19 Amendments of Maria da Assunção ESTEVES
Amendment 4 #
2008/2063(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 - point b
Paragraph 4 - point b
b) establishing permanent and deeper relations with European and national judges and legislators on matters of shared competencies with Member States.
Amendment 8 #
2008/2063(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. In the transitional period Parliament so as to allow full judicial scrutiny. This could be the case for measures such as the recasting of the framework decision on terrorism. Therefore, all third pillar pending proposals that have a limited impact on fundamental rights and freedoms may be adopted without delay, e.g. the framework decisions on the enforcement of decisions rendered in absentia, the decision on the strengthening of Eurojust,will face several changes in the form will face several changes in the form and and substance of pending legislation. substance of pending legislation. For the For the Committee on Civil Liberties, Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Justice and Home Affairs,Parliament Home Affairs,Parliament should maintain should maintain its insistence on its insistence on reaching an inter- reaching an inter-institutional institutional agreement, which, on pending agreement on the freezing of the 3rd pillar legislative proposals, should adoption of pending 3rd pillar provide for the equivalence of the legislative proposals with a consultation procedure at first reading fundamental rights dimension until with the codecision on the European Judicial Network. All these files are importaprocedure, so as to the entry into for the improvement of judicial cooperationce of the new Treaty, allow full judicial scrutiny.
Amendment 9 #
2008/2063(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16-A. Where Member States make use of the emergency blockage procedure provided for in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for penal matters (Articles 82(3) and 83(3)), the chair of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs shall send a message in writing to the European Council expressing the current position reached in its debates.
Amendment 30 #
2008/2063(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 74
Paragraph 74
Amendment 51 #
2008/2063(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 95 a (new)
Paragraph 95 a (new)
95a. Undertakes to play its part in strengthening the economic governance of the EU with a view to producing a common response to the challenges of globalisation;
Amendment 56 #
2008/2063(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 97 a (new)
Paragraph 97 a (new)
97a. Pledges to adapt its internal organisation with a view to optimising and rationalising the exercise of the new powers conferred on it by the Treaty;
Amendment 1 #
Amendment 3 #
2007/2205(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. amend paragraph 5 to read as follows: “5. Considers that court procedures which allow the European Parliament to take part in legal proceedings concerning Parliament’s own prerogatives before national judges should be developed;”
Amendment 4 #
2007/2205(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
“A. whereas the European Parliament has no legal personality; whereas it is, as such,is often impeded in protecting its prerogatives before national courts from problems that are peculiar to its special nature;”
Amendment 5 #
2007/2205(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. amend recital B to read as follows: “B. whereas the European Parliament in this regard has a range of remedies available to it under the Treaty which ensure that the aforementioned prerogatives are protected vis-à-vis the other Community institutions, such as proceedings for failure to act (Article 232 of the EC Treaty) and proceedings for the annulment of Community acts (Article 230 of the EC Treaty),”
Amendment 6 #
2007/2205(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. amend recital D to read as follows: “D. whereas the European Parliament has no power either to directly initiate infringement proceedings (Article 226 of the EC Treaty) against a Member State, since it can do so only through the Commission (deletion),”
Amendment 7 #
2007/2205(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. amend recital E to read as follows: “E. whereas the lack of appropriate instruments with which to defend its own decisions can hamper the effectiveness of the European Parliament as a political and legislative body,”
Amendment 8 #
2007/2205(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 d (new)
Paragraph 5 d (new)
5d. amend recital J to read as follows: “J. whereas the European Parliament must be granted means of protecting its prerogatives vis-à-vis the judicial power, be that power represented by the Court of Justice or by the national courts, by analogy with the safeguards provided for by the national legal orders to the benefit of their national parliaments,”
Amendment 16 #
2007/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Draws attention to the fact that an active rights policy cannot be confined to those cases that receive the greatest public exposure and that serious rights violations are not subject to critical public scrutiny, in closed institutions for juveniles, the elderly and the sick and in prisons; stresses that the Member States and the European Union should ensure expert monitoring of living conditions in such closed institutions, in terms of both regulations and practices;
Amendment 38 #
2003/0270(CNS)
Recital 25
(25) The EEW should coexist with existing mutual assistance procedures, but such coexistence should be considered transitional until, in accordance with the Hague Programme, the types of evidence- gathering excluded from the scope of this Framework Decision are also the subject of a mutual recognition instrument, the adoption of which would provide a complete mutual recognition regime to replace mutual assistance procedures. The European Commission should at the earliest opportunity present proposals aimed at completing the framework for recognition of criminal evidence, while also consolidating the legislation already adopted. The Commission is also invited to boost efforts to harmonise the system for obtaining evidence in the Member States. Harmonisation represents the best foundation for cooperation in criminal matters.
Amendment 39 #
2003/0270(CNS)
Article 4 − paragraph 6
Amendment 43 #
2003/0270(CNS)
Article 12 − paragraph 1 a (new)
The issuing State shall require that the executing State record the data relating to the procedure for obtaining evidence from the time when the warrant is executed until its transfer to the issuing State.
Amendment 51 #
2003/0270(CNS)
Article 18 - paragraph 1
1. Member States shall put in place the necessary arrangements to ensure that any interested party, including bona fide third parties, have legal remedies against the recognition and execution of an EEW pursuant to Article 11, in order to preserve their legitimate interests. Member States may limit the legal remedies provided for in this paragraph to cases in which the EEW is executed using coercive measures. In this context, the person concerned may in turn request further evidence, which may itself be the subject of an EEW. The action shall be brought before a court in the executing State in accordance with the law of that State.
Amendment 52 #
2003/0270(CNS)
Article 23 − paragraph 1
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with the provisions of this Framework Decision by ... * and they shall do everything they can to agree on a Framework Decision on procedural safeguards for defendants, including in relation to the collection and admissibility of evidence, before that date. The Framework Decision on procedural safeguards shall even be a condition for the entry into force of this Framework Decision.