KRIVORUCHKO, Aleksey (a.k.a. KRIVORUCHKO, Alex or KRIVORUCHKO, Alexei), born 25 August 1977;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 28 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 12
KUZNETSOV, Artem (a.k.a. KUZNETSOV, Artyom), born 28 February 1975;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 29 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 13
LOGUNOV, Oleg, born 4 February 1962;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 30 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 14
MAYOROVA, Yulya (a.k.a. MAYOROVA, Yulia), born 23 April 1979;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 31 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 15
PAVLOV, Andrey (a.k.a. Pavlov, Andrei), born 7 August 1977;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 32 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 16
PECHEGIN, Andrey (a.k.a. PECHEGIN, Andrei), born 24 September 1965;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 33 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 17
PODOPRIGOROV, Sergei, born 8 January 1974;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 34 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 18
PONOMAREV, Konstantin, born 14 August 1971;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 35 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 19
PROKOPENKO, Ivan Pavlovitch, born 28 September 1973;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 36 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 20
REZNICHENKO, Mikhail, born 20 February 1985;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 37 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 21
SAPUNOVA, Marina, born 19 June 1971;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 38 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 22
SHUPOLOVSKY, Mikhail, born 28 September 1983;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 39 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 23
SILCHENKO, Oleg, born 25 June 1977;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 40 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 24
STASHINA, Yelena (a.k.a. STASHINA, Elena or STASHINA, Helen), born 5 Nov 1963;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 41 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 25
STEPANOVA, Olga, born 29 July 1962;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 42 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 26
STROITELEV, Denis, born 23 January 1973;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 43 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 27
TAGIEV, Fikhret, born 3 April 1962;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 44 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 28
TOLCHINSKIY, Dmitry (a.k.a. TOLCHINSKY, Dmitriy or TOLCHINSKIY, Dmitri), born 11 May 1982;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 45 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 29
UKHNALYOVA, Svetlana (a.k.a. UKHNALEV, Svetlana or UKHNALEVA, Svetlana V.), born 14 March 1973;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 46 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 30
URZHUMTSEV, Oleg, born 22 October 1968;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 47 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 31
VINOGRADOVA, Natalya, born 16 June 1973;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 48 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point 32
VORONIN, Victor, born 11 February 1958;deleted
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 49 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. to urge Russia to undertake a credible, thorough and independent investigation into the case of Sergei Magnitsky's death in pre-trial detention, and to bring all those responsible to justice;
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 50 #

2014/2016(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. to call on Russia to close the posthumous trial against Sergei Magnitsky and cease putting pressure on his mother and his widow to participate in these proceedings;
2014/02/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 1 #

2014/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1
– having regard to the Treaty on European Union, in particular Articles 2, 6, 7, 258, 259 and 7260 thereof,
2014/01/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 4 #

2014/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 a (new)
- having regard to positive effects of the on-going mutual evaluations within the Council (SCHEVAL and GENVAL) focused on learning from each other's' best practices through a constructive expert dialogue;
2014/01/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 11 #

2014/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 10
– having regard to its resolution of 12 December 2012 on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (2010 - 2011)1 , as well as to working documents I and II of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union in 2012, __________________ 1__________________ 1 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0500. Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0500.
2014/01/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 17 #

2014/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas the 2013 Justice Scoreboard focuses exclusively on civil, commercial and administrative justice, thereby omitting criminal justiwhich are of importance for the European Semester in order to boost competitiveness and growth, but does not cover criminal justice, which falls primarily into a national competence;
2014/01/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 20 #

2014/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas the functioning of criminal justice has important repercussions on fundamental rights and furthermore is strongly linked to respect for the rule of law, more so than any other area of justice;
2014/01/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 28 #

2014/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H
H. whereas the work of the EU institutions should be based on close cooperation and interaction, and should, while acting within the powers conferred to them, should work together with respect to principle of loyal cooperation as well as draw on the expertise of the various bodies ofinternational bodies, including the Council of Europe so asthat to avoiding overlapping activitind duplication of activities and ensure an efficient use of resources;
2014/01/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 45 #

2014/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the EU Justice Scoreboard drawn up by the Commission; calls for the justice scoreboard exercise to assess all areas of justice, including criminal justice and all justice-related horizontal issues, such as independbe brought forward within the competence andof the career of judgesEuropean Union; calls on the Commission to draw from the work already carried out by the bodies of the Council of Europe in this field, as well as that carried out by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights;
2014/01/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 50 #

2014/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission and the Council to ensure that the European Parliament and the national parliaments are fully involved in the procedure, that the scoreboard is regularly presentss as provided toby them Treaties and that it is subject to a debate at an inter-parliamentary meeting results of evaluations are regular basisly presented to them;
2014/01/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 59 #

2014/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Commission and the EU Fundamental Rights Agency to address Parliament's repeated request and propose a mechanism for the regular assessment ofconcerns by systematic and thorough monitoring of the Member States' compliance with the fundamental values of the EU, as set out in Article 2 TEU, providing a basis for an early warning tool with appropriate interventions should systematic breaches of the principles of democracy and rule of law occur, and should the appropriate checks and balances fail to function in a Member State;
2014/01/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 64 #

2014/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Reiterates that such a mechanism should bemonitoring is applied to all Member States on a uniform and equal footing, and should seek complementarity with the work of other international institutions, such as the Council of Europe and, in particular, its Venice Commission;
2014/01/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 69 #

2014/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Council and the Member States to assume fully their responsibilities in relation to fundamental rights, as enshrined in the Charter and the relevant articles of the Treaties, in particular Articles 2, 6 and 7 TEU; believes that this is a pre-condition if the EU is to deal effectively with situations where the principles of democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights are curbed by Member States; calls for a role for the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights in this mechanism, as well as for guidance to be drawn from the existing work of the various bodies of the Council of Europe;
2014/01/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 72 #

2014/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Underlines that the Commission is empowered to bring the Member State which does not fulfil an obligation under the Treaties before the Court of Justice of the European Union;
2014/01/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 43 #

2013/2149(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas some of the EaP countries have deeply rooted European aspirations and are still undergoing their difficult transition following decades of impeded growth under the USSR;
2014/01/09
Committee: AFET
Amendment 59 #

2013/2024(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Calls urgently for measuresfor careful reflection 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;
2013/09/10
Committee: JURILIBEAFCO
Amendment 215 #

2013/2024(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
39. Acknowledges that the Schengen area is a kind of laboratory that so far has been developed step by step; is nevertheless of the opinion that a long-term reflection about its further development is necessary; believes that the Schengen external borders should in the future be guarded by European border guards;
2013/09/10
Committee: JURILIBEAFCO
Amendment 236 #

2013/2024(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 a (new)
42 a. Calls on the Commission to further improve existing visa facilitation agreements between the European Union and its eastern neighbours along with work towards a visa-free travel area enabling people-to-people contacts;
2013/09/10
Committee: JURILIBEAFCO
Amendment 46 #

2012/2263(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the adoption by the Commission of an action plan on unaccompanied minors; deplores, however, the fact that the Commission's approach is not based more on protecting the fundamental rights of such minors and of the Mid- term report on the implementation of the Action Plan on Unaccompanied Minors' (COM(2012)0554;
2013/05/13
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 47 #

2012/2263(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Deplores the fragmentation of the European provisions concerning unaccompanied minors and; urges the Commission to compile a manual drawing together these various legal basesacts in order to facilitate the correct application by Member States; considers that EASO should be involved in compiling this manual;
2013/05/13
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 56 #

2012/2263(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Deplores the lack of reliable official data on unaccompanied minors; calls on the Member States and the European Union to establish a coordinated method for gathering information in each Member State, by means of platforms bringing together all parties involved in the problem of unaccompanied minors, and to draw up a list of national contact pointsand sharing information, and to make better use of the existing tools available to collect statistics data at the European level, such as Fronted and EASO;
2013/05/13
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 65 #

2012/2263(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Recalls that the European Union and Member States ought to step up their cooperation with third countries of origin and transit concerning the problem of unaccompanied minors, preventing their arrival, combating trafficking, irregular immigration, restoration of family ties, return and readmission, including in the context of the regular dialogues conducted between the European Union and these States and the European External Action Service (EEAS);
2013/05/13
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 70 #

2012/2263(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Recalls the important role of civil society in the readmissions of unaccompanied minors in third countries; calls thus on Member States to increase cooperation also with local and international non governmental partners in the Country of origin in order to ensure safe returns for children.
2013/05/13
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 72 #

2012/2263(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Recalls that combating trafficking in human beings is a necessary first step, as minors are particularly confronted with the risks of trafficking and exploitation and because; underlines the importance of prevention by strengthening police and judiciary cooperation between Member States. Calls on the Member States to effectively implement Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims and Directive 2011/92/EU on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography; considers also that action should be taken in third countries to tackle the root causes of trafficking;
2013/05/13
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 82 #

2012/2263(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Is concerned about the situation of many unaccompanied minors who live in hiding in the EU and who are particularly vulnerable to exploitation and abuse; calls on Member States' authorities and civil society organisations to work together and take all the necessary measures to ensure their protection and dignity.
2013/05/13
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 95 #

2012/2263(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Commission to draw up binding strategic guidelines for use by all Member States, which should draw inspiration from their best practices, take the form of common minimum standards and detail each stage in the probuilding on the follow-up of the Action plan and on best practicess, from the arrival of a minor in European territory until an appropriate solution has been found for him;
2013/05/13
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 116 #

2012/2263(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Considers that each Member State has a responsibility to identify unaccompanied minors; calls on Member States to direct them immediately to specialist services which must, on the one hand, assess the individual circumstances and needs of each minor and, on the other hand, provide them with all the information they need, in a language and form they can understand; calls on Member States to share best practices on child friendly tools to clarify to the children the procedures and their rights;
2013/05/13
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 128 #

2012/2263(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Deplores the unsuitable and intrusive nature of the medical techniques used to ascertain age in some Member States; recommends that the Commission establish a common methodinclude in the strategic guidelines best practices for ascertaining age, consisting of a multidisciplinary assessment, performed by independent, trained practitioners, and with minors always being given the benefit of the doubt; considers that it should be possible to appeal against the results of this assessment; welcomes the work of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) on this subject, which should be taken as a basis for dealing with all minors;
2013/05/13
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 136 #

2012/2263(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on Member States, as soon as a minor arrives within their territory and until a lasting solution has been found, to appoint a person responsible for accompanying, assisting and representing him in all procedures; calls furthermore for this person to have specific training in the problems associated with unaccompanied minors and to act completely independently; calls on the Commission to establish common standardinclude in the strategic guidelines best practices concerning the mandate, functions, qualifications and skills of this person;
2013/05/13
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 145 #

2012/2263(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 – introductory part
16. CIn order to ensure consistency and equal standards in the protection of unaccompanied minors within the EU, calls on Member States to give unaccompanied minors, irrespective of their status and under the same conditions as children who are nationals of the host country:
2013/05/13
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 176 #

2012/2263(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Welcomes the progress which has been made in asylum legislation; recalls, however, that unaccompanied minors should always be exempted from expedited procedures and from procedures at the border; recalls also that the State responsible forpackage concerning unaccompanied minors; calls on Member States to make the necessary legislative and asylum application by an unaccompanied mdministrative reforms in or should always be the State of the most recent asylum applicationder to implement it effectively;
2013/05/13
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 181 #

2012/2263(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Underlines that any decision concerning unaccompanied minors should be on the basis of an individual assessment and in respect of the best interest of the child;
2013/05/13
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 183 #

2012/2263(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Condemns the very precarious circumstances with which these minors are suddenly confronted when they reach the age of majority; calls on Member States to share best practices and institute procedures for assisting these minors in their transition to adulthood; welcomes the work of the Council of Europe on this subject and calls on the Commission to propose common standardinclude in its strategic guidelines best practices for the planning of ‘individualised life projects’ for, and with, the minor;
2013/05/13
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 191 #

2012/2263(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Stresses firmly that the ultimate aim, once an unaccompanied minor has arrived in European territory, must be to seek an appropriate solution for him, which respects his best interests; recalls that efforts to achieve this must always begin with an examination of the possibilities of family reunification; calls on Member States to improve cooperation on family tracing and share best practices;
2013/05/13
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 201 #

2012/2263(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission to proposeinclude in its strategic guidelines a common reference framework outlining a series of conditions to be met before a minor can be returned, respecting the overriding interests of the child; reiterates in the strongest terms that no decision to return a minor may be taken if it endangers the minor's life, security or fundamental rights or those of his or her family, and that the individual circumstances of each minor must be taken into account; calls on Member States to establish monitoringcooperation arrangements to ensure the protection of minors after their return, in cooperation with countries of origin and transit;with countries of origin and transit and with international and local NGOs in order to ensure the protection of minors after their return.
2013/05/13
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1 #

2012/2142(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Aa. Whereas the posthumous prosecution of Sergei Magnitsky is a violation of international and national laws, which clearly shows the malfunctioning of Russian criminal justice system;
2012/08/30
Committee: AFET
Amendment 2 #

2012/2142(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas, despite the 2011 conclusions of the inquiry conducted by the Russian President's Human Rights Council on the illegality of Sergei Magnitsky's arrest, detention and being denied access to justice, the investigations are stalled and the officials involved have been exonerated and even assigned to the posthumous case; whereas such actions of the authorities demonstrate a politically motivated nature of Magnitsky's prosecution;
2012/08/30
Committee: AFET
Amendment 7 #

2012/2142(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point c
(c) to call on Russia to conduct a credible and independent investigation encompassing all aspects of this tragic case and to bring all those responsible to justice;
2012/08/30
Committee: AFET
Amendment 8 #

2012/2142(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) to urge the Russian authorities to put an end to a widespread corruption, to reform the judicial system and bring it in line with international standards by creating an independent, just and transparent system so that under no circumstances it could be misused for political reasons;
2012/08/30
Committee: AFET
Amendment 10 #

2012/2142(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Encourages the Council to take a coherent and proactive stance on other serious human rights violations in Russia, on the basis of well documented, converging and independent sources, and to introduce similar restrictive measures against offenders as a last resort measure provided that there is a clear evidence of an offence or a crime committed;
2012/08/30
Committee: AFET
Amendment 11 #

2012/2142(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Underlines that the commitment of the Russian authorities to the basic shared values, such as the rule of law, human rights and basic freedoms, remains the main prerequisite of EU-Russia relations and for the development of a stable and reliable partnership between them;
2012/08/30
Committee: AFET
Amendment 33 #

2012/2130(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and pursuant to Article 6 TEU, the Charter has the same legal value as the Trebecame legally binding and Member Staties, hence transforming values and principles into tangible and enforceable rights must ensure its full application when implementing EU law;
2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 67 #

2012/2130(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital V
V. whereas the scale of the comprehensive and systematic constitutional and institutional reforms (a root-and-branch revision of the legal system), which the new Hungarian Government has carried out in an exceptionally short time frame6 is unfull compliance with the applicable preocedented, andural requirements, explains why so many European institutions and organisations (the European Union, Council of Europe, OSCE) as well as the U.S. Administration have deemed it necessary to assess the impact of some reforms carried out in Hungary, wherea; whereas there should be no double standards in the treatment of Member States, thus the situation in other Member States, although following a different pattern, may also need tthe same pattern should also be monitored, while enforcingotherwise the principle of equality of the Member States before the Treaties, and whereas there should be no double standards in the treatment of Member States is not respected;
2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 68 #

2012/2130(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital V – footnote 6
6. See Annex to Working Document No 5.deleted
2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 171 #

2012/2130(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital BX
BX. whereas freedom of thought, conscience and religion as enshrined in Article 9 of the ECHR and Article 10 of the Charter is one of the foundations of a democratic society, and w, and whereas according to the Treaty of Lisbon the legislation on the reas the role of the State in this respect should be that of a neutral and impartial guarantor of the right to exercise various religions, faiths and beliefslation between the State and the churches belongs to the Member States' competence; thus there are many differences in how churches are recognized in Member States from official state religion (e.g.: Denmark, Greece, Malta) up to solely operating in the form of associations (e.g.: France);
2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 223 #

2012/2130(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that use of the individual members' bills procedure to implement the constitution (through cardinal laws) does not constitute a transparent, accountable andis in full compliance with the applicable procedural requirements, and is part of the democratic legislative process, as in practice it restricts public debate and consultation, and that it could run counter to Fundamental Law itself, which makes it an obligation for the government (and not individual members) to submit to the parliament the bills necessary for the implementation of the Fundamental Lawnobody more accountable than a Member of Parliament who may be dismissed by the electors at the next elections. Denying this right of the members of Parliament with reference to the democratic values common to EU member States would lead us to a conclusion that democratically elected MPs cannot exercise their representative roles;
2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 224 #

2012/2130(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Shares the opinion of the Venice Commission (No CDL-AD(2012)001), according to which the adoption of a large amount of legislation in a very short time frame could explain why some of the new provisions do not comply with European standards, although it reminds that the Commission admitted that there was a need to improve the efficiency of the previous system;
2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 241 #

2012/2130(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Considers that after the entry into force of the Fourth Amendment the Constitutional Court's can no longerpacity to fulfil its role as the supreme body of constitutional protection as the legislature is now entitled to modify the Fundamental Law as it wishes even in the case of the constitutional amendments contradicting other constitutional requirements and principlesshould be assessed by the Venice Commission;
2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 245 #

2012/2130(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Is deeply concerned about this shift of powers in constitutional matters to the advantage of the parliament and to the detriment of the Constitutional Court, which severely underminesUnderlines the importance of the principle of separation of powers and a correctly functioning system of checks and balances, which are key corollaries of the rule of law;
2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 261 #

2012/2130(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. DeplorUnderlines that the above-mentioned institutional changes resulted in a clear weakeninghave to be assessed in the context of the systems of checks and balances required by the rule of law and the democratic principle of the separation of powers;
2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 271 #

2012/2130(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
30. Regrets, howBeliever,s that not all the recommendations of the Venice Commission haveshould been implemented, in particular as regards the need to limit discretionary powers of the President of the National Judicial Office in the context of the transfer of cases, which potentially could affect the right to a fair trial and the principle of a lawful judge;
2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 322 #

2012/2130(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 a (new)
47a. Objects the use of double standards in the treatment of a Member States; stresses that same situations, legal provisions should be treated similarly, otherwise the principle of equality of the Member States before the Treaties is not respected;
2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 324 #

2012/2130(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
48. ReaffirmsTakes note of the fact that its present resolution is not only about Hungary, but inseparably about the European Union as a whole, and its democalthough several issues raised are present in the legal system and practic reconstruction and development after the fall of the 20th century totalitarianisms. It is about the European family, its common values and standards, its inclusiveness and its capacity to engage in dialogue. It is about the need to implement Treaties which all Member States have voluntarily acceded to. It is about the mutual help and mutual trust that the Union, its citizens and Member States need to havee of several Member States; Regrets that the principle detailed in Article 4(2) - according to which "the Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their national identities, inherent ifn these Treaties are to be more than just words on paper but the legal basis for a true, just and open Europe respecting fundamental rightsir fundamental structures, political and constitutional" - was not taken into account;
2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 326 #

2012/2130(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
49. Shares the idea of a Union which is not only a ‘union of democracies’ but also a ‘Union of Democracy’, based upon pluralistic societies where respect for human rights and the rule of law prevail; and stresses that the freely elected Parliaments are excepted as basic elements of democracy;
2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 332 #

2012/2130(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
51. States that it is ready – and calls on the Council and Commission to also be prepared – in the event that Hungary does not implement the recommendations set out in paragraph 61, to take action under Article 7(1) TEU to determine the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the common values of the Union as set out in Article 2 TEU;deleted
2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 385 #

2012/2130(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – introductory part
61. Urges the Hungarian authorities to implement the following recommendations without any further delay, with a view to fully restoring the rule of law and its key requirements Repeats its resolution of 16 February 2012 on the recent political developments in Hungary, which "Instructs the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, in cooperation with the European Commission, the Council of Europe and the Venice Commission, the constitutional setting, the systemo follow up the issue of cwhecks and balances and the independence of the judiciary, as well as strong safeguards for fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, media and religion and the right to property:ther and how the recommendations of the Commission and the European Parliament set out in point 4 of this resolution have been implemented and to present its findings in a report;"
2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 4 #

2012/0309(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
(3) Exemption from the visa requirement for nationals of Dominica, Grenada, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, the United Arab Emirates and Vanuatu should not come into force until bilateral agreements on visa waiver between the Union and the countries concerned have been concluded in order to ensure full reciprocity.
2013/07/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 6 #
2013/07/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 61 #

2012/0146(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. This Regulation lays down the conditions under which Member States shall recognise and accept electronic identification means of any entity, natural andor legal persons falling under a notified electronic identification scheme of another Member State.
2013/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 62 #

2012/0146(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 3
3. This Regulation establishes a legal framework for electronic signatures, electronic seals, electronic validation and verification, electronic time stamps, electronic documents, electronic delivery services and website authentication.
2013/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 63 #

2012/0146(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation applies to notification of electronic identification provided by, on behalf or under the responsibility of Member States and to trust service providers established in the Union. This Regulation applies to trust services and products offered to the public.
2013/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 64 #

2012/0146(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. This Regulation does not apply to trust services deployed solely for testing, training or scientific purposes.
2013/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 65 #

2012/0146(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1
(1) ‘electronic identification’ means the process of using person identification data in electronic form unambiguously representing an entity, a natural or legal person;
2013/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 67 #

2012/0146(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2
(2) ‘electronic identification means’ means a material or immaterial unit containing data as referred to in point 1 of this Article, and which is used to access electronic services online as referred to in Article 5;
2013/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 68 #

2012/0146(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 10
(10) ‘certificate’ means an electronic attestation which links electronic signature or seal validation data of an entity, a natural or a legal person respectively to the certificate and confirms those data of that person;
2013/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 69 #

2012/0146(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 12
(12) ‘trust service’ means any electronic service consisting in, among others, of the creation, verification, validation, handling and preservation of electronic signatures, electronic seals, electronic time stamps, electronic documents, electronic delivery services, website authentication, and electronic certificates, including certificates for electronic signature and for electronic seals;
2013/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 70 #

2012/0146(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 14
(14) ‘trust service provider’ means an entity, a natural or a legal person who provides one or more trust services;
2013/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 71 #

2012/0146(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 19
(19) ‘creator of a seal’ means an entity, a legal person who creates an electronic seal;
2013/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 72 #

2012/0146(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 27
(27) ‘electronic document’ means a documentseparate set of structured data in any electronic format;
2013/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 76 #

2012/0146(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the notifying Member State ensures that the person identification data are attributed unambiguously to the entity, natural or legal person referred to in Article 3 point1;
2013/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 78 #

2012/0146(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
(ea) other relevant specifications, manuals or documentation that notifying Member State may deem relevant for mutual recognition and development of services;
2013/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 81 #

2012/0146(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish the necessary modalitiesinteroperability framework to facilitate the cooperation between the Member States referred to in paragraph 1 with a view to fostering a high level of trust and security appropriate to the degree of risk. Those implementing acts shall concern, in particular, the exchange of information, experiences and good practice on electronic identification schemes, the peer review of notified electronic identification schemes and the examination of relevant developments arising in the electronic identification sector by the competent authorities of the Member States. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2).
2013/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 82 #

2012/0146(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 38 concerning the facilitation of cross border interoperability of electronic identification means by setting of minimum technical requirements.
2013/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 87 #

2012/0146(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. A trust service provider shall be liable under national law for any direct damage caused to any entity, natural or legal person due to failure to comply with the obligations laid down in Article 15(1), unless the trust service provider can prove that he has not acted negligently.
2013/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 89 #

2012/0146(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Trust service providers and supervisory bodies shall ensure fair and lawful processingcollecting and processing of personal data in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC when processing personal data.
2013/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 90 #

2012/0146(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2
2. Trust service providers shall collect and process personal data according to Directive 95/46/EC. Such collecting and processing shall be strictly limited to the minimum data needed to issue and maintain a certificate or to provide a trust service.
2013/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 92 #

2012/0146(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 4
4. Without prejudice to the legal effect given to pseudonyms under national law, Member States shall not prevent trust service providers indicating in electronic signature certificates a pseudonym instead of the signatory's name.
2013/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 114 #

2012/0146(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
When issuing a qualified certificate, a qualified trust service provider shall verify, by appropriate means and in accordance with national law, the identity and, if applicable, any specific attributes of the entity, natural or legal person to whom a qualified certificate is issued.
2013/06/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 360 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
(12) The protection afforded by this Regulation concerns natural persons, whatever their nationality or place of residence, in relation to the processing of personal data, except for those pursuing economic activity, which identifies them on the market. With regard to the processing of data which concern legal persons and in particular undertakings established as legal persons, including the name and the form of the legal person and the contact details of the legal person, the protection of this Regulation should not be claimed by any person. This should also apply where the name of the legal person contains the names of one or more natural persons.
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 410 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
(25) Consent should be given freely and without pressure from the controller and explicitly by any appropriate method enabling a freely given specific andn 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. 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 447 #

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 isbe expressed freely and without pressure from the controller. Consent cannot be deemed as freely given when due to a clear imlack of balance between the data subject and the controller, a refusal to give consent could result in adverse financial or legal consequences for the data subject. 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.
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 454 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
(38) The legitimate interests of a controller 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. A legitimate interest pursued by a controller may include in particular direct marketing of controller's goods and services and enforcement of the controller’s claims. When data subject withdraws his or her consent, the controller should be also allowed to refuse further provision of services if the processing is necessary because of the nature of the service or the functioning of the filling system. 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 479 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48
(48) The principles of fair and transparent processing require that the data subject should be informed in particular of the existence of the processing operation and its purposes, how long the data will be stored, and if not possible the criteria used to determine the data storage period, on the existence of the right of access, rectification or erasure and on the right to lodge a complaint. Where the data are collected from the data subject, the data subject should also be informed whether they are obliged to provide the data and of the consequences, in cases they do not provide such data.
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 485 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 51
(51) Any person should have the right of access to data which has been collected concerning them, and to exercise this right easily, in order to be aware and verify the lawfulness of the processing. Every data subject should therefore have the right to know and obtain communication in particular for what purposes the data are processed, for what period, and if not possible the criteria used to determine the data storage period, which recipients receive the data, what is the logic of the data that are undergoing the processing and what might be, at least when based on profiling, the consequences of such processing. This right should not adversely affect the rights and freedoms of others, including trade secrets or intellectual property and in particular the copyright protecting the software. However, the result of these considerations should not be that all information is refused to the data subject.
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 692 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point e a (new)
(ea) natural person pursuing economic activity, which identifies this person on the market;
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 693 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point e b (new)
(eb) of a natural person which data are made public in the course of exercising professional duties such as name, contact details and function;
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 697 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. If the separate provisions of the European Union or the Member States law provide for more advanced protection of personal data than provided by this Regulation, these provisions shall be implemented complementarily. This applies in particular to the secrecy protected by law, e.g. bank secrecy.
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 698 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. The information disclosed in accordance with the law in national registers of economic entities is not protected under this Regulation to the extent that it identifies entities on the market.
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 771 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 9
(9) ‘personal data breach’ means a breach of security leading to the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of, or access to, personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed;
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 788 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 13
(13) ‘main establishment’ means as regards the controller, the place of its establishment in the Union where the main decisions as to the purposes, conditions and means of the processing of personal data are taken; i. In case of a group of undertakings, it is the place of establishment of the company with the dominant position over rest of the group as regards data protection policy. If no decisions as to the purposes, conditions and means of the processing of personal data are taken in the Union, the main establishment is the place where the main processing activities in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller in the Union take place. As regards the processor, ‘main establishment’ means the place of its central administration in the Unionthe same rules apply. The competent authority shall be informed by the controller and processor of the designation of a ‘main establishment’;
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 861 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) processing is necessary for exercise of the right or compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject;
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 877 #

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, 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 wherewithout prejudice to 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, processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by a controller, in particular: - direct marketing for its own and similar products and services, - the enforcement of the claims of the controller or of a third party on behalf of which the controller is acting in relation to the data subject, or for preventing or limiting damage by the data subject is a child.to the controller This shall not apply to processing carried out by public authorities in the performance of their tasks.
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 893 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
(fa) processing is necessary in the employment context, in particular for the purposes of the recruitment, the performance of the contract of employment, including discharge of obligations laid down by law or by collective agreements, management, planning and organization of work, health and safety at work, and for the purposes of the exercise and enjoyment, on an individual or collective basis, of rights and benefits related to employment, and for the purpose of the termination of the employment relationship, as well as for the purpose of entering, updating, improving, and modifying employees' data processing systems, including technical security systems designed to protect employees' data against unauthorized access by third parties, including transformation, viruses and malware;
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 982 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. In the event that the data subject withdraws consent, the controller may refuse to provide further services if the processing of the data is vital for the provision of the service or ensuring the appropriate level of services.
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 993 #

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 if, due to a significant imbalance between the position of the data subject and the controllercontroller and the data subject, it has not been given freely, in accordance with Article 4(8).
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1011 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. For the purposes of this Regulation, in relation to the offering of information society services directly to a child, the processing of personal data of a child below the age of 13 years shall only be lawful if and to the extent that consent is given or authorised by the child's parent or custodian. The controller shall make reasonable efforts to obtain verifiable consent, taking into consideration available technology.
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1052 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) processing is necessary for the purposes of carrying out the obligations and exercising specific rights of the controller in the field of employment law in so far as it is authorised by Union law or Member State law providing for adequate safeguards ensuring the fundamental rights of the data subject such as right to non-discrimination; or
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1066 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point g
(g) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest, on the basis of Union law, or Member State law which shall provide for suitable measures to safeguard the data subject's legitimate interests and fundamental rights; or
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1141 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4
4. The information and the actions taken on requests referred to in paragraph 1 shall be free of charge. Where requests are manifestly excessive, in particular because of their repetitivf the request of the same character repeats more ctharactern once per 6 months, the controller may charge an administrative fee for providing the information or taking the action requested, or the controller may not take the action requested. In that case, the controller shall bear the burden of proving the manifestly excessive characterrepetitiveness of the request.
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1166 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
The controller shall communicate any rectification or erasure carried out in accordance with Articles 16 and 17 to each recipient with whom he stays in contractual relationship and to whom the data have been disclosed, unless this proves impossible or involves a disproportionate effort.
2013/03/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1196 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the period for which the personal data will be stored and if not possible the criteria used to determine this period;
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1332 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller communication of the personal data undergoing processing. Where the data subject makes the request in electronic form, the information shall be provided in electronic form, unless otherwise requested by the data subject. This is without prejudice to the right of the controller to determine other form of handling requests for information specified in point 1 if it is justified by the necessity of verifying the identity of subject requesting such information.
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1342 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The data subject shall have the right, where personal data are processed by electronic means, to obtain from the controller a copy of data undergoing processing in an electronic and structured format which allows for further use.
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1412 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2
2. Where the controller referred to in paragraph 1 has made the personal data public, it shall take all reasonable steps, including technical measures, in relation to data for the publication of which the controller is responsible, to inform third parties which are processing such data, that a data subject requests them to erase any links to, or copy or replication of that personal data. Where the controller has authorised a third party publication of personal data, the controller shall be considered responsible for that publication.deleted
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1491 #

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 1548 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1
1. Every natural person, both off-line and online, shall have the right not to be subject to a measure which produces legal effects concerning this natural person or significantly affects this natural person, and which is based solely on automated processing intended to evaluate certain personal aspects relating to this natural person or to analyse or predict in particular the natural person's performance at work, economic situation, location, health, personal preferences, reliability or behaviour.
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1564 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) is carried out in the course of the entering into, or performance of, a contract, where the request for the entering into or the performance of the contract, lodged by the data subject, has been satisfiexamined or where suitable measures to safeguard the data subject's legitimate interests have been adduced, such asincluding the right to obtain the information on the profiling criteria and the right to obtain human intervention; or
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1573 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) is expressly authorized by a Union or Member State law which also lays down suitable measures to safeguard the data subject's legitimate interests and fundamental rights, including the right to non- discrimination; or
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1609 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 4
4. In the cases referred to in paragraph 2, the information to be provided by the controller under Articles14 and 145 shall include information as to the existence of processing for a measure of the kind referred to in paragraph 1, including the criteria for the processing in question and the envisaged effects of such processing on the data subject.
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1759 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) an enterprise employing fewer than 250 persons, unless its core activities, regardless the number of the employees, consist of processing operations which, by virtue of their nature, their scope and/or their purposes, require regular and systematic monitoring of data subjects; or
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2230 #

2012/0011(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 7
7. The controller or the processor shall designate a data protection officer for a period of at least two years. The data protection officer may be reappointed for further terms. During their term of office, the data protection officer may only be dismissed, if the data protection officer no longer fulfils the conditions required for the performance of their duties.
2013/03/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 25 #

2011/2050(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas Russian accession to the WTO on 22 August 2012 is a major step that could help accelerate the modernisation of the Russian economy and at the same time become a good incentive for Russia to meet the international trading rules and standards, to which it has committed;
2012/09/11
Committee: AFET
Amendment 40 #

2011/2050(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E
E. whereas the European Union continues to be committed to further deepening and developing its relations with Russia, on the basis of common interests and on the condition of Russia commitment to uphold universal values and principles;
2012/09/11
Committee: AFET
Amendment 43 #

2011/2050(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas human rights situation in Russia has deteriorated drastically in the last few months and should be addressed in a due course as a priority issue, in particular during EU-Russia agreement negotiations;
2012/09/11
Committee: AFET
Amendment 123 #

2011/2050(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point m a (new)
(ma) urge the Russian authorities to reform the judicial system and bring it in line with international standards by creating an independent, just and transparent system so that it could not be misused for political reasons;
2012/09/11
Committee: AFET
Amendment 124 #

2011/2050(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point m b (new)
(mb) stress that the Russian authorities have to put an end to omnipresent impunity in the country, politically motivated persecutions, arrests and detentions as well as other human rights violations and in this context to ensure conduction of a credible, fair, transparent and independent investigation process of pending juridical and other politically motivated cases opened over economic or other allegations and with the aim to get rid of political rivals;
2012/09/11
Committee: AFET
Amendment 41 #

2011/0302(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
(13) Experience with the current financial framework shows that many Member States, which are eligible to the Cohesion Fund, are facing significant obstacles in delivering on time complex cross-border transport infrastructure projects with a high Union added value. Therefore, in order to improve the delivery of transport projects, in particular cross-border ones, with a high Union added value, part of the Cohesion Fund allocation (EUR 10 billion) should be transferred to finance transport projects on the transport core network in the Member States eligible to the Cohesion Fund under the Connecting Europe Facilityrespecting national allocations for the projects listed in the Annex of this Regulation. The Commission should support Member States eligible to the Cohesion Fund to develop an adequate pipeline of projects in order to give greatest possible priority to the national allocations under the Cohesion Fund.
2012/09/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 80 #

2011/0302(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) transport: EUR 31 694 000 000, out of which EUR 10 000 000 000 shall be transferred from the Cohesion Fund to be spent in line with this Regulation in Member States eligible for funding from the Cohesion Fundfor projects listed in the Annex to this Regulation, respecting the national allocations;
2012/09/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 601 #

2011/0302(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex – Part I – point 1 – introductory part
Helsinki – Tallinn – Riga – Kaunas – Warszawa – Katowice Gdynia – Katowice Katowice – Ostrava – Brno – Wien Katowice – Žilina – Bratislava – Wien Wien – Graz – Klagenfurt – Villach – Udine – Venezia – Bologna – Ravenna Graz – Ljubljana – Koper/Trieste Szczecin/Świnoujście - Poznań/Zielona Góra - Wrocław - Ostrava
2012/10/17
Committee: TRANITRE
Amendment 602 #

2011/0302(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex – Part I – point 1 – introductory part
Helsinki – Tallinn – Riga – Kaunas – Warszawa – Katowice Gdynia – Katowice Katowice – Ostrava – Brno – Wien Katowice – Žilina – Bratislava – Wien Wien – Graz – Klagenfurt – Villach – Udine – Venezia – Bologna – Ravenna Graz – Ljubljana – Koper/Trieste Szczecin/Świnoujście - Poznań - Wrocław - Ostrava
2012/10/17
Committee: TRANITRE
Amendment 13 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J
J. whereas it is necessary for the EU to have both a budget and a budgetary procedure which fully reflect the transparent and democratic essence of the parliamentary decision-making and control process, on a basis of general respect for the principles of unity and universality, which require that all revenue and expenditure be entered in full with no adjustment against each other, and that there be a public debate and vote on both revenue and expenditure;
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 20 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Is fully aware that the negotiations on the MFF 2014-2020 are taking place in a very difficult economic context, in which Member States are engaging in considerable efforts to make fiscal adjustments to their national budgets, with a view to the stability of the banking sector and the single currency; insists that the Union should not be seen as adding an extra fiscal burden on taxpayers; is, however, convinced that the EU budget is a part of the solution to enable Europe, by promoting investment for growth and job creation, to emerge from the current crisis by helping Member States tackle, collectively and in concerted fashion, the present structural challenges, in particular loss of competitiveness, rising unemployment and poverty;
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 24 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that the European Council itself adopted, in June 2012, a ‘Growth and Jobs Compact’, which acknowledges the leverage effect of the EU budget in terms of strengthening growth and employment and places major emphasis on its contribution to helping the entire Union overcome the current economic and financial crisis;
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 39 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that the EU budget is an investment budget and that 94 % of its total returns are invested in the Member States themselves or for external priorities of the Union; emphasises that, for the regions and Member States, public investment would be minimised or impossible without the contribution of the EU budget; which represents significant and sometimes even dominant share of public investment, believes that any decrease of the EU budget would inevitably hamper the growth and competitive strength of the entire Union economy;
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 45 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls that delivering on the Europe 2020 strategy’s seven flagship initiatives will require a huge amount of future- oriented investment, estimated at no less than EUR 1 800 billion up to 2020 ; sees the significant investment role of the Cohesion Policy in this respect; stresses that one of the main objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, namely, to promote jobs and high-quality employment for all Europeans, will only be achieved if the necessary investment in education, in favour of a knowledge society, and in research and innovation, SMEs, and green and new technologies is made now and not delayed any longer; favours combining the reduction of public deficits and debt with the promotion of such investments;
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 55 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Strongly supports the Commission’s proposal to mainstream measures to combat climate change across the whole EU budget; believes that the EU budget will be able to mobilise investment for a sustainable and prosperous low-carbemission economy, provide adequate support for achieving the EU 2020 targets for climate, energy and biodiversity, and benefit the EU’s citizens by ensuring a more healthy environment;
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 61 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Considers that the Commission proposal, which represents a freeze of the MFF 2014- 2020 ceilings at the level of the 2013 ceilings, will not be sufficient to finance existing policy priorities linked to the Europe 2020 strategy, the new tasks provided for by the Treaty of Lisbon, or unforeseen events, not to mention the political objectives and commitments set by the European Council itself;
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 70 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Reaffirms, in this context, its position in favour of a significant increase - notably through the Connecting Europe Facility - in the funding available for the Union programmes in the fields of competiveness, SMEs and infrastructures, which are at the heart of the Europe 2020 strategy; strongly believes that further cuts with respect to the Commission proposal will seriously jeopardise the EU’s credibility and its political commitment in favour of growth and jobs; Urges however for the amount transferred from the Cohesion Fund to the Connecting Europe Facility to be spent at least during the first years respecting the national allocations under Cohesion Policy;
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 87 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Considers that EU cohesion policy is a strategic tool for investment, growth and competitiveness, with an undisputed EU added value; insists that, in order to effectively reduce macroeconomic imbalances within the EU and contribute to economic, social and territorial cohesion, it should be able to rely on a stable, solid and sustainable financial framework; reaffirms itsis of the position that cohesion policy funding, given pressing need to secure public investment in growth and jobs creation should be maintained at least at the level of the 2007-2013 period;
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 97 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Recalls its position that, given the wide array of tasks, challenges and objectives that the CAP is called on to respond to, the amounts allocated to the CAP in the budget year 2013 should be at least maintained during the next financial programming period; supports an idea of converging direct payments between and within the Member States; stresses, in this context, the important role played by the second pillar of the CAP, which makes a significant contribution to investment and job creation in rural areas and to enhancing the effectiveness and competitiveness of the farming industry and to the process of overcoming development gaps in rural areas between Member States;
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 98 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Recalls its position that, given the wide array of tasks, challenges and objectives that the CAP is called on to respond to, the amounts allocated to the CAP in the budget year 2013 should be at least maintained during the next financial programming period; supports an idea of converging direct payments between and within the Member States; stresses, in this context, the important role played by the second pillar of the CAP, which makes a significant contribution to investment and job creation in rural areas and to enhancing the effectiveness and competitiveness of the farming industry;
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 102 #

2011/0177(APP)

22a. Is firmly opposed to any cut in funding for the second pillar of the CAP, as this would undo the achievements of previous CAP reforms and drastically reduce the policy's efficiency and effectiveness, particularly in the light of the new challenges referred to, inter alia, in the Europe 2020 strategy;
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 108 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Believes that the programme of assistance to the most deprived persons in the Union should continue after 2013; points out that, in addition to providing tangible proof of the fact that the EU feels a responsibility towards its most deprived citizens, the programme has for more than 20 years been helping to ensure EU food security and agricultural market stability, promote a spirit of solidarity and build a civil society, and is thus helping to meet the Europe 2020 strategy goals; takes the view that the Union budget for this purpose should not be cut;
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 118 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
26. Reiterates its position that the new responsibilities conferred on the EU by the Treaties will require appropriate additional funding compared to MFF 2007-2013, so as to allow the Union to fulfil its role as a global actor and ensure its ambitions in promoting democracy, peace, solidarity, stability and poverty reduction in neighbourhood and partner countries, whilst upholding the undertakings it has already given, notably the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals by 2015; underlines the complementary nature of EU assistance to that provided by the Member States, and its catalyst effect in terms of intervening in regions where bilateral assistance is not delivered; is particularly supportive of joint programming between Member States and EU actions;
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 121 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
28. Is of the firm opinion that the financing of these large-scale projects should be securallowed in the EU budget but, at the same time, ring-fenced, so as to ensure that possible cost overruns do not threaten the funding and successful implementation of other Union policies;
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 125 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Title 4
BetterEffective spending
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 130 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
31. Believes that in the present context of public budgetary constraints, the leverage of other sources of funding is absolutely necessary in order to realise the long-term investments that are needed to achieve the goals of the EU 2020 strategy; strongly believes that Union added value is to be found notably in long-term investments that are beyond the reach of individual Member States and that the MFF provides the necessary stable and predictable framework for the investments; highlights, in this respect, the conclusions and recommendations of its resolution on innovative financial instruments in the context of the next Multiannual Financial Framework1; ____________ 1 P7_TA-PROV(2012)XXXX P7_TA-PROV(2012)XXXX
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 160 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
40. Takes the view that the next MFF, a 7- year period set until 2020, should be considered a transitional solution as it makes a clear link with the Europe 2020 strategy; believes, however, that a 5-year period would better align the MFF’s duration with that of the institutions’ terms of office, thereby enhancing democratic accountability and responsibilityprovides for sufficient stability by ensuring the continuity of investments for a longer period and also makes a clear link with the Europe 2020 strategy; believes, however, that this decision should not prejudge the length of the next financial perspectives after 2020;
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 162 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
41. Stresses the need for an obligatory mid- term revision to be enshrined in the MFF regulation, with a specific procedure including a binding calendar ensuring the full involvement of the next Parliament; considers that the Commission should table a legislative proposal enabling the revised MFF to be adopted in time for the 2018 budgetary procedure; stresses that mid- term revision should not affect the pre- allocated funds, in order not to hamper stability of investment prospects and protect the beneficiaries and stability of long-term programming and investments;
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 176 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
53. Strongly requestsEncourage the Member States to make a firm commitment toreflect on the incorporation of the European Development Fund into the EU budget as of 2021;
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 183 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58
58. Reaffirms its basic position, as stated in its resolution of 13 June 2012, that it is not prepared to give its consent to the next MFF regulation without political agreement on reform of the own resources system, in line with the Commission’s proposals of 29 June 2011; believes that such a reform should aim at reducing the share of Member States’ GNI-based contributions to the EU budget to 40 % by 2020, thereby contributing to the consolidation efforts of Member States;
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 187 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59 – point 3
3) those Member States willing to introduce a financial transaction tax must now proceed with a formal request to the Commission for a proposal on enhanced cooperation in this field; the Commission will then have to react immediately with the publication of such a proposal together with a set of revised proposals on the own resources package, in order to ensure that revenues from this tax are wholly or partly allocated to the EU Budget as an genuine own resource, thus reducing the national contributions of those Member States introducing this tax;
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 191 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59 – point 6
6) in the event that implementation of the new own resources does not result in a significant decrease in Member States’ GNI-based contributions to the EU budget, the Commission will come forward with additional proposals on new own resources.deleted
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 196 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62
62. Expresses its readiness to enter into substantial discussions with the Council on both the MFF regulation and the IIA, and asks the Council to intensify contacts at all levels with a view to the 22-23 November European Council; stresses the need to reach the final agreement on MFF as soon as possible, as any delay would adversely affect the possibility of the effective use of EU budget expenditures in view of current challenges ahead of European economies, stemming from the financial crisis;
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 199 #

2011/0177(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 64 a (new)
64 a. Opposes any attempt to include policy related provisions under the ordinary legislative procedure into the MFF negotiations;
2012/10/05
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 44 #

2011/0167(NLE)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs therefore calls on the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to recommend that Parliament declines to consent to the conclusion of ACTA.
2012/05/21
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2 #

2010/2300(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Shares the view that budget support can help in building mechanisms to fight corruption if the conditions for a transparent and fully accountable budgetary management are in place and performance indicators have been agreed;
2011/04/18
Committee: AFET
Amendment 6 #

2010/2300(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Is of the opinion that development strategies must be designed by recipient governments themselves, in consultation with a broad spectrum of civil society and in close cooperation with international donors, and must be agreed by national parliaments; further, that civil society and parliamentarians must be involved throughout every stage of implementation, monitoring and the evaluation of results, that this process must be transparent, allowing for a regular and effective dialogue with civil society and that this requirement must be a decisive eligibility criterion for budget support;
2011/04/18
Committee: AFET
Amendment 9 #

2010/2300(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that the Council and Parliament as co-legislators must be able to make full use of their right of scrutiny in relation to delegated acts, including their revocation, since the use of budget support is an important strategic decision in the Union's relation with its partner countries, Article 290 TFEU (delegated acts) must apply to the definition of the eligibility criteria for this aid modality, giving the Council and Parliament, as co- legislators, full co-decision powers over its adoption, including - if necessary - the right of revocation of the delegated act;
2011/04/18
Committee: AFET
Amendment 11 #

2010/2300(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Reiterates that budget support should be spent in pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals and not for any politically strategic reason or in furtherpoverty reduction, including the pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals; expresses its support for results-based incentives but emphasises that variances of the economic, security- policy or geostrategic interests of the donors; emphasises that it must be given within a long-term predictable time frame and must not be tied to harmful economic-policy conditions such as privatisation, cutdisbursement must be predictable as far as possible so as not to impact negatively on budgetary planning; reiterates that budget support should only be granted to countries meeting and upholding minimum standards of governance and respect for human rights; underlines that conditions lin the public sector or trade liberalisationked to macro-economic reforms must be compatible with human and social development;
2011/04/18
Committee: AFET
Amendment 17 #

2010/2300(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. States that the effectiveness of development-policy measures in the partner countries must be checked on the basis of local criteriafully take into consideration local conditions;
2011/04/18
Committee: AFET
Amendment 19 #

2010/2300(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
8. Emphasises the crucial and compulsory role of policy coherence; states that budget support may have as little positive effect as any other development-policy instrument so long aswill only have a real and lasting positive effect if development-unfriendly concepts areaction is pursued in other EU policy areas; therefore urges reviews of EU trade policy – in particular reformulation of the mandates for negotiationunderlines in this context the need for EU trade policy to help creating a level playing field and to support trade capacities oin economic partnership, association and other bi- regional agreements – as well as EU foreign and security policy, with a view to promotingdeveloping countries considering that trade can be one of the most effective drivers of economic growth and development; further calls for the EU foreign and security policy to focus on the promotion of democracy and human rights, peace and security, all key preconditions for sustainable development;
2011/04/18
Committee: AFET
Amendment 22 #

2010/2300(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Member States to fulfilcomply with their commitment to gradually reach the agreed target of spending 0.7% of GDP on development cooperation;
2011/04/18
Committee: AFET
Amendment 14 #

2010/2269(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 a (new)
- having regard to Joint Declaration of the Prague Eastern Partnership Summit of 7 May 2009 inaugurating the Eastern Partnership,
2011/02/18
Committee: AFET
Amendment 60 #

2010/2269(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas the exploitation of irregular migration is also combined with arms smuggling and drug trafficking - with an alarming strengthening of linkages between drug traffickers in Latin America and in States in West and Central Africa - and coincides with escape routes and enhanced mobility for terrorist groups, which can easily relocate to other regions and countries to pursue their activities; whereas the exploitation of irregular migration is a knownone of the sources of funding for radical and terrorist groups,
2011/02/18
Committee: AFET
Amendment 73 #

2010/2269(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I
I. whereas the EU, in view of the current demographic trends, urgently needs to reflect on how much it wants to open up its borders to migratory flows from countries of origin and transit in order to offset their internal demographic and social tensions, thus helping them maintain their internal stability, and how much it needs to invest in a renewed economic agenda for such countries, including an agenda focused on job creation,
2011/02/18
Committee: AFET
Amendment 76 #

2010/2269(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I
I. whereas the EU urgently needs to reflect on how much it wants to open up its borders to migratory flows from countries of origin and transit in order to offset their internal demographic and social tensions, thus helping them maintain their internal stability, and how much it needs to invest in a renewed economic agenda for such countries, including an agenda focused on job creation,
2011/02/18
Committee: AFET
Amendment 84 #

2010/2269(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital K
K. whereas tensions between countries of origin and transit and between receiving and transit countries concerning the management of migratory flows could become a source of potential conflictdisagreements in the future,
2011/02/18
Committee: AFET
Amendment 90 #

2010/2269(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)
La. whereas the European Union needs to develop an efficient and wise migration policy similar to the ones implemented in Canada, Australia or New Zealand; whereas instability in the neighbouring regions jeopardises the creation of such a migration policy,
2011/02/18
Committee: AFET
Amendment 105 #

2010/2269(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that against a background of increasing multilateralism with several international players and major donors, such as the EU, the US, Japan, China and, potentially, in a longer term perspective, other BRIC countries, such as Brazil and India, stability and security are a shared objective and an essential pre-condition for global economic growth; notes, further, that the stability and security challenges are such that they require not only relevant resources, at a time of budget constraints, but also economies of scale and coordinated efforts; believes that a reflection should be started on an active dialogue between the EU, the US, Japan and China and international financial institutions on coordinated geographical and thematic security, stability and aid strategies, which would make for collective leverage and a more balanced, targeted and efficient allocation of resources while ensuring fair burden-sharing; believes, also in the light of the recent White House foreign aid review, which highlighted the value of aid coordination with other major donors, that a first important step towards such a reflection could be an EU-US summit on enhanced cooperation on humanitarian and development aid to identify, from a transatlantic perspective, shared areas of interest and the foundations of policy coordination;
2011/02/18
Committee: AFET
Amendment 109 #

2010/2269(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that support for politically and economically fragile states, as a source of irregular migration and security and stability tensions, should always include, in addition to budgetary relief and support, direct investment and EU market- access strategies, rural development and food security strategies, job-creation policies, infrastructure development, and strategies geared to promoting democratisation and good governance, social inclusion and religious tolerance, thereby maximising local prospects and alternatives for potential migrants; firmly believes that such strategies must be based on active partnerships which draw on the principles of ownership and empowerment of the beneficiary countries, but also on targets, clear roadmaps and conditions for their achievement co-defined with donor countries, and on benchmarks and strict accountability standards;
2011/02/18
Committee: AFET
Amendment 117 #

2010/2269(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Underlines that any research and analysis of the future migration trends, forms of migration as short-term migration, circular migration, and seasonal migration should take into account possible triggers of migration such as the political and economic crisis or climate change in the countries of origin;
2011/02/18
Committee: AFET
Amendment 122 #

2010/2269(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that in its resolution of 21 September 2010 on poverty reduction and job creation in developing countries: the way forward*1 Parliament emphasised that the EU should not hesitate to apply sanctions when developing countries fail to respect their governance obligations under trade agreements, asked the EU authorities to ensure scrupulous respect for the principle of conditionality, as stipulated in the Cotonou Agreement, and emphasised that the same conditionality criteria should apply to the provision of support under both the European Development Fund (EDF) and the Financing Instrument for Development Cooperation (DCI); stresses that similar conditionality criteria also should apply to EU assistance other than development assistance and humanitarian aid, including the macro financial aid provided via IMF loans as well as lending operations by the EIB and EBRD programmes, and that such assistance should be based on partnership, shared objectives and values and allegiance and should be able to fulfil the expectations of both the donor and the beneficiary and that it should not 1 Texts adopted, P7_TA-PROV(2010)0327. be ‘cost-free’ for beneficiary countries to receive active support from the EU and then disregard with no consequences EU core values; asks the VP/HR and the Commission to pursue the objective of allegiance to the EU and its core values when shaping the architecture of EU financial assistance and in bilateral relations with countries which are beneficiaries of such assistance; believes that a reflection should be started at EU level on the bases of and scope of application of conditionality criteria to EU financial assistance;
2011/02/18
Committee: AFET
Amendment 137 #

2010/2269(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses the value of EU election observation missions as the first important step in any process of democratisation and good governance, and believes that such missions should be part of a broader framework of support for a long-term democratisation process; highlights the importance of mediation and conflict- prevention and resolution strategies and of institution- and capacity-building for regional organisations, such as the African Union (AU), which plays an important role in peace-keeping and peace-building operations; believes that the support for the AU should include the development of an effective border-control capacity and support for its capacity to fight the exploitation of irregular migration and to provide relief for irregular migrants in situations of distress; considers that the effective strengthening of regional organisations such as the AU, Union for the Mediterranean or the Eastern Partnership as multipliers of regional peace and stability will foster regional integration and the emergence of cross- border economic areas;
2011/02/18
Committee: AFET
Amendment 152 #

2010/2269(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission to consider as part of its ongoing review of the ENP the provision of specific funding for the development of a renewed, strong economic agenda in ENP countries, including an employment agenda; believes that a roadmap should be discussed with ENP countries on the alignment of their national migration laws with EU standards, including human rights standards, such as the right to asylum, a protection system for irregular migrants and equal rights for all migrants, return management procedures; encourages the conclusion of more mobility partnership agreements with ENP countries, in addition to the existing ones with Moldova and Georgia;
2011/02/18
Committee: AFET
Amendment 154 #

2010/2269(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
1 OJ L 50, 25.2.2003.8a. Calls on the Commission to develop a comprehensive approach to legal migration, taking into consideration the need of the European labour market for a labour force as well as the capacities of each member state to receive and integrate migrants; believes that a common EU policy on legal migration can be a stimulus for both the European economy and for the economies of the countries of origin; Or. en
2011/02/18
Committee: AFET
Amendment 157 #

2010/2269(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the VP/HR to promote, within the foreign affairs Ministerial Conference of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) as well as within the Eastern Partnership initiative (EaP), the issue of migration, and its implications, as a priority issue for discussion and action within the framework of the UfM and EaP;
2011/02/18
Committee: AFET
Amendment 160 #

2010/2269(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Commission, when preparing the new external action instruments for the period after 2013, to ensure that the proposed architecture allows for synergies and mutual reinforcement between the development pillar and the security and stability pillar and provides for the rapid allocation of emergency and recovery funds, a rapid response to provide relief for migrants in a situation of distress with special regard to the situation of women and children, specific programmes to provide active support for religious minorities which may be under threat, and support measures to mitigate the consequences of climate change and preserve the economic and social environment of affected communities;
2011/02/18
Committee: AFET
Amendment 203 #

2010/2124(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)
29a. Calls on the VP/HR to intensify talks with Russia to assure the unconditional fulfilment of all the provisions of the agreement of 2008 between Russia, the European Union and Georgia; takes the view Russia that should, in particular, guarantee full unlimited access of the European Union Monitoring Mission (EUMM) to Abkhazia and South Ossetia; underlines the necessity to provide stability in aforementioned Georgian regions;
2011/03/07
Committee: AFET
Amendment 53 #

2010/0101(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 16
(16) EIB activity in Neighbourhood countries should take place in the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy, under which the EU aims to develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries with a view to establishing an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the EU and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on co-operation. To achieve these objectives the EU and its partners implement jointly agreed bilateral Action Plans defining a set of priorities including on political and security issues, trade and economic matters, environmental concerns and integration of transport and energy networks. The Union for the Mediterranean, the Eastern Partnership, and the Black Sea Synergy are multilateral and regional initiatives complementary to the European Neighbourhood Policy aimed at fostering co-operation between the EU and the respective group of neighbouring partner countries facing common challenges and/or sharing a common geographical environment. The Union for the Mediterranean supports improved socio-economic, solidarity, regional integration, sustainable development and knowledge building, underlining the need to increase financial co-operation to support regional and trans-national projects. The Eastern Partnership aims to create the necessary conditions to accelerate political association and further economic integration between the EU and Eastern Partner countries, which cannot be achieved unless all Eastern Partnership countries adhere to the principles of democracy, the rule of law and the respect for human rights. Therefore, the scope of the EIB's engagement with these countries should depend on their progress in those areas. The Russian Federation and the EU have a wide-ranging Strategic Partnership, distinct from the European Neighbourhood Policy and expressed through the Common Spaces and Roadmaps. This is complemented at multilateral level by the Northern Dimension which provides a framework for co-operation between the EU, Russia, Norway and Iceland.
2010/10/15
Committee: AFET
Amendment 7 #

2008/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas, although subcontracting has many positive aspects and has allowed for increased productive capacity, it is also generating some economic and social imbalances among workers and might foster a race to the bottom in working conditions, which is a matter of concern,
2008/12/12
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 9 #

2008/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G
G. whereas, subcontracting may also be carried out by pure manpower firms that sometimes operate as so-called letterbox companies, which highlights the nature of the construction industry as a sector of rapidly changing, often fixed term employment relationships where the position of workers is often precarious,
2008/12/12
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 14 #

2008/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H
H. whereas, in a cross border context, the problems linked to this precarious position are emphasised when, for example, workers are posted to a third Member State,deleted
2008/12/12
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 16 #

2008/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I
I. whereas employment relations in thethe externalisation of activities and/or labour forces through sub- construaction sector have been redefined and, at the same time, haveng or employment agencies may reduced the direct social responsibility of the 'principal contractor', as labour has been externalised by the use of subcontractors and employment agencies, making the supply of cheap, often unskilled labour an integral part of lower level subcontractingcompanies, when used extensively,
2008/12/12
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 20 #

2008/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J
J. whereas, the constructionsome sectors hasve been especially vulnerable to abuses in itstheir often complicated subcontracting chains,
2008/12/12
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 23 #

2008/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Reiterates its invitation to the Commission to put forward a proposal on social labelling, based on criteria such as compliance with core labour standards, social rights, employee training and equal treatment;deleted
2008/12/12
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 31 #

2008/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on public aBelieves that past non-compliance with statuthorities to adopty labour law or furother develop legal provisions which exclude from public procurement undertakings found to have infringed labour law, collective agreements or codes of conducapplicable regulations and legislation should be taken into account as part of the selection process in public procurement;
2008/12/12
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 36 #

2008/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Takes note of the Commission's proposal for a Directive providing for sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals, in which the Commission introduces the idea of joint and several liability into Community legislation;
2008/12/12
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 40 #

2008/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes the fact that eight Member States (Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain) have respondedtried to solve to the problems connected with the duties of subcontractors as employers by establishing national liability schemes; encourages other Member States to consider similar schemecommends the introduction of voluntary codes of practice developed in some Member States by the relevant stakeholders;
2008/12/12
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 44 #

2008/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Emphasises the particular challenges faced by small businesses, calls on policymakers to develop appropriate tools to raise awareness in this sector;
2008/12/12
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 45 #

2008/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Reminds all stakeholders that, in its aforementioned resolution on the posting of workers, Parliament called on the Commission to regulate the joint and several liability of general or principal undertakings, in order to deal withconsider abuses in the subcontracting and outsourcing of cross- border workers, and to set up a transparent and competitive internal market for all companies;
2008/12/12
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 47 #

2008/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Reiterates its message by calling on the Commission to establish a clear-cut Community legal instrument introducing joint and several liability at European level whilst respecting the different legal systems in place in the Member States and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionalityCalls on the Commission to report on joint and several liability at European level;
2008/12/12
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 51 #

2008/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Is convinced that such an instrumentinformation and exchange of best practices would benefit not only employees, but also Member State authorities, employers and especially SMEs in their fight against the grey economy, as clear, transparent Community rules would drive dubious operators out of the market, thus improving the functioning of the single market;
2008/12/12
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 53 #

2008/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Believes that the scope of the liability prescribed in such an instrument should include at least wages, social security contributions and taxes;deleted
2008/12/12
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 61 #

2008/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Warns also against conflicts and overlapping between, and duplication of provisions found in codes of conduct and in labour law, codes of conduct, standards and guidelines adopted by public authorities and collective agreements in force; for this reason, emphasises the need for undertakings to adhere, as a matter of priority, to codes of conduct, standards and guidelines drafted at the level of supranational organisations (OECD, ILO), national, or sector level;
2008/12/12
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 64 #

2008/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Stresses that the fight against the potential negative social consequences of subcontracting can be tacklstrengthened by enhanced social dialogue between employers' organisations and trade unions, also with the participation of socially active NGOs and civil society organisations.
2008/12/12
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 8 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. Whereas the Commission's report on industrial relations in Europe 2006 shows that highly developed collective bargaining has a positiven influence on social inclusion,
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 18 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. Whereas the objective of the PWD – to provide for a climate of fair competition and measures guaranteeing respect for the rights of workers – is more important than ever; in an economic era in which transnational provision of services is expanding, the PWD is expected to play a key-role in protecting the posted workers concerned, while respecting the framework of labour law and industrial relations of Member States,
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 24 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G
G. Whereas the nucleus provisions in Article 3(1) of the PWD consists of international mandatory rules which the MS have commonly agreed upon; the public order provisions in Article 3(10) also consist of international mandatory rules but un such a way that MS themselves can define them; the use of Article 3(10) is important for MS to be able to consider a variety of labour market, social policy and other concerns including protection of workers, with a respect for principle of equal treatment,
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 30 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J
J. Whereas the European Council has set up principles to create labour market models that have as well as a high level of security as a high level of flexibility, the so called flexicurity model; it is recognised that an important part of a successful flexicurity model includes strong social partners with a significant scope for collective bargaining,
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 32 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital K
K. Whereas the Albany judgement (C- 67/96) in the field of competition law gave substantial and large space for trade unions to regulate labour market issues; in fact, at that time the ECJ rejected the direct horizontal effect for competition rules on collective bargaining,
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 36 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L
L. Whereas the ECJ in both the Laval and Rüffert cases made a completely different interpretation of European legislation than the advocate general,deleted
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 53 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital N
N. Whereas the ECJ in the Rüffert case has significantly diminished the scope for Member States to regulate their collective bargaining and also narrows down the purpose of the PWD, neglecting the PWD’s two fold aim – protection of workers and free movementdemonstrates in which way regions could regulate their collective bargaining,
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 58 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital 0
O. Whereas the ECJ in the Viking case introduces a horizontal direct effect of Articles 43 and 49 which can be used by employers and service providers to challenge collective agreements and industrial actions with a cross-border effect; the autonomy for collective bargaining from competition rules is thereby not extended to the field of free movement with a risk that industrial relations in the Member States will be put under legal scrutiny; consequently, this new uncertainty in industrial relations could result in a “flood” of cases to the ECJ,deleted
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 69 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines that the freedom to provide services is a cornerstone of the European project; however, this has to be balanced against fundamental rights and the possibility for governments and trade unions to ensure non-discrimination and equal treatment;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 81 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 f (new)
1f. Underlines that the internal market is characterized by that the obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is abolished between the MS, as well as by an open market economy with free competition;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 89 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises that the freedom to provide services is not superior to the fundamental right for trade unions to take industrial action; especially, since this is a constitutional right in several Member StatesECJ has ruled that the right for trade unions to take industrial action must be recognised as a fundamental right; however, the exercise of that may non the less be subject to restrictions as emphasized by the ECJ;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 97 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Emphasises that the freedom to conduct a business in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices is spelled out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights; however notes that the right of collective bargaining, equally mentioned in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be conducted in accordance with Union law and national law and practices and is equally limited through the proportionality principle as spelled out by the Court of Justice in the Viking case;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 102 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the Lisbon treaty and the fact that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is made legally binding; this includes the right of trade unions to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels and, in cases of conflicts of interest, to take collective ac concerning wages and working conditions, to defend their interests including strike actionof worker;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 107 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that Article 3(7) of the PWD clearly states that trade unions should be able to demand terms and conditions of employment which are more favourable to workersstates that Article 3(1-6) shall not prevent application of terms and conditions of employment which are more favourable to workers; also stresses that, according to the ECJ as stated in the Laval case, this article cannot be interpreted as allowing the host Member State to make the provision of services in its territory conditional on the observance of terms and conditions of employment which go beyond the mandatory rules for minimum protection;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 111 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Points outStresses that recital 22 in the PWD states that provisions laid down in the PWD should have no effecthe directive is without prejudice to the law of the Member States concerning collective action to defend the interests of trades and professions; equally stresses that the ECJ stated in the Laval case that the right to take collective action falls within the scope of application of Community law and therefore must be justified by an overriding reason of public interest and be proportionate; emphasizes in that con the right to take industrial actitext that the ECJ has ruled that the right to take collective action for the protection of the workers constitute such an overriding reason;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 118 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Emphasises that equal treatment, equal pay for equal work as well as Articles 39 and 12 of the EC Treaty form the foundation of EC law which needs to be restoredthe PWD did not harmonise the material content of the mandatory rules for minimum protection and that that content may accordingly be freely defined by the Member States in compliance with the Treaty and the general principles of Community law;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 122 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Emphasises that treatment as well as Article 39 of the EC Treaty form the foundation of EC law as regards the free movement of workers; however that Article 39 and the principle of equal treatment do not apply to workers posted on a temporary basis to another Member State for the purposes of providing services there to which the PWD and Article 49 apply;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 124 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines the importance of not allowing the verdicts to negatively effectsupport for labour market models that already today are able to combine a high degree of flexibility on the labour market with a high level of security and, instead, of further promoting this approach;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 129 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Underlines that the verdicts fully respect the different labour market models that combine a high degree of flexibility on the labour market with a high level of security;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 137 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Underlines that the intention of the legislator in the PWD and Service Directive is not reflected in the ECJ verdicts, which, instead of protecte fact that the ECJ is the ultimate interpreter of the Community legislation, equally underlines that its verdicts are binding precedents, meant for the national court asking wforkers, is inviting unfair competition between companies; companies that sign and follow collective agreements will have a competitive disadvantage to companies that refuse to do so the preliminary ruling according to the principle of loyalty in article 10 of the Treaty; this in order to guarantee the equal application of community law in all Member States;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 147 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Regretsiterates the fact that all conditions imposed on foreign employers above minimum levels are seen as obstacles to free movement, if employees do not already receive more favourable conditions in the country of origin;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 153 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Underlines that the PWD seeks to bring about the freedom to provide services, which is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty, while guaranteeing the adequate protection of posted workers, and that a proportionate balance between these interests must be maintained;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 159 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. QuestionNotes the introduction of a proportionality principle in the Viking case forwhich applies when the right to use collective action is exercised against undertakings which, when using make use of the rights of establishment or the right to provide services across borders, deliberately undercut terms and conditions of employment; such a proportionality principle is not compatible with the character of this right as a fundamental right; there should be no question about the right of trade unions to use industrial action to uphold equal treatment and secure decent working conditions;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 168 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Emphasises that the PWD as interpreted by the ECJ would prevent demands for equal pay for work for all workers regardless of their nationality or that of their employer in the place where the service is provided; this runs counter to the principle of nprinciple of equal pay and of non-discrimination which are established in the Treaty will continue to apply with regard to workers moving to another Member State to seek for a job or take up employment there, and that trade unions will continue to have the right to take action to uphold equal treatment and secure decent working con-discrimination which is established in the Treaty especially with regard to the mobility of workerstions at national level for migrant workers; takes for granted that the ECJ does not pronounce itself in a way counter to the non-discriminatory principle;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 178 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Regrets the fact that even though the PWD was formulated as a minimum standard directive,Acknowledges that the ECJ determrulinegs that those minimum standards must be regarded as the maximum in the context of the Laval judgement; this approachin the Viking, Laval and Rüffert cases have causesd great concerns as to whether any directives decided on the basis of a minimum approach are regarded as valid; if all directives in the social dimension were to be reformulated as maximum directives, as in the case of the PWD, the consequences would be enormous;the way how minimum harmonisation directives must be interpreted.
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 179 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. RegretEmphasises the fact that even though the PWD was formulated as a minimum standard directive, the ECJ does not determines that those minimum standards must be regarded as the maximum in the context of the Laval judgement; this approach causes great concerns as to whether any directives decided on the basis of a minimum approach are regarded as valid; if all directives in the social dimension were to be reformulated as maximum directives, as in the case of the PWD, the consequences would be enormous;,
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 182 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Underlines that the ECJ is the ultimate interpreter of the PWD and all other EC legislation and that the ECJ takes into account in particular the objective and the legal base in the Treaty when interpreting EC legislation;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 183 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13b. Recalls that the PWD seeks to bring about the freedom to provide services, and that it has to be interpreted, like all directives adopted on an internal market legal basis, in the light of the rules of the Treaty on the freedom to provide services as interpreted by the ECJ, whilst taking into account other objectives pursued by EC legislation, such as social policy objectives;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 186 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. RegretNotes that the social considerations referred to in Articles 26 and 27 in Directive 2004/18, do not include terms and conditions of employment which go beyond the mandatory rules for minimum protectionare not compatible with EC law, and in particular with the PWD;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 193 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Is of the opinion that the limited legal basis of free movement of the PWD has led the ECJ to interpret the PWD in this way, creating an explicit invitation to unfair competition on wages and working conditions driving them downwards, which is in clear contradiction to the stated aim ofUnderlines that the PWD seeks in particular to bring about the freedom to provide services, while guaranteeing the adequate protection of workers posted on a temporary basis for the purpose of providing services in another Member States; stresses that the effect of the Laval judgement is surely to reinforce the message that posted workers must be afforded the minimum protection granted by the Directive, including the minimum pay rate; this is because, as emphasized by the ECJ in the Laval case, the PWD (seeks to ensure a climate of fair competition) and the objective of the EU as established in the Treaty (improvement of living and working conditions); therefo between national undertakings and undertakings which provide services on a temporary basis insofar as it require,s the legal basis of the PWD must be broadened to include a reference to the free movement of workersatter to afford their workers the mandatory rules of ,minimum protection laid down in the host Member State;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 203 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises that the current situation could lead to a situation where workers in host countries will be pressured by low wage competition; this, in turn, could lead to xenophobia and counterproductive anUnderlines that one of the main purposes of the European Union is to create an internal market for services; is of the conviction that the citizens in the European Union welcome European integration; firmly underlines that xenophobic behaviour is a marginal phenomenon which should be strongly discouragerd against the EUnd combated;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 217 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Regrets that the ECJ fails to consider ILO convention 94, and fears that the ECJ judgement in Rüffert may impede the ratification of ILO 94; this would be counter to the further development of social clauses in public procurement regulations, which is an aim of the Public procurement directive 2004Underlines that Member States can only implement international conventions that are in line with EC legislation;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 222 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Regrets that the ECJ fails to recognise ILO conventions 87 and 98; restrictions on the right to industrial action and fundamental rights can only be motivated with respect to health, public order and similar concerns;deleted
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 234 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Underlines that the ECJ has interpreted EU legislation in a way that was not the intention of the legislators; calls on the Commission, the Council and the EP to take immediate action to ensure the necessary changes in EU legislation to change the new practise of the ECJ;deleted
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 252 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Therefore calls on the Commission to take immediate action to make necessary changes in European legislrecommend the Member States to enhance their administrative cooperation in order to counfacilitater the possible detrimental social, economical and political effects of the ECJ judgementseffective implementation and enforcement of the Community legislation in this field;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 254 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Underlines that the ECJ rulings in the cases of Viking, Laval and Rüffert do not necessitate a change of EC legislation; a call for a change of legislation after each ECJ ruling will cause imbalance in the division of the democratic powers within, and principles of, the European Union;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 258 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Therefore welcomes the Commission's statement from 3 April 2008 which clearly states that they will continue to fight social dumpprovide "easily accessible, accurate and up to date information" to competent authorities and other actors involved, such as social partners, undertakings and that the freedom to provide services is not superior to the fundamental rights of trade unionsworkers "to prevent emergence of conflicts, problematic situations and abuses"; this should help in creating a climate of mutual trust and confidence;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 270 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Therefore calls on the Commission to review the PWD and consider the following issues: - a new legal basis for the PWD to better protect workers; workers posted within the framework of services should be regarded as using the right of freedom of movement of workers and not the free movement of services; - a possibility in the Directive for Member States to refer in law or collective agreements to the 'habitual wages' applicable in the place of work in the host country as defined in the ILO 94 and not only ‘minimum’ rates of pay; - a limit to the period of time during which workers can be considered as being 'posted' to a Member State other than the Member State of their ordinary place of work in the framework of services; after that period the rules on free movement of workers should apply, i.e. host country rules with regard to wages and working conditions have full application; - an even clearer expression that the Directive and other EU legislation do not prohibit: - ensure that the PWD is correctly implemented and applied in all Member States; - intensify work with Member States with a view to enhance cooperation between competent national authorities of different Member States and in particular to set up an electronic system for exchange of information which could enable Member States and trade unions from demanding more favourable conditions for the worker; and - the recognition of a wider range of methods of organizing labour markets than those currently covered by Article 3(8)in particular to combat abuses more effectively;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 286 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Considers that Parliament, the Council andAsks the Commission shouldto adopt measures to combat letterbox-companies, undertakings not engaged in any genuine and meaningful business in the country of origin but created, sometimes even directly by the main contractor in the host country, for the sole purpose of offering ‘services’ to the host country, to avoid the full application of host country rules and regulations especially with regard to wages and working conditions;
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 293 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
25. Would welcome a move to summarize the social clauses that exist in the Monti directive and in the Service directive in a social clause, either through a protocol attached to the Treaty or in an inter- institutional agreement;deleted
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL
Amendment 298 #

2008/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Welcomes conclusions of the Council adopted on 10 June 2008 which: - states that "the Directive [...] provides guarantees for the respect of a significant level of protection of the rights of posted workers, but also plays a key role in establishing a climate of fair competition between all service providers by guaranteeing a level playing field"; - calls on MS to "enhance the administrative cooperation necessary to improve the practical implementation of Directive";
2008/06/10
Committee: EMPL