281 Amendments of Martin EHRENHAUSER
Amendment 7 #
2014/2010(ACI)
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Regrets that this revision did not lead to the introduction of a mandatory Transparency Register;
Amendment 11 #
2014/2010(ACI)
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Insists that the next review of the Transparency Register is accompanied by a public consultation;
Amendment 21 #
2014/2010(ACI)
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Insists that law firms falling within the scope of the Transparency Register declare in the Register all their clients on whose behalf they lobby;
Amendment 22 #
2014/2010(ACI)
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Calls on the Commission to introduce the following incentives: (a) change its current Code of Good Administrative Behaviour and the Code of Conduct for Commissioners by the end of 2014 in order to impede meetings of Commissioners and Commission officials with unregistered interest representatives falling within the scope of the Register; (b) ensure that Commission Staff and Commissioners shall refrain from speaking at events (co-) organised or (co- )hosted by unregistered interest representatives falling within the scope of the Transparency Register; (c) change its current rules of funding by the end of 2014 so that unregistered interest representatives covered by the scope of the Register are not eligible for EU funding;
Amendment 23 #
2014/2010(ACI)
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Calls on the Commission to introduce the following incentive: – not to give unregistered interest representatives falling within the scope of the Register the opportunity to hold debates, hearings, conferences or other events on the premises of the Commission;
Amendment 24 #
2014/2010(ACI)
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Calls on the Commission to introduce the following incentives: (a) to exclude unregistered interest representatives falling within the scope of the Transparency Register from its advisory bodies and expert groups; (b) not to grant its Patronage for any events organised by a unregistered interest representative falling within the scope of the Transparency Register;
Amendment 26 #
2014/2010(ACI)
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Welcomes the intention of the Bureau to introduce a significant number of incentive measures in order to enhance participation in the Transparency Register; regrets the vague wording concerning the incentives in the draft Interinstitutional Agreement on the Transparency Register;
Amendment 29 #
2014/2010(ACI)
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 12 – point a
Paragraph 12 – point a
(a) to encourage European Parliament officials or other staff, when approached by a representative of an organisation or individuals undertaking an activity falling within the scope of the Transparency Register, to check whether the organisation in question is registered, and, if it is not, to encourage it to registerrefuse to meet it;
Amendment 31 #
2014/2010(ACI)
(e) to restrict the possibility of Parliament granting its patronage for any event organised by a body falling within the scope of the Transparency Register exclusively to cases where such a body is registered;
Amendment 34 #
2014/2010(ACI)
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 12 – point e a (new)
Paragraph 12 – point e a (new)
(ea) not to allow unregistered interest representatives falling within the scope of the Transparency Register to participate in the inter-groups of Members of the European Parliament;
Amendment 35 #
2014/2010(ACI)
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 12 – point e b (new)
Paragraph 12 – point e b (new)
(eb) not to allow studies financed by unregistered interest representatives falling within the scope of the Transparency Register to be presented in the European Parliament;
Amendment 49 #
2014/2010(ACI)
17a. Expects that the annual report on the operation of the Transparency Register to contain not only factual information about the Transparency Register and its content but also an analysis of the progress made in terms of coverage and the quality of entries;
Amendment 50 #
2014/2010(ACI)
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 17a (new)
Paragraph 17a (new)
17aa. Insists that interest representatives refrain from engaging in any contractual relationship with or employing any individual within the designated entourage of a Member of the European Parliament;
Amendment 41 #
2013/2256(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69 a (new)
Paragraph 69 a (new)
69a. Takes the view that publishing Union data makes innovations possible, brings considerable benefits to the economy as a whole and makes for more efficient administration; calls for the agencies’ data to be made permanently available in machine-readable form, free of charge, so that they are freely reusable;
Amendment 42 #
2013/2256(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69b (new)
Paragraph 69b (new)
69b. Takes the view that the availability of data must not be constrained by the use of platform- or system-specific architecture and that the data format must be based on widely used and freely accessible standards and be supported and maintained by organisations which are independent of manufacturers; stresses that full documentation relating to format and all extensions must be made freely available;
Amendment 13 #
2013/2235(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Calls on the Europol department responsible to publish, on the Europol website, how many classified documents, broken down by level of classification, it has received from (or forwarded to) individual institutions, other bodies and Member States of the European Union and third parties;
Amendment 25 #
2013/2205(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. RecognisesExpresses concern at the high number of posts at high grades, which is very cost- intensive; welcomes the information provided on new recruitments; requests, however, that the grades of management and Head of delegations posts newly recruited be also indicated;
Amendment 30 #
2013/2205(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Points to the need for parliamentary scrutiny to be brought to bear on INTCEN, EUMS INT, the Situation Room, and the Satellite Centre, which produce analyses for decision-makers, based on national intelligence service information and other sources, and foster cooperation between national intelligence services;
Amendment 31 #
2013/2205(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 b (new)
Paragraph 24 b (new)
24b. Deplores the fact that when INTCEN, EUMS INT, and the Satellite Centre were integrated into the EEAS and the Situation Room was set up, there was no coherent guiding plan and Parliament had no say; also deplores the fact that SitCen, INTCEN’s predecessor, was set up in breach of Article 207(2) TEC;
Amendment 32 #
2013/2205(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 c (new)
Paragraph 24 c (new)
24c. Calls for a separate EEAS budget heading for INTCEN, EUMS INT, and the Situation Room so as to ensure democratic oversight and transparency;
Amendment 33 #
2013/2205(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 d (new)
Paragraph 24 d (new)
24d. Calls on the High Representative to provide detailed information on the budgets and staffing of INTCEN, EUMS INT, and the Situation Room in the EEAS annual report;
Amendment 34 #
2013/2205(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 e (new)
Paragraph 24 e (new)
24e. Calls on the EEAS to publish information in its annual report specifying how many classified documents, broken down by level of classification, it has received from (or sent to) individual institutions, other bodies, and Member States of the European Union, and third parties;
Amendment 35 #
2013/2205(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Notes with concern that in 2012, 49% of Heads of Delegation (57% in 2011) assessed the skills of the operational staff, finance staff, and the monitoring and auditing staff as inadequate to carry out their tasks; reiterates its call to the EEAS and the Commission to provide Parliament with the results of their discussion without delay;
Amendment 37 #
2013/2205(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Draws attention to the cost-intensive procedure of the annual salary adjustment method for local staff in Union delegations; invites the EEAS to consider an alternative calculation method which is more transparent and simpler and to report to Parliament’s appropriate committee on that subject;
Amendment 52 #
2013/2205(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Welcomes the fact that the EEAS could immediately impose savings of EUR 4 million in the 2014 budget with the new Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union entering into force; points out, however,deplores the extremely high costs of employment in Union Delegations, as all entitlements, allowances, weightings coefficients, rest leaves and annual travel costs, moving and housing expenses add up to over EUR 8 000 per month per employee above the monthly salary of the individuals working in the Union Delegations;
Amendment 61 #
2013/2205(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 a (new)
Paragraph 49 a (new)
49a. Takes the view that publishing Union data makes innovations possible, brings considerable benefits to the economy as a whole and makes for more efficient administration; calls for EEAS data to be made permanently available in machine- readable form, without charge, so as to make them freely reusable;
Amendment 62 #
2013/2205(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 b (new)
Paragraph 49 b (new)
49b. Takes the view that the availability of data must not be constrained by the use of platform- or system-specific architecture and that the data format must be based on widely used and freely accessible standards and be supported and maintained by organisations which are independent of manufacturers; stresses that full documentation relating to format and all extensions must be made freely available;
Amendment 5 #
2013/2203(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Takes the view that publishing Union data makes innovations possible, brings considerable benefits to the economy as a whole and makes for more efficient administration; calls for the Ombudsman’s data to be made permanently available in machine- readable form, without charge, so as to make them freely reusable;
Amendment 6 #
2013/2203(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)
Paragraph 14 b (new)
14b. Takes the view that the availability of data must not be constrained by the use of platform- or system-specific architecture and that the data format must be based on widely used and freely accessible standards and be supported and maintained by organisations which are independent of manufacturers; stresses that full documentation relating to format and all extensions must be made freely available;
Amendment 18 #
2013/2200(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Takes the view that publishing Union data makes innovations possible, brings considerable benefits to the economy as a whole and makes for more efficient administration; calls for Court of Auditors’ data to be made permanently available in machine-readable form, without charge, so as to make them freely reusable;
Amendment 19 #
2013/2200(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 b (new)
Paragraph 23 b (new)
23b. Takes the view that the availability of data must not be constrained by the use of platform- or system-specific architecture and that the data format must be based on widely used and freely accessible standards and be supported and maintained by organisations which are independent of manufacturers; stresses that full documentation relating to format and all extensions must be made freely available;
Amendment 19 #
2013/2199(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Takes the view that publishing Union data makes innovations possible, brings considerable benefits to the economy as a whole and makes for more efficient administration; calls for data from the Court of Justice to be made permanently available in machine-readable form, without charge, so as to make them freely reusable;
Amendment 20 #
2013/2199(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 b (new)
Paragraph 27 b (new)
27b. Takes the view that the availability of data must not be constrained by the use of platform- or system-specific architecture and that the data format must be based on widely used and freely accessible standards and be supported and maintained by organisations which are independent of manufacturers; stresses that full documentation relating to format and all extensions must be made freely available;
Amendment 28 #
2013/2196(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 b (new)
Paragraph 34 b (new)
34b. Calls on the Bureau to bring in an incentives scheme for Parliament officials which provides financial rewards for suggestions for successfully introduced savings through optimising work processes with no loss of administrative performance quality;
Amendment 47 #
2013/2196(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 – introductory part
Paragraph 43 – introductory part
43. Notes that theRegrets the fact that additional expenditure arisinges from the geographic dispersion of Parliament constitutes an important identified area of potential savings; points out that if the three places of work were combined to form a single site, in Brussels, significant savings would be possible; welcomes the Secretary- General’s report25 of August 2013 regarding the financial impact of the geographic dispersion of the European Parliament; underlines that the report factored in the calculations the following parameters: __________________ 25 ‘The three places of work of the European Parliament – financial, environmental and regional impacts of geographic dispersion, note prepared by the Secretary General of the European Parliament on 30 August 2013.
Amendment 49 #
2013/2196(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Emphasises the fact that 10,703 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year would be saved if Strasbourg (10 235) and Luxembourg (468) were no longer used as places of work; notesregrets the fact that this environmental impact of the geographic dispersion of Parliament in terms of carbon emissions accounts for 11,16 % of Parliament's total carbon footprint in 2011;
Amendment 60 #
2013/2196(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 c (new)
Paragraph 49 c (new)
49c. Takes the view that there can be independent European policy-making only if there is sufficient scientific and legal expertise in Parliament;
Amendment 62 #
2013/2196(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 e (new)
Paragraph 49 e (new)
49e. Calls on the Bureau to give Parliament’s Legal Service the appropriate staffing and resources to enable each MEP to request legal opinions on a limited scale;
Amendment 65 #
2013/2196(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 h (new)
Paragraph 49 h (new)
49h. Notes that the employment of Members' staff by lobbyists whose activities are covered by the Transparency Register leads to conflicts of interest and restricts Members' independence;
Amendment 66 #
2013/2196(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 i (new)
Paragraph 49 i (new)
49i. Calls for the Implementing Measures for the Code of Conduct for Members of the European Parliament to be amended so as to prevent lobbyists whose activities are covered by the Transparency Register from employing Members' staff;
Amendment 68 #
2013/2196(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53 b (new)
Paragraph 53 b (new)
53b. Calls for the introduction of strict rules ensuring that Members use the general expenditure allowance solely for its intended purpose; insists that only costs actually incurred be covered by the general expenditure allowance;
Amendment 70 #
2013/2196(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53 d (new)
Paragraph 53 d (new)
53d. Insists that, for Members' air travel within Europe, only the cost of economy class tickets should be reimbursable from Parliament's budget;
Amendment 72 #
2013/2196(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54 b (new)
Paragraph 54 b (new)
54b. Firmly believes that appropriate, mandatory remuneration must be introduced for all traineeships, including traineeships in Members' offices and political groups, which last for more than one month and are not compulsory components of a degree or training course;
Amendment 100 #
2013/2196(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 66 d (new)
Paragraph 66 d (new)
66d. Calls on the Parliament departments responsible to convert the software safeguarding parliamentary communications to open source; stresses the importance of open-source word processing, instant messaging and file hosting programs; highlights the significance of parliamentary communications security where open- source operating systems are used;
Amendment 104 #
2013/2196(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 66 h (new)
Paragraph 66 h (new)
66h. Calls on the Parliament departments responsible, with a view to safeguarding digital communications, to arrange encryption training for all Members and their staff at the start of the next parliamentary term; stresses that action must be taken to make mobile communications secure, too, by means of encrypted telephony and encryption apps for smartphones, this also to be accompanied by training for Members and their staff;
Amendment 106 #
2013/2196(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 66 j (new)
Paragraph 66 j (new)
66j. Takes the view that publishing Union data makes innovations possible, brings considerable benefits to the economy as a whole and makes for more efficient administration; calls for Parliament's data to be made permanently available in machine-readable form, without charge, so as to make them freely reusable;
Amendment 107 #
2013/2196(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 66 l (new)
Paragraph 66 l (new)
66l. Takes the view that the availability of data must not be constrained by the use of platform- or system-specific architecture and that the data format must be based on widely used and freely accessible standards and be supported and maintained by organisations which are independent of manufacturers; stresses that full documentation relating to format and all extensions must be made freely available;
Amendment 110 #
2013/2196(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 76 a (new)
Paragraph 76 a (new)
76a. Notes that intergroups are currently also a platform for various lobbyists; stresses the importance of a functioning and exhaustive transparency register for ensuring transparency and democracy at EU level; calls for an appropriate provision to be introduced so as to ensure that only lobbyists included in the transparency register, in so far as it covers their activities, may be represented in intergroups;
Amendment 112 #
2013/2196(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 76 c (new)
Paragraph 76 c (new)
76c. Is of the opinion that the Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members must not only comprise Members, but, rather, must have a majority made up of external, independent experts permanently appointed;
Amendment 113 #
2013/2196(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 76 d (new)
Paragraph 76 d (new)
76d. Calls on the Parliament department responsible to publish, on the Parliament website, how many classified documents Parliament has produced, broken down by level of classification, and how many classified documents, broken down by level of classification, it has received from (or forwarded to) individual institutions, other bodies and Member States of the European Union and third parties;
Amendment 413 #
Amendment 414 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 223 a (new)
Paragraph 223 a (new)
223a. Recalls that in order to ensure the sound financial management of Union funds, the Commission administers the Central Exclusion Database–a database of entities excluded from Union funding for reasons such as insolvency, final court judgments for fraud, corruption, decisions of a contracting authority for grave professional misconduct and conflict of interest; regrets that the Central Exclusion Database administered by the Commission is not accessible to the public or to the Members of the European Parliament; recalls that a similar database of debarred firms administered by the World Banks is public; calls on the Commission to make the Central Exclusion Database public;
Amendment 418 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 223 a (new)
Paragraph 223 a (new)
223a. Takes the view that public access to Union data makes innovations possible, brings about considerable overall economic benefits, and makes administration more efficient; calls for the Commission's data to be made permanently available in machine- readable form, without charge, so as to make them freely reusable;
Amendment 419 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 223 b (new)
Paragraph 223 b (new)
223b. Is of the opinion that the data must not be constrained because of platform- or system-specific architecture and that the data format must be based on widely used and freely accessible standards and be supported and maintained by organisations which are independent of manufacturers; stresses that full documentation relating to format and all extensions must be made freely available;
Amendment 23 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas in September 2001 the world entered a new phase which resulted infollowing the events of September 2001, the fight against terrorism being listed amongcame one of the top priorities of most governments; whereas the revelations based on leaked documents from Edward Snowden, former NSA contractor, put democratically elected leaders under an obligation, both moral and political, to address the challenges of the increasing capabilities of intelligence agencies in surveillance activities and their implications for the rule of law in a democratic society;
Amendment 56 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas the report on the findings by the EU Co-Chairs of the ad hoc EU-US Working Group on data protection provides for an overview of the legal situation in the US but has not helped sufficiently withfailed to establishing the facts about US surveillance programmes; whereas no information has been made available about the so-called ‘second track’ Working Group, under which Member States discuss bilaterally with the US authorities matters related to national security;
Amendment 97 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital AX
Recital AX
AX. whereas, although the European Council of 24/25 October 2013 called for the timely adoption of a strong EU General Data Protection framework in order to foster the trust of citizens and businesses in the digital economy, after two years of deliberations, the Council has still been unable to arrive at a general approach on the General Data Protection Regulation and the Directive34 ; __________________ 34 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/c ms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/139197.pdf
Amendment 98 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital AY
Recital AY
Amendment 114 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital BD a (new)
Recital BD a (new)
BDa. whereas legal developments in the EU, certain Member States and the US have blurred the line between intelligence and law enforcement activities;
Amendment 136 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. States that trust has been profoundly shaken: trust between the two transatlantic partners, trust among EU Member States, trust between citizens and their governments, trust in the respect of the rule of law,citizens and their governments, trust in the functioning of democratic institutions on both sides of the Atlantic, trust in the respect of the rule of law, trust in the moral integrity of political leaders and officials and trust in the security of IT services; believes that in order to rebuild trust in all these dimensions a comprehensive plan is urgently needed, measures, the implementation of which can be publicly verified, are necessary;
Amendment 228 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30a. Takes the view that the Commission has failed to act to remedy the well-known deficiencies of the current implementation of Safe Harbour;
Amendment 245 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Takes the view that the information provided by the European Commission and the US Treasury does not clarify whether US intelligence agencies have access to SWIFT financial messages in the EU by intercepting SWIFT networks or banks’ operating systems or communication networks, alone or in cooperation with EU national intelligence agencies and without having recourse to existing bilateral channels for mutual legal assistance and judicial cooperation;
Amendment 258 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Calls on the European Commission to react to concerns that three of the major computerised reservation systems used by airlines worldwide are based in the US and that PNR data are saved in cloud systems operating on US soil under US law, which lacks data protection adequacy, which means that the US-EU PNR agreement should be suspended until data protection can be demonstrably and credibly guaranteed in the long term;
Amendment 263 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Considers that a satisfactory solution under the ‘Umbrella agreement’ is a pre- condition for the full restoration of trust between the transatlantic partnerpossible only if effective judicial review measures are also guaranteed beforehand for non- US citizens, so that they can take legal action against violations of their rights;
Amendment 291 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58
Paragraph 58
58. Recognises that the EU and the US are pursuing negotiations for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which is of major strategic importance for creating further economic growth and for the ability of both the EU and the US to set future global regulatory standardsbut recommends suspending the negotiations owing to the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 8 until comprehensive spying on industry, business and society is credibly, reliably and demonstrably refrained from or brought to an end;
Amendment 11 #
2012/2214(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Takes the view that publishing Union data makes innovations possible, brings about considerable overall economic benefits, and makes administrations more efficient; calls for the decentralised agencies’ data to be made permanently available in machine-readable form, without charge, so as to make them freely reusable; is of the opinion that the data must not be constrained because of platform- or system-specific architecture and that the data format must be based on widely used and freely accessible standards and be supported and maintained by organisations which are independent of manufacturers; stresses that full documentation relating to format and all extensions must be made freely available; (Justification: For a modern, transparent administration, the fundamental principle of Open Government Data must apply.)
Amendment 22 #
2012/2205(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Calls on the Office to publish how many classified documents it has produced, broken down by level of classification, and how many classified documents, broken down by level of classification, it has received from (or forwarded to) individual institutions, other bodies and Member States of the European Union and third parties;
Amendment 16 #
2012/2200(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Transparency 7a. Calls on the Agency to publish how many classified documents it has produced, broken down by level of classification, and how many classified documents, broken down by level of classification, it has received from (or forwarded to) individual institutions, other bodies and Member States of the European Union and third parties;
Amendment 30 #
2012/2176(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. RecognisesIs concerned at the high number of posts at high grades, which is very cost- intensive; is surprised that an EEAS official was promoted by five grades within one year;
Amendment 32 #
2012/2176(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Underscores the need for parliamentary oversight over the EU Intelligence Analysis Centre (INTCEN), the EU Military Staff Intelligence Division (EUMS INT), the Situation Room and the Satellite Centre, which produce analyses for decision-takers, inter alia on the basis of information forwarded by national intelligence services, and promote cooperation between those services;
Amendment 33 #
2012/2176(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18b. Notes that INTCEN, EUMS INT and the Satellite Centre were incorporated into the EEAS, and the Situation Room established, in 2011; regrets that those entities, taken over from the Council’s General Secretariat, were set up within the EEAS on an ad hoc basis, with no coherent strategy and with no codecision role for the European Parliament; also regrets in this connection that SitCen, INTCEN’s predecessor, was set up in breach of Article 207(2) of the EC Treaty;
Amendment 34 #
2012/2176(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 c (new)
Paragraph 18 c (new)
18c. Notes with concern that, in her answers to the questions by the Committee on Budgetary Control in connection with the current discharge procedure, the High Representative was unable to provide information concerning funding for INTCEN, EUMS INT and the Situation Room and gave no precise figures for EUMS INT staffing;
Amendment 35 #
2012/2176(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 d (new)
Paragraph 18 d (new)
18d. Calls for separate EEAS budget headings for INTCEN, EUMS INT and the Situation Room in order to ensure democratic oversight and transparency;
Amendment 36 #
2012/2176(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 e (new)
Paragraph 18 e (new)
18e. Calls on the High Representative to provide detailed information on the budget and staffing for INTCEN, EUMS INT and the Situation Room in the EEAS’ annual activity report;
Amendment 37 #
2012/2176(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 f (new)
Paragraph 18 f (new)
18f. Calls on the EEAS to publish, in its annual activity report, how many classified documents it has produced, broken down by level of classification, and how many classified documents, broken down by level of classification, it has received from (or forwarded to) individual institutions, other bodies and Member States of the European Union and third parties;
Amendment 38 #
2012/2176(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 g (new)
Paragraph 18 g (new)
18g. Calls on the EEAS to produce an overview of the emoluments paid by Member States to national experts at INTCEN, EUMS INT and the Situation Room;
Amendment 41 #
2012/2176(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Notes with concern that 39,5% of Union ambassadors come from the Member States; recalls the agreement that one-third of posts should be filled by staff from Member States; urges that the High Representative implement the agreement, which means middle and senior posts are to be included in that quota;
Amendment 67 #
2012/2176(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Considers that the statistics in the annual activity report, especially in relation to data on delegations, are not sufficiently accurate; calls on the EEAS to improve its performance by establishing key performance indicators that will give some continuity to the evaluation of the performance of the delegations; calls on the High Representative to report to the Committee on Budgetary Control in this connection;
Amendment 75 #
2012/2176(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)
Paragraph 34 a (new)
34a. Takes the view that publishing Union data makes innovations possible, brings about considerable overall economic benefits, and makes administrations more efficient; calls for the EEAS’ data to be made permanently available in machine- readable form, without charge, so as to make them freely reusable; is of the opinion that the data must not be constrained because of platform- or system-specific architecture and that the data format must be based on widely used and freely accessible standards and be supported and maintained by organisations which are independent of manufacturers; stresses that full documentation relating to format and all extensions must be made freely available; (Justification: For a modern, transparent administration, the fundamental principle of Open Government Data must apply.)
Amendment 9 #
2012/2174(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Takes the view that publishing Union data makes innovations possible, brings about considerable overall economic benefits, and makes administrations more efficient; calls for the European Ombudsman’s data to be made permanently available in machine- readable form, without charge, so as to make them freely reusable; is of the opinion that the data must not be constrained because of platform- or system-specific architecture and that the data format must be based on widely used and freely accessible standards and be supported and maintained by organisations which are independent of manufacturers; stresses that full documentation relating to format and all extensions must be made freely available; (Justification: For a modern, transparent administration, the fundamental principle of Open Government Data must apply.)
Amendment 10 #
2012/2173(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Takes the view that publishing Union data makes innovations possible, brings about considerable overall economic benefits, and makes administrations more efficient; calls for the Committee of the Regions’ data to be made permanently available in machine-readable form, without charge, so as to make them freely reusable; is of the opinion that the data must not be constrained because of platform- or system-specific architecture and that the data format must be based on widely used and freely accessible standards and be supported and maintained by organisations which are independent of manufacturers; stresses that full documentation relating to format and all extensions must be made freely available; (Justification: For a modern, transparent administration, the fundamental principle of Open Government Data must apply.)
Amendment 24 #
2012/2172(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Takes the view that publishing Union data makes innovations possible, brings about considerable overall economic benefits, and makes administrations more efficient; calls for the European Economic and Social Committee’s data to be made permanently available in machine-readable form, without charge, so as to make them freely reusable; is of the opinion that the data must not be constrained because of platform- or system-specific architecture and that the data format must be based on widely used and freely accessible standards and be supported and maintained by organisations which are independent of manufacturers; stresses that full documentation relating to format and all extensions must be made freely available; (Justification: For a modern, transparent administration, the fundamental principle of Open Government Data must apply.)
Amendment 14 #
2012/2171(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Takes the view that publishing Union data makes innovations possible, brings about considerable overall economic benefits, and makes administrations more efficient; calls for the Court of Auditors’ data to be made permanently available in machine-readable form, without charge, so as to make them freely reusable; is of the opinion that the data must not be constrained because of platform- or system-specific architecture and that the data format must be based on widely used and freely accessible standards and be supported and maintained by organisations which are independent of manufacturers; stresses that full documentation relating to format and all extensions must be made freely available; (Justification: For a modern, transparent administration, the fundamental principle of Open Government Data must apply.)
Amendment 7 #
2012/2170(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Takes the view that publishing Union data makes innovations possible, brings about considerable overall economic benefits, and makes administrations more efficient; calls for the Court of Justice’s data to be made permanently available in machine-readable form, without charge, so as to make them freely reusable; is of the opinion that the data must not be constrained because of platform- or system-specific architecture and that the data format must be based on widely used and freely accessible standards and be supported and maintained by organisations which are independent of manufacturers; stresses that full documentation relating to format and all extensions must be made freely available; (Justification: For a modern, transparent administration, the fundamental principle of Open Government Data must apply.)
Amendment 28 #
2012/2169(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Takes the view that publishing Union data makes innovations possible, brings about considerable overall economic benefits, and makes administrations more efficient; calls for the Council’s data to be made permanently available in machine- readable form, without charge, so as to make them freely reusable; is of the opinion that the data must not be constrained because of platform- or system-specific architecture and that the data format must be based on widely used and freely accessible standards and be supported and maintained by organisations which are independent of manufacturers; stresses that full documentation relating to format and all extensions must be made freely available; (Justification: For a modern, transparent administration, the fundamental principle of Open Government Data must apply.)
Amendment 29 #
2012/2169(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18b. Calls on the Council to publish, on its website, how many classified documents it has produced, broken down by level of classification, and how many classified documents, broken down by level of classification, it has received from (or forwarded to) individual institutions, other bodies and Member States of the European Union and third parties;
Amendment 8 #
2012/2168(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines that scrutiny is necessary to ensure that Parliament's administration is held accountable and that only full and complete transparency offers citizens of the Union an insight into Parliament's use of the resources put at its disposal; stresses however that the Parliament's discharge procedure involves non-negligible risks for the reputation of the Parliament as an institution;
Amendment 18 #
2012/2168(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes that, on 22 September 2011, the representatives of the Bureau and of the Committee on Budgets reached agreement on additional saving measures that were subsequently incorporated into Parliament’s 2012 budget; firmly holds that those smart savings measures of almost EUR 40 000 000 do not affect either the efficiency of Parliament’s activities or the resources made available to each Member; calls on the Bureau to bring in an incentives scheme for Parliament officials which provides financial rewards for suggestions for successfully introduced savings through optimising work processes with no loss of administrative performance quality; calls on the Secretary-General to keep the Council and the Commission informed on Parliament's achievements and, to this end, to obtain information on their actions and to request to be informed of the answers received;
Amendment 23 #
2012/2168(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes the new Code of Conduct for Members of the European Parliament with respect to financial interests and conflicts of interest adopted by its plenary on 1 December 2011; notes that Members are required to make full disclosure of any remunerated activities outside Parliament, of the remuneration they receive, and of any other functions that they perform which may give rise to conflicts of interest; further notes that the code expressly prohibits Members from accepting any sum of money or other gift in exchange for influencing Parliament decisions; notes with satisfaction that it lays down clear rules on accepting gifts and on former Members engaging in lobbying; firmly believes, however, that conflicts of interest must be checked on and penalised more stringently;
Amendment 24 #
2012/2168(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Calls on Parliament’s Administration to publish all declarations of MEPs’ financial interests, broken down by year, in machine-readable form in the MEP profile section of Parliament's website;
Amendment 25 #
2012/2168(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Regrets the fact that a good number of declarations of MEPs’ financial interests are either blank or incomplete or formally incorrect;
Amendment 26 #
2012/2168(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8c. Is concerned that, one year after the entry into force of the Code of Conduct, the implementing measures in respect of Article 5(3) - to ensure transparency with regard to Members’ travel, accommodation and subsistence expenses paid by third parties - have not yet been adopted; points out that it is imperative that the implementing measures be adopted quickly; firmly believes that all third-party-paid travel, accommodation and subsistence expenses of EUR 150 or more must be disclosed;
Amendment 27 #
2012/2168(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 d (new)
Paragraph 8 d (new)
8d. Is of the opinion that the Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members must not only comprise MEPs, but, rather, must have a majority made up of external, independent experts permanently appointed;
Amendment 33 #
2012/2168(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Firmly believes that appropriate, mandatory remuneration must be introduced for all traineeships, including traineeships in MEPs’ offices and political groups, which last for more than one month and are not compulsory components of a degree or training course;
Amendment 34 #
2012/2168(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Takes the view that there can be independent European policy-making only if there is sufficient scientific and legal expertise in Parliament;
Amendment 35 #
2012/2168(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 c (new)
Paragraph 10 c (new)
10c. Calls on the Bureau to give Parliament’s Legal Service the appropriate staffing and resources to enable each MEP to request legal opinions on a limited scale;
Amendment 36 #
2012/2168(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 d (new)
Paragraph 10 d (new)
10d. Calls on the Bureau to set up a research service within Parliament with the appropriate staffing and resources to enable each MEP to request research studies on a limited scale;
Amendment 56 #
2012/2168(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Reiterates that the area of security is a very sensitive sector in any parliament, but even more so in a multinational one, with high visibility and constant visits from Heads of State and government; notes that the average daily presence in the Parliament's premises in Brussels is 12 000; invites the Secretary-General to present to the competent committee the situation in this respect and insists on the need to define classified security perimeters in Parliament's premises or security zones with different levels of security and restricted access for outsiders;
Amendment 57 #
2012/2168(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Takes note of the Bureau's adoption, by unanimity, of the "New global security concept" on 6 July 2011 which includes the idea of reserving the various entrances to Parliament for different categories of users; requests to be informed of the implementation of the "New global security concept" by the end of 2013; insists on the continuing reinforcement of security in the Parliament's premises;
Amendment 75 #
2012/2168(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 a (new)
Paragraph 44 a (new)
Amendment 108 #
2012/2168(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69 b (new)
Paragraph 69 b (new)
69b. Calls on the Parliament department responsible to publish, on the Parliament website, how many classified documents Parliament has produced, broken down by level of classification, and how many classified documents, broken down by level of classification, it has received from (or forwarded to) individual institutions, other bodies and Member States of the European Union and third parties;
Amendment 227 #
2012/2167(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 156 a (new)
Paragraph 156 a (new)
156a. Is concerned to find that the performance indicators for the budget support to the Republic of Haiti have not been made public; urges the Commission to make public these indicators and the respective assessments of the Government of Haiti’s performance in order to qualify for budget support;
Amendment 228 #
2012/2167(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 156 b (new)
Paragraph 156 b (new)
156b. Notes that new criteria for budget support are set out in the Commission’s policy ‘The future approach to EU budget support to third countries’; calls on the Commission to apply these criteria from 2013 onwards in a transparent way to the budget support for the Government of Haiti;
Amendment 230 #
2012/2167(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 156 c (new)
Paragraph 156 c (new)
156c. Deeply regrets that, in spite of what was promised, the Commission has still not published a list of EU-funded projects in Haiti; calls on the Commission to publish this list without delay and to provide an assessment of the sustainability of these projects in a five- year perspective;
Amendment 231 #
2012/2167(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 156 d (new)
Paragraph 156 d (new)
156d. Urges the Commission to carry out the postponed first ever overall impact evaluation of the EU’s aid programme for Haiti in 2013 and to produce a report on this for the Budget Control Authority;
Amendment 274 #
2012/2167(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading and paragraph 204 a (new)
Subheading and paragraph 204 a (new)
Transparency 204a. Calls on the Commission to publish, on its website, how many classified documents it has produced, broken down by level of classification, and how many classified documents, broken down by level of classification, it has received from (or forwarded to) individual bodies, other institutions and Member States of the EU and third parties;
Amendment 9 #
2011/2212(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the total amount of aid channelled through the EDF is undergoing a considerable increase as the amount of Union aid under the Tenth EDF for the period 2008 to 2013 has been set at EUR 22 682 000 000 which represents a 6437 % increasenominal increase per year compared with the financial allocations under the Ninth EDF, and while the EDF disbursements have doubled from 2000 till 2010, the problem of absorption capacity persists,
Amendment 26 #
2011/2212(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Deplores Court of Auditors' finding according to which the overall supervisory and control systems of the EDFs managed by the Commission are partially effective; notes that the monitoring and supervision ofby EuropeAid's Coentroal Services were effective, whereas they were partially effective for Union Delegations;
Amendment 54 #
2011/2212(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Notes with satisfaction the Communication ‘Increasing the impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change’ (COM(2011)0637) adopted in October 2011, stipulating that Development Cooperation Instrument benchmark allocatingcontinued support for social inclusion and human development; insists that at least 20 % of spendingUnion aid be allocated to basic and secondary education and basic health will also apply to the EDF; urges the Commission to place greater emphasis on maternal health, as this is the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) for which progress has been disappointing;
Amendment 63 #
2011/2212(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 a (new)
Paragraph 48 a (new)
48a. Recalls the earthquake in Haiti and its disastrous consequences; deplores the difficulties noted in combining humanitarian aid and development aid (linking relief, rehabilitation and development); considers that the Commission should limit its humanitarian aid and direct its efforts and funding to rehabilitation and development;
Amendment 64 #
2011/2212(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 b (new)
Paragraph 48 b (new)
Amendment 65 #
2011/2212(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 c (new)
Paragraph 48 c (new)
48c. Deplores lack of sustainability of projects and stresses that projects should principally aim at creating employment and sustainable growth which would allow the Haitian State to increase its own revenues in order to depend less on foreign assistance; requests therefore the Commission to provide Parliament with a list of projects which have been carried out during the last 15 years in Haiti with a detailed assessment of their current situation in order to see how sustainable they are since;
Amendment 70 #
2011/2212(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Recalls that the funds allocated to the Investment Facility from the Tenth EDF amounted to EUR 1 530 000 000 for the ACP and OCT; notes that the total amount of signed operations from the Investment Facility portfolio was EUR 359 000 000 in the financial year 2010; recalls that the European Investment Bank (EIB) manages Investment Facility, a revolving risk-b bearing instrument funded from the EDF that aims to foster private investment especially in ACP countries;
Amendment 75 #
2011/2212(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60
Paragraph 60
60. Notes that the independent mid term evaluation of the EIB's external mandateInvestment Facility and EIB's own Resource activities in the ACPs shows that the EIB's efforts to monitor project implementation, ensure local presence and follow-up on environmental and social aspects still appear to be insufficient; calls on the EIB to improve its monitoring mechanisms;
Amendment 77 #
2011/2212(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62
Paragraph 62
62. Recalls that a significant part12 % of the funds from the Investment Facility (EUR 390 000 000) are channelled via European bilateral development financial institutions or joint ventures exceptionally consisting of European financial institutions, which charge intermanagement feest and serve as intermediaries between the EIB and the local partners in developing countries; questions whether such a complex structure is effective and appropriate in terms of contributing to the development of the private sector and the financial sector in developing countries, which is the primary goal of the Investment Facility;
Amendment 186 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 106 a (new)
Paragraph 106 a (new)
106a. Recalls the earthquake in Haiti and its disastrous consequences; deplores the difficulties noted in combining humanitarian aid and development aid (linking relief, rehabilitation and development); considers that the Commission should limit its humanitarian aid and direct its efforts and funding to rehabilitation and development;
Amendment 187 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 106 b (new)
Paragraph 106 b (new)
106b. Deplores the insufficient coordination between the Union Delegation and the ECHO representation; supports a reinforced coordination between all Union actors; urges therefore the Commission to ensure better coherence and complementarity between humanitarian aid and development aid both at a policy level and in practice;
Amendment 188 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 106 c (new)
Paragraph 106 c (new)
106c Deplores the lack of sustainability of projects and stresses that projects should principally aim at creating employment and sustainable growth which would allow the Haitian State to increase its own revenues in order to depend less on foreign assistance; requests therefore the Commission to provide Parliament with a list of projects which have been carried out during the last 15 years in Haiti with a detailed assessment of their current situation in order to see how sustainable they are since;
Amendment 1 #
2011/2073(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4
Citation 4
– having regard to its previous resolutions of 26 September 2011 on ‘Towards a stronger European disaster response: the role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance’4 , of 19 January 2011 on ‘the situation in Haiti one year after the earthquake: humanitarian aid and reconstruction’5 , of 10 February 2010 on ‘the recent earthquake in Haiti’6 , of 18 December 2007 on the 'European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid', of 18 January 2011 on ‘Implementation of the European consensus on humanitarian aid: the mid-term review of its Action Plan and the way forward’7 ;
Amendment 4 #
2011/2073(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the enhanced flexibility and efficiency facilitated by the FPA 2008 as compared to the FPA 2005, such as a more result-oriented approach, the introduction of the A- and P-control mechanisms, simplification and less ambiguity through developing guidelines; calls on the Commission to continue refining the measures which improve the efficiency of cooperation with the FPA partners through the upcoming FPA in 2012; stresses that improving the efficiency of cooperation and reducing the excessive administrative burden for FPA partners, meanwhile, shall ensure a high level of accountability and transparency;
Amendment 5 #
2011/2073(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to improve the methods and practice of assessing whether a potential partner qualifies for the FPA or not; recalls that the experience before signing the FPA 2008 indicates that the initial assessment in favour of the partners under P-control mechanism, based on the reliability of their internal control systems and financial solidity, was too optimistic; notes that after being granted this status on the basis of initial assessment, partners under P-control mechanism are audited less frequently on their internal control systems, are allowed to use their own procurement procedures and their actions are not subject to contractual limits on funding; recalls that as a result of the assessment under FPA 2008 many of them had to be downgraded to A-partners, i.e. under the A-control mechanism;
Amendment 6 #
2011/2073(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the weaknesses identified during regular audits of the partners' systems are addressed by them in a timely manner and that necessary measures are taken if they are not; recalls that the external auditors have to continue working on improving the quality of their recommendations to the partners, taking into account partners' specific structures to ensure acceptance and feasibility of their implementation; stresses that further improvements in the documentation of the evaluation of proposals for humanitarian aid actions are necessary in terms of streamlining and standardising them and in order to allow an overall comparison;
Amendment 17 #
2011/2073(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Welcomes the positive results of the discussions with the World Food Programme (WFP) and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), according to which WFP and UNICEF changed itstheir rules to make itstheir internal audit reports available to DG ECHO; calls on DG ECHO to conduct similar negotiations with the other UN agencies without delay in order to ensure easy and unbureaucratic access to their internal audit reports; calls on the Commission to inform the competent EP committees on the progress of the negotiations on a six- monthly basis; stresses that all the internal audit reports should be made available to the Commission electronically and not only on the premises of the corresponding UN agencies;
Amendment 24 #
2011/2073(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)
Paragraph 31 a (new)
31a. Draws attention to the frequent budgetary reinforcements of DG ECHO either through the use of Emergency Aid Reserve or through transfers from other budget lines from the external aid heading of the EDF; considers that budget reinforcement is a structural issue; stresses the necessity to draw up a realistic budget, allocating appropriations for natural disasters or humanitarian actions on the basis of repeated experience with spending in previous years;
Amendment 26 #
2011/2073(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Calls on DG ECHO to focus more on the sustainability of humanitarian actions; urges DG ECHO and other relevant Commission services to put greater emphasis on the DRR and disaster- preparedness, strengthen the resilience of the population at risk through capacity building, training, public awareness and establishing efficient early warning systems in disaster- prone and crisis-hit countries, in order to enable them to react correspondingly;
Amendment 33 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 5 a (new)
Article 1 – point 5 a (new)
Staff Regulations
Article 11 a – paragraph 1
Article 11 a – paragraph 1
Amendment 34 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 5 b (new)
Article 1 – point 5 b (new)
Staff Regulations
Article 11 a – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 11 a – paragraph 1 a (new)
5b. The following paragraph shall be inserted in Article 11a: '1a. On the basis of the scrutiny referred to in paragraph 1, the Appointing Authority shall relieve the official from responsibility in any matter in which he has a conflict of interest as defined in paragraph 1. Additional appropriate measures may also be taken to ensure that the risk of conflicts of interest is eliminated. All institutions shall regularly publish a list of all such disqualifications.';
Amendment 35 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 5 c (new)
Article 1 – point 5 c (new)
Staff Regulations
Article 12 b – paragraph 1
Article 12 b – paragraph 1
5c. Article 12b(1) shall be replaced by the following: '1. Subject to Article 15, an official wishing to engage in an outside activity, whether paid or unpaid, or to carry out any assignment outside the Union, shall first obtain the permission of the Appointing Authority. Permission shall be refused only if the activity or assignment in question is such as to interfere with the performance of the official's duties or to call into question his independence and loyalty to the institution or is incompatible with the interests of the institution.';
Amendment 39 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 5 d (new)
Article 1 – point 5 d (new)
Staff Regulations
Article 16
Article 16
Amendment 43 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 6 a (new)
Article 1 – point 6 a (new)
Staff Regulations
Article 22 a
Article 22 a
Amendment 45 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union
Article 22a
Article 22a
Amendment 45 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 6 b (new)
Article 1 – point 6 b (new)
Staff Regulations
Article 22 b
Article 22 b
Amendment 50 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6b (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6b (new)
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union
Article 22b
Article 22b
6b. Article 22b shall be replaced by the following: 1. A whistleblower who honestly believes that his rights under Article 22a were not respected or who honestly believes in the existence of breaches of law by officials in grade AD 14 or above and/or by Members of his Institution or OLAF is entitled to inform and provide supporting information to the President of the Commission or of the Court of Auditors (if the areas of the competences of the Court of Auditors are concerned) or of the Council or of the European Parliament or to the European Ombudsman. 2. A whistleblower who honestly believes that his rights under article 22b paragraph 1 and 3 were not respected is entitled to inform and provide supporting information about suspected wrongdoing detrimental to the interest of the European Union or suspected criminal behaviour of the officials and/or Members of its institution to any member of the European Parliament and the Court of (if the areas of the competences of the Court of Auditors are concerned). 3. The rights and obligations of article 22a respectively apply to whistleblowers and recipients under article 22b. A recipient under article 22b has the right to question a previously involved recipient and/or institution about his treatment of the whistleblowing and shall be provided with the necessary information for his analysis. 4. If EU legislation entrusts other bodies - outside the EU institutions - with the necessary competences to confidentially assess matters (within EU-Institutions) that could be subject of disclosures by EU-officials, officials may also address them under the conditions mentioned in this article. 5. The recipients mentioned in paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 also have the right to inform the public if they deem that this is necessary. 6. If a whistleblower is undergoing disciplinary or other procedures for not respecting the recipient-limitations of art. 22a/b and/or e.g. by providing information to the media and public any measure taken against him must take into account if the information provided was true or the whistleblower believed it to be true. The public interests in the issue at stake must also be taken into account.
Amendment 88 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 49 (ab) (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 49 (ab) (new)
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union
Annex VII - Section 2 - Article 4 - paragraph 2
Annex VII - Section 2 - Article 4 - paragraph 2
(ab) Article 4 paragraph 2 shall be amended as follows: An official who is not and has never been a national of the State in whose territory he is employed and who does not fulfil the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 shall be entitled to a foreign residence allowance equal to one quarter of the expatriation allowance. If such an official has habitually resided in his place of employment for more than 10 consecutive years before he entered the service, he shall not be entitled to either expatriation or foreign residence allowance.
Amendment 89 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 49 (ac) (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 49 (ac) (new)
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union
Annex VII - Section 2 - Article 4 - paragraph 3a (new)
Annex VII - Section 2 - Article 4 - paragraph 3a (new)
Amendment 90 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 49 (ad) (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 49 (ad) (new)
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union
Annex VII - Section 2 - Article 4 - paragraph 3b (new)
Annex VII - Section 2 - Article 4 - paragraph 3b (new)
(ad) In Article 4 a new paragraph 3b is added: "Officials who fulfil the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 and who have resided in the European territory of the state where they are employed for more than 20 consecutive years since they entered the service shall not be entitled to either expatriation or foreign residence allowance."
Amendment 91 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 49 (c) - introductory part
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 49 (c) - introductory part
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union
Article 11
Article 11
(c) Article 8 shall be replaced by the following:deleted.
Amendment 106 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 39 a (new)
Article 1 – point 39 a (new)
Staff Regulations
Article 90 – paragraph 1
Article 90 – paragraph 1
39a. Article 90(1) shall be replaced by the following: ‘1. Any person to whom these Staff Regulations apply may submit to the appointing authority a request that it take a decision relating to him. The authority shall notify the person concerned within three months from the date on which the request was made. If at the end of that period no reply to the request has been received, this shall be deemed to constitute an implied decision rejecting it, against which a complaint may be lodged in accordance with the following paragraph.’
Amendment 107 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 39 b (new)
Article 1 – point 39 b (new)
Staff Regulations
Article 90 – paragraph 2
Article 90 – paragraph 2
39b. The second subparagraph of Article 90(2) shall be replaced by the following: The authority shall notify the person concerned within three months from the date on which the request was made. If at the end of that period no reply to the request has been received, this shall be deemed to constitute an implied decision rejecting it, against which a complaint may be lodged in accordance with the following paragraph.’
Amendment 108 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 39 c (new)
Article 1 – point 39 c (new)
Staff Regulations
Article 90 c a (new)
Article 90 c a (new)
39c. The following article shall be inserted after Article 90: ‘Article 90ca 1. If a complaint pursuant to Article 90(2) is rejected by express or implied decision, the person concerned may ask that a mediation procedure be conducted with respect to this rejection decision. 2. This request must be made within one month and be addressed to the European Ombudsman. This period shall begin in accordance with the second sentence of Article 91(3). 3. Following receipt of this request, the European Ombudsman shall initiate a mediation procedure, pursuing a dialogue with and between the parties in an effort to find a solution to the dispute. In doing so, the European Ombudsman may also put forward its own solutions. 4. The European Ombudsman shall notify both parties of the end of the mediation procedure, when: - there is agreement between the parties, - both parties inform the European Ombudsman that agreement is not possible, - one of the parties informs the European Ombudsman that agreement is not possible and the European Ombudsman concurs, or - one of the parties states that agreement is not possible and more than six months have elapsed since the request for initiation of the mediation procedure.’
Amendment 109 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 39 d (new)
Article 1 – point 39 d (new)
Staff Regulations
Article 91 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 91 – paragraph 3 a (new)
39d. The following paragraph shall be inserted in Article 91: ‘3a. By way of derogation from paragraph 3, the period for an appeal under Article 2 shall begin following a mediation procedure conducted with the European Ombudsman and notification that the mediation procedure has ended in accordance with Article 90d(4)’.
Amendment 54 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) PNR data are necessarymay be a useful means to effectively prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute terrorist offences and serious crimcertain types of serious crime of a transnational nature and thus enhance internal security.
Amendment 59 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) PNR data can help law enforcement authorities prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute serious transnational crimes, including acts of terrorism, by comparing them with various databases of persons and objects sought, to constructfind the necessary evidence and, where relevant, to find associates of criminals and unravel criminal networks.
Amendment 65 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
Amendment 76 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) To prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute terrorist offences and serious crime, it is therefore essential thattransnational crime, all Member States may introduce provisions laying down obligations on air carriers operating international flights to or from the territory of the Member States of the European Union.
Amendment 83 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Air carriers already collect and process PNR data from their passengers for their own commercial purposes. This Directive should not impose any obligation on air carriers to collect or retain any additional data from passengers or to impose any obligation on passengers to provide any data in addition to that already being provided to air carriers. Where air carriers do not routinely capture data in the normal course of business for commercial purposes, they should not be required to develop processes to collect such data.
Amendment 84 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11 a (new)
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) Member States should bear the costs of processing and forwarding PNR data.
Amendment 89 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) The definition of terrorist offences should be taken from Articles 1 to 4 of Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism. The definition of serious transnational crime should be taken from Article 2 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedure between Member States. However,and the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Member States mayshould exclude those minor offences for which, taking into account their respective criminal justice system, the processing of PNR data pursuant to this directive would not be in line with the principle of proportionality. The definition of serious transnational crime should be taken from Article 2 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organised Crime.
Amendment 103 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) The contents of any lists of required PNR data to be obtained by the Passenger Information Unit listed in the Annex to this Directive should be drawn up with the objective of reflecting the legitimate requirements of public authorities to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute terrorist offences or serious transnational crime, thereby improving internal security within the Union as well as protecting the fundamental rights of citizepersons, notably privacy and the protection of personal data. Such lists shoulddata shall not contain any personal data that could reveal racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership or data concerning health or sexual life of the individual concerned. The PNR data should contain details on the passenger's reservation and travel itinerary which enable competent authorities to identify air passengers representing a threat to internal security.
Amendment 109 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) There are two possible methods of data transfer currently available: the ‘'pull’' method, under which the competent authorities of the Member State requiring the data can reach into (access) the air carrier's reservation system and extract (‘'pull’') a copy of the required data, and the ‘'push’' method, under which air carriers transfer (‘'push’') the required PNR data to the authority requesting them, thus allowing air carriers to retain control of what data is provided. The ‘'push’' method is considered to offers a higher degree of data protection and should become mandatory for all air carriers, no later than two years after the entry into force of this Directive, for all air carriers which already collect and process PNR data for commercial purposes and operate international flights to or from the territory of the Member States. Should PNR data be handled by Computerised Reservation Service (CRS) operators, Regulation (EC) No 80/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 January 2009 on a Code of Conduct for computerised reservation systems1 applies. _____________ 1 OJ L 35, 4.2.2009, p. 47.
Amendment 126 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Member States should share with other Member States the PNR data that they receive where such transfer is necessary for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences or serious crime. The provisions of this Directive should be without prejudice to other Union instruments on the exchange of information between police and judicial authorities, including Council Decision 2009/371/JHA of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office (Europol) and Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA of 18 September 2006 on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the Member States of the European Uniontransnational crime as defined in this Directive. Such exchange of PNR data between law enforcement and judicial authorities should be governed by the rules on police and judicial cooperation.
Amendment 134 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) The period during which PNR data are to be retained should be proportionate to the purposes of the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious transnational crime. Because of the nature of the data and their uses, it is necessary that the PNR data are retained for a sufficiently long period for carrying out analysis and for use in investigations. In order to avoid disproportionate use, it is necessary that, after an initial period, the data are fully anonymised and only accessible under very strict and limited conditions.
Amendment 141 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) The processing of PNR data domestically in each Member State by the Passenger Information Unit and by competent authorities should be subject to a standard of protection of personal data under their national law which is in line with Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (‘'Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA’)') and Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data1. _____________ 1 OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.
Amendment 145 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) Taking into consideration the right to the protection of personal data, the rights of the data subjects to processing of their PNR data, such as the right of access, the right of rectification, erasure and blocking, as well as the rights to compensation and judicial remedies, should be in line with Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA and Directive 95/46/EC.
Amendment 148 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25 a (new)
Recital 25 a (new)
(25a) Member States should ensure that the costs arising from measures taken to use PNR data are not passed on to passengers.
Amendment 152 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) Transfers of PNR data by Member States to third countries should be permitted only on a case-by-case basis and in compliance with Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA. To ensure the protection of personal data, such transfers should be subject to additional requirements relating to the purpose of the transfer, the quality of the receiving authority and the safeguards applicable to the personal data transferred to the third country and Union data protection legislation.
Amendment 153 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 26 a (new)
Recital 26 a (new)
(26a) The transmission of PNR data should be limited to cases where it is indispensable for the prevention and detection of specific terrorist offences and, where third countries are involved, only if in compliance with Union data protection legislation.
Amendment 162 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
Recital 28
Amendment 180 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) In particular, the scope of the Directive is as limited as possible, it allows retention of PNR data for period of time not exceeding 5 year30 days, after which the data must be deleted, the data must be anonymised after a vpery short periodiod of seven days, the collection and use of sensitive data is prohibited. In order to ensure efficiency and a high level of data protection, Member States are required to ensure that an independent national supervisory authority is responsible for advising and monitoring how PNR data are processed. All processing of PNR data must be logged or documented for the purpose of verification of the lawfulness of the data processing, self-monitoring and ensuring proper data integrity and security of the data processing. Member States must also ensure that passengers are clearly and precisely informed about the collection of PNR data and their rights.
Amendment 195 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) The prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crimecertain types of serious transnational crime as defined in Article 2(i) and according to Article 4(2)(b) and (c); and.
Amendment 198 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b
Amendment 200 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The PNR data collected in accordance with this Directive shall not be processed for offences which are punishable by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of less than three years under the national law of a Member State.
Amendment 201 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 b (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. This Directive does not apply to flights within Europe or to means of transport other than airplanes.
Amendment 213 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) ‘'push method’' means the method whereby air carriers transfer the requirir collected PNR data listed in the Annex into the database of the authority requesting them;
Amendment 217 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point h
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point h
Amendment 226 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point i – introductory part
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point i – introductory part
(i) ‘'serious transnational crime’' means the offences under national law referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA if they are which have a significant transnational element and are punishable by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years under the national law of a Member State, and if:
Amendment 229 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point i a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point i a (new)
(ia) 'anonymisation' in the sense of the Directive can be defined as the irreversible manipulation of personal data, as defined in Directive 1995/46/EC, whether by the data controller or by any other person such that the data may not be associated with one or a small group of data subjects, taking account of all the means reasonably likely to be used either by the controller or by any other person to identify that person; in particular by reference to an identification number, location data, online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that person.
Amendment 234 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall set up or designate an authority competent for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences and serious transnational crime or a branch of such an authority to act as its ‘'Passenger Information Unit’' responsible for collecting PNR data from the air carriers, storing them, analysing them and transmitting the result of the analysis to the competent authorities referred to in Article 5. Its staff members may be seconded from competent public authorities.
Amendment 244 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 a (new)
Article 3 a (new)
Article 3a The storage, treatment and analysis of PNR data relating to passengers on international flights shall be carried out exclusively within the territory of the EU. The legislation applicable to these procedures shall therefore be the Union legislation on personal data protection.
Amendment 249 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. The PNR data transferred by the air carriers, pursuant to Article 6, in relation to international flights which land on or depart from the territory of each Member State shall be collected by the Passenger Information Unit of the relevant Member State. Air carriers shall refrain from transmitting sensitive data. Should the PNR data transferred by air carriers include data beyond those listed in the Annex, the Passenger Information Unit shall delete such data immediately upon receipt.
Amendment 252 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The Member States shall bear the costs of collecting, processing and forwarding PNR data.
Amendment 256 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a
Amendment 265 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) carrying out an assessment of the passengersfurther assessment – which may be carried out prior to their scheduled arrival or departure from the Member State in order to identify any persons who may beby the competent authorities referred to in Article 5 – of passengers in respect of whom there are compelling grounds for suspicion of involvedment in a terrorist offence or serious crime and who require further examination by the competent authorities referred to in Article 5transnational crime. In carrying out such an assessment the Passenger Information Unit may compare PNR data against relevant databases, including international or national databases or national mirrors of Union databases, where they are established on the basis of Union law, on persons or objects sought or under alert, in accordance with Union, international and national rules applicable to such files. Member States shall ensure that any positive match resulting from such automated processing is individually reviewed by non-automated means in order to verify whether the competent authority referred to in Article 5 needs to take action;
Amendment 268 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) responding, on a case-by-case basis, to duly reasoned requests from competent authorities to provide PNR data and process PNR data in specific cases for the purpose of prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of a terrorist offence or serious transnational crime, and to provide the competent authorities with the results of such processing; and
Amendment 272 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point d
Amendment 279 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The transmission of PNR data shall be authorised only by order of a court of a Member State following an application by the Passenger Information Unit. Only where the Passenger Information Unit identifies danger in delay ('periculum in mora') may it authorise such processing itself.
Amendment 289 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall adopt a list of the competent authorities entitled to request or receive PNR data or the result of the processing of PNR data from the Passenger Information Units in order to examine that information further or take appropriate action for the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting terrorist offences and serious transnational crime.
Amendment 292 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. Competent authorities shall consist of authorities competent for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences and serious transnational crime.
Amendment 296 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 4
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. The PNR data of passengers and the result of the processing of PNR data received by the Passenger Information Unit may be further processed by the competent authorities of the Member States only for the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting terrorist offences or serious transnational crime.
Amendment 306 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that air carriers which already collect PNR data from their passengers transfer (‘'push’') the PNR data as defined in Article 2(c) and specified in the Annex, to the extent that such data are already collected by them in the normal course of their business, to the database of the national Passenger Information Unit of the Member State on the territory of which the international flight will land or from the territory of which the flight will depart. Where the flight is code-shared between one or more air carriers, the obligation to transfer the PNR data of all passengers on the flight shall be on the air carrier that operates the flight. Where the flight has one or more stop-overs at the airports of the Member States, air carriers shall transfer the PNR data exclusively to the Passenger Information Units of all the Member States concerned of final arrival.
Amendment 309 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Member States shall not require air carriers to collect any PNR data that they do not already collect. Air carriers shall not transfer any PNR data other than those defined in Article 2(c) and specified in the Annex. Air carriers shall take every reasonable precaution to ensure that the data collected from passengers are accurate and correct; where this is found not to be the case, the air carrier may be held liable.
Amendment 313 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Air carriers shall transfer PNR data by electronic means using the common protocols and supported data formats to be adopted in accordance with the procedure of Articles 13 and 14 or, in the event of technical failure of the air carriers, by any other appropriate means ensuring an appropriate level of data security:
Amendment 321 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. Member States mayshall permit air carriers to limit the transfer referred to in point (b) of paragraph 2 to updates of the transfer referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2.
Amendment 326 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. On a case-by-case basis, upon request from a Passenger Information Unit in accordance with national law, air carriers shall transfer PNR data where access earlier than that mentioned in point (a) of paragraph 2 is necessary to assist in responding to a specific and actual threat related to terrorist offences or serious transnational crime.
Amendment 332 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that, with regard to persons identified by a Passenger Information Unit in accordance with Article 4(2)(a) and (b), the result of the processing of PNR data is transmitted by that Passenger Information Unit to the Passenger Information Units of other Member States where the former Passenger Information Unit considers such transfer to be necessary for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences or serious crimetransnational crime. Such transfers shall be strictly limited to the data necessary in specific cases for the prevention, investigation or prosecution of a terrorist offence or serious transnational crime and shall be justified in writing. The Passenger Information Units of the receiving Member States shall transmit such PNR data or the result of the processing of PNR data to their relevant competent authorities.
Amendment 338 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. The Passenger Information Unit of a Member State shall have the right to request, if necessary, the Passenger Information Unit of any other Member State to provide it with PNR data that are kept in the latter's database in accordance with Article 9(1), and, if necessary, also the result of the processing of PNR data. The request for such data shall be strictly limited to the data necessary in the specific case. It may be based on any one or a combination of data elements, as deemed necessary by the requesting Passenger Information Unit for a specific case of prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences or serious crimetransnational crime and shall be justified in writing. Passenger Information Units shall provide the requested data as soon as practicable and shall provide also the result of the processing of PNR data, if it has already been prepared pursuant to Article 4(2)(a) and (b).
Amendment 344 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. The Passenger Information Unit of a Member State shall have the right to request, if necessary, the Passenger Information Unit of any other Member State to provide it with PNR data that are kept in the latter's database in accordance with Article 9(2), and, if necessary, also the result of the processing of PNR data. The Passenger Information Unit may request access to specific PNR data kept by the Passenger Information Unit of another Member State in their full form without the masking out only in exceptional circumstances in response to a specific threat or a specific investigation or prosecution related to terrorist offences or serious crimetransnational crime. Such a request shall be justified in writing.
Amendment 352 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 4
Article 7 – paragraph 4
4. Only in those cases where it is necessary for the prevention of an immediate and serious threat to public security may the competent authorities of a Member State request directly the Passenger Information Unit of any other Member State to provide it with PNR data that are kept in the latter's database in accordance with Article 9(1) and (2). Such requests shall relate to a specific investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences or serious transnational crime and shall be reasoned. Passenger Information Units shall respond to such requests as a matter of priority. In all other cases the competent authorities shall channel their requests through the Passenger Information Unit of their own Member State.
Amendment 357 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 5
Article 7 – paragraph 5
5. Exceptionally, where early access is necessary to respond to a specific and actual threat related to terrorist offences or serious transnational crime, the Passenger Information Unit of a Member State shall have the right to request the Passenger Information Unit of another Member State to provide it with PNR data of flights landing in or departing from the latter's territory at any time. Such requests shall be strictly limited to the data necessary in the specific case for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of a terrorist offence or serious transnational crime and shall be justified in writing.
Amendment 360 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 6
Article 7 – paragraph 6
6. Exchange of information under this Article may take place using any existing channels for European and international law enforcement cooperation, in particular Europol and national units under Article 8 of Council Decision 2009/371/JHA of 6 April 2009. The language used for the request and the exchange of information shall be the one applicable to the channel used. Member States shall, when making their notifications in accordance with Article 3(3), also inform the Commission with details of the contacts to which requests may be sent in cases of urgency. The Commission shall communicate to the Member States the notifications received.
Amendment 364 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
A Member State may transfer PNR data and the results of the processing of PNR data to a third country, only on a case-by- case basis and only when expressly authorized by a binding international agreement between the Union and that third country, and if:
Amendment 372 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the third country agrees to transfer the data to another third countryguarantees that it will use the data only where it is necessary for the purposes of this Directive specified in Article 1(2) and only with the express authorisation of the Member Stadelete the data just as soon as it is no longer strictly necessary to retain it. Transfer by the third country to another third country shall be prohibited.
Amendment 376 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) the third country allows Union citizens, without excessive delay or expense, the same level of protection of personal data and the same rights of access, rectification, erasure and compensation with regard to the PNR data as apply in the Union,
Amendment 384 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 399 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4
Article 9 – paragraph 4
4. The result of matching referred to in Article 4(2)(a) and (b) shall be kept by the Passenger Information Unit only as long as necessary to inform the competent authorities of a positive match. Where the result of an automated matching operation has, further to individual review by non- automated means, proven to be negative, it shall, however, be stored so as to avoid future ‘false’ positive matches for a maximum period of three years unless the underlying data have not yet been deleted in accordance with paragraph 3the data shall be corrected or deleted from the database at the latest at the expirynd of the five years, in which case the log shall be kept until the underlying data are deletethree-month retention period.
Amendment 411 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Where provisions adopted under national law in implementation of Directive 95/46/EC provide the passenger with more rights to access, rectification, erasure and blocking of the data, to compensation, judicial redress, confidentiality of processing and data security than the provisions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, those provisions shall apply.
Amendment 417 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. State of the art technology shall be used for the protection of all data, taking into account the latest developments in expert discussions on data protection and constantly updated to include new knowledge and insights. In particular, a state of the art encryption process shall be used which: - ensures that data-processing systems cannot be used by unauthorised persons; - ensures that authorised users of a data- processing system can access no data other than those to which their access right refers, and that personal data cannot be read, copied, altered or removed without authorisation when being processed or used; - ensures that personal data cannot be read, copied or altered without authorisation when being electronically transmitted or during transport or saving to a storage medium, and ensures that it is possible to check and establish to which locations personal data is to be transferred by data transmission facilities. The possibility of retrospectively checking and establishing whether and by whom personal data have accessed shall be guaranteed. It shall be guaranteed that personal data processed under contract can be processed only in accordance with the contracting entity's instructions.
Amendment 420 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 5
Article 11 – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall ensure that air carriers, their agents or other ticket sellers for the carriage of passengers, at the time of booking a flight and at the time of purchase onf air service inform ticket, passengers of international flights at the time of booking a flight and at the time of purchase of a ticketre informed in a clear and precise manner about the provision of PNR data to the Passenger Information Units, the purposes of their processing, the period of data retention, their possible use to prevent, detect, investigate or prosecute terrorist offences and transnational serious crime, the possibility of exchanging and sharing such data and their data protection rights, in particularsuch as the right to access, correct, erase and block data and the right to complain to a national data protection supervisory authority of their choice. The same information shall be made available by the Member States to the public.
Amendment 427 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 1 a (new)
The Commission shall submit a report on the financial impact of this Directive to the European Parliament and the Council. The report shall focus in particular on the costs incurred by passengers, air carriers and ticket sellers. If appropriate, the report shall be accompanied by a legislative proposal aimed at harmonising the division of the financial burden between public authorities and air carriers across the Union.
Amendment 438 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16
Article 16
Amendment 442 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 455 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall prepare a set of statistical information on PNR data provided to the Passenger Information Units. Such statistics shall as a minimum cover the number of identifications of any persons who may be involved in a terrorist offence or serious transnational crime according to Article 4(2) and, the number of subsequent law enforcement actions that were taken involving the use of PNR data per air carrier and destination, the number of persons identified for further scrutiny and the number of persons later found to have been unjustifiably flagged as suspect.
Amendment 458 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex 1 – point 5
Annex 1 – point 5
Amendment 460 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex 1 – point 6
Annex 1 – point 6
Amendment 463 #
Amendment 466 #
Amendment 468 #
Amendment 472 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex 1 – point 12
Annex 1 – point 12
Amendment 476 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex 1 – point 13
Annex 1 – point 13
Amendment 479 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex 1 – point 14
Annex 1 – point 14
Amendment 483 #
Amendment 485 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex 1 – point 17
Annex 1 – point 17
Amendment 488 #
2011/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex 1 – point 19
Annex 1 – point 19
Amendment 1 #
2010/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Takes the view that the absence of a rigorous strategy for reaching decisions on the seats of agencies has given rise to unnecessary additional costs and that this has led to the true costs being kept from taxpayers since, for example, previously non-existent infrastructure was not taken into account, leading to additional costs, inter alia for construction of new offices and conference venues, new schools, development of transport infrastructure because of higher mission costs, considerable difficulties in recruiting staff, etc.;
Amendment 2 #
2010/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1a. Calls on the interinstitutional working party on the agencies to draw up a precise catalogue of criteria which must be used in reaching decisions on seats, in order to achieve goals such as greater responsibility, transparency and efficiency in European administration;
Amendment 4 #
2010/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new) (in section "Purpose of agencies")
Paragraph 1 a (new) (in section "Purpose of agencies")
1a. Is concerned that the Commission has only on rare occasions adequately fulfilled the requirement to give reasons in the context of the subsidiarity principle; calls on the Commission to meet the requirement to provide reasons in the context of the subsidiarity principle with the help of detailed qualitative and quantitative criteria;
Amendment 5 #
2010/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new) (in section "Purpose of agencies")
Paragraph 1 b (new) (in section "Purpose of agencies")
1b. Notes that many agencies are active in areas which do not fall within the exclusive competence of the Union; notes that the subsidiarity principle has often been violated as a result;
Amendment 6 #
2010/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new) (in section "Purpose of agencies")
Paragraph 1 c (new) (in section "Purpose of agencies")
1c. Calls on the interinstitutional working party on the agencies to look carefully at which agencies have areas of activity that do not fall within the exclusive competence of the Union, and on the basis of this to draw up a detailed timetable for closing these agencies;
Amendment 7 #
2010/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that some of the agencies have very similar remits; calls accordingly for the interinstitutional working group on the agencies to consider whether some agencies should work closely together or even be mergeddraw up detailed proposals on the merging of agencies;
Amendment 10 #
2010/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on the interinstitutional working party on the agencies to set an upper limit on the number of members of the management board, using the number of posts provided for in the establishment plan of the agency in question as a guide;
Amendment 20 #
2010/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. having regard to the principle of conferral, which is enshrined in the current legal base of the European Union in, inter alia, Article 5(2) of the Treaty on European Union (formerly Article 5 of the EC Treaty) and states that the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein, and that competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States,
Amendment 21 #
2010/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. having regard to the principle of subsidiarity, which is enshrined in the current legal base of the European Union in, inter alia, Article 5(3) of the Treaty on European Union (formerly Article 5(2) of the EC Treaty) and states that in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level,
Amendment 22 #
2010/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)
Recital C c (new)
Cc. whereas, under Article 5 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, draft European legislative acts must be justified with regard to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and the reasons for concluding that a Union objective can be better achieved at Union level must be substantiated by qualitative or quantitative indicators,
Amendment 23 #
2010/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C d (new)
Recital C d (new)
Cd. whereas, under Article 5 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, proper account must be taken of the need for any burden, whether financial or administrative, falling upon the Union to be minimised and commensurate with the objective to be achieved,
Amendment 70 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) It is necessary to establish the minimum number of Member States from which citizens must come. In order toThis threshold should ensure that a citizens' initiative is representative of a Union interest, this number shouldbut the requirements should not be too arduous. It should therefore be set at one thirdsixth of Member States.
Amendment 82 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) In order to ensure coherence and transparency in relation to proposed citizens' initiatives and to avoid a situation in which signatures are collected for a proposal which does not fall within the scope of this Regulation, it should be mandatory to register such initiatives on a website made available by the Commission prior to collecting the necessary statements of support from citizens; p. Proposals that are abusive or devoid of seriousness should not be registered and the Commission should reject the registration of proposals which would be manifestly against the values of the Union. The Commission should deal with registration in accordance with the general principles of good administration. not citizens' initiatives within the meaning of this Regulation should not be registered. Registration is an administrative procedure aimed at selecting those initiatives that fall within the scope of this Regulation; registration should be based only on legal grounds and it should not, on any account, be possible to refuse registration on grounds of political expediency. The Commission should deal with registration in accordance with a clear list of admissibility criteria adopted by the Commission. In the event of registration’s being rejected, any citizen should be able to ascertain swiftly and simply by means of an appropriate Internet site what initiative has been refused and on what grounds. In such a case the organisers of the initiative should be informed of all possible judicial and extrajudicial remedies available to them.
Amendment 97 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) The Commission should examine a citizens' initiative and set out its conclusions and the actions it envisages to take in response to it, within a period of four monthslegal and political conclusions separately within three months; it should also set out all the actions it envisages to take in response to it. In order to demonstrate that a citizens' initiative supported by at least one million Union citizens and its possible follow-up is carefully examined, the Commission should explain in a clear, comprehensible and detailed manner the reasons for its intended action, and should likewise give reasons if it does not envisage taking any action. After registration has successfully been sought and one million signatures have been collected, the Commission and the European Parliament should invariably be required to face up to the demands of the citizens in the form of a right for the initiators to receive a public hearing.
Amendment 106 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point 1
Article 2 – point 1
1. "Citizens’ initiative" means an initiative, submitted to the Commission in accordance with the present Regulation, inviting the Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties, which has received the support of at least one million eligible signatories coming from at least one thirdsixth of all Member States;
Amendment 116 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Organisers shall form a citizens' committee of at least five persons who are residents of at least five Member States. The organisers shall designate one representative and one substitute, who shall perform a liaison function between the citizens' committee and the institutions of the European Union throughout the procedure and who shall be mandated to speak and act on behalf of the citizens' committee.
Amendment 125 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 a (new)
Article 3 a (new)
Article 3a Requirement applicable to the Commission The Commission shall draw up a clear list of admissibility criteria, indicating the rules relating to the collection of signatures (on paper and on line) and all the formal criteria for completing the form for a statement of support. The list of eligibility criteria should also make it clear to European citizens on what subjects no citizens’ initiatives may be launched and on what specific grounds an application may be rejected.
Amendment 126 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. Prior to initiating the collection of statements of support from signatories for a proposed citizens' initiative, the organisers shall be required to register it with the Commission, providing the information set out in Annex II, in particular on the subject-matter and objectives as well as on the sources of funding and support for the proposed citizens' initiativeof the proposed citizens' initiative. The organisers shall provide on their website, for the register defined in the second subparagraph, regularly updated information on the sources of support and funding for the initiative. This information must also include details of donations exceeding € 1 000. The information concerning support and funding shall be checked by an independent auditor. The costs incurred shall be reimbursed to the initiators pursuant to Article 10(2a).
Amendment 129 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
This information shall be provided in one of thor more official languages of the Union, in an online register made available for that purpose by the Commission (hereafter "the register"). Information in an official language other the language(s) in which it was originally provided may be provided subsequently for entry in the register. The translation of the initiative into other official languages of the Union shall be the responsibility of the Commission.
Amendment 135 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The Commission shall refuse to register a proposed initiative if the conditions laid down in paragraph 3 are not met. The Commission shall take any measures it considers necessary to assure organisers that its decision on the registration fully respects the letter and the spirit of the Treaties, without prejudice to its subsequent decision on the substance of the matter. Should the Commission refuse to register an initiative, it shall inform the organisers of the reasons for this refusal and ensure that EU citizens have quick and easy access (Internet) to a statement of those reasons and to details of all the legal and non-legal forms of redress available to them.
Amendment 157 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. The signatories of a citizens' initiative shall come from at least one thirdsixth of Member States.
Amendment 163 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. In one thirdsixth of Member States, signatories shall comprise at least the minimum number of citizens set out in Annex I.
Amendment 172 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
After having obtained the certificates provided for in Article 9(2), and provided that all relevant procedures and conditions set out in this Regulation have been complied with, the organisers may submit the citizens’ initiative to the Commission, accompanied by information regarding any support and funding received for the initiative. The amount of support and funding received from natural persons needed to trigger the requirement to provide information shall be determined by the Commission by means of delegated acts, pursuant to Article 16, and in accordance with the conditions laid down in Articles 17 and 18. The Commission shall be required to provide an adequate explanation for any decision to set different thresholds for different citizens' initiatives.
Amendment 175 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 2 a (new)
The costs incurred by the organiser in complying with the admissibility criteria, including testing by independent auditors, and legal costs incurred in successfully challenging a decision to reject a citizens' initiative shall be reimbursed up to a maximum of EUR 50 000.
Amendment 176 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Amendment 183 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
b. examine the citizens' initiative and, within 43 months, set out publicly in a communication its final legal and practical conclusions on the initiative, the action it intends to take, if any, and its reasons for doing soor its decision not to take any action, and its reasons for doing so, so that citizens can quickly and easily obtain the relevant information.
Amendment 200 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I
Annex I
Minimum number of signatories per Member State Austria 14257470 Belgium 16509630 Bulgaria 13506840 Cyprus 4500702 Czech republic 16500 9450 Denmark 9754860 Estonia 4501170 Finland 9754770 France 55500 Germany 72000 Greece 16509990 Hungary 1659000 Ireland 9003870 Italy 54750 Latvia 6751980 Lithuania 9002970 Luxembourg 451000 Malta 451000 The Netherlands 195040 Poland 38254290 Portugal 16509540 Romania 24719350 Slovakia 49750 Slovenia 601800 Spain 40500 Sweden 15008280 United Kingdom 54750
Amendment 17 #
2009/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that the Union must enhance its strategic autonomy through a strong and effectiveobjectives of the Union in its foreign, security and defence policy, so as are to promote peace and international security, defend its interests in the world, protect the security of its own citizens, contribute to effective multilateralism in support of international law and advance respect for human rights and democratic values worldwide;
Amendment 22 #
2009/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Reiterates its support for the Union’s efforts to address these threats by developing a holistic approach synergisploying the various means of action – both civil andor military – available to the Union and its Member States; emphasises that such coordination of civil and military means gives genuine added-value to the Union’s crisis management work in a clearly distinct manner so that no ambiguities can arise, inter alia with regard to financing;
Amendment 45 #
2009/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 – point e
Paragraph 8 – point e
Amendment 48 #
2009/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Calls on the Council in 2010, in the debate with the European Parliament and national parliaments on the implementation of the new clause in the Lisbon Treaty concerning mutual assistance in the event of armed aggression on the territory of a Member State, to take account of the fact that this collective assistance obligation possesses no legally binding force, does not necessarily entail the use of military means and leaves it to the discretion of the individual Member States to decide the nature of the assistance to be provided, thus also permitting the militarily neutral and non-aligned Member States to preserve the special character of their security and defence policies;
Amendment 51 #
2009/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Council to reopen the debate on establishing a European civil protection force – inter alia on the basis of the May 2006 Barnier report – that would pool the Member States’ resources in order to generate an effective collective response in the event of natural or man-made disasters, both inside and outside the Union, with a view to inserting a solidarity clause into the new treaty; takes the view that the military ESDP/CSDP should also provide scope for responding to civilian hazards;
Amendment 55 #
2009/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Stresses, in the light of the progress made possible by the new tdevelopments based on the Lisbon Treaty in relation to the CSDP, the legitimacy and value of setting up a Defence Council within the Foreign Affairs Council, which would comprise the defence ministers, be chaired by the Vice-President/High Representative and play a special role in developing military capacity;
Amendment 66 #
2009/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. SupportNotes the establishment of a civil- military Crisis Management and Planning Directorate (CMPD) to take responsibility for crisis management and strategic planning of the Union’s civil and military operations and help develop the CSDP, particularly in terms of civil and military capabilities; deprecates, however, the extremely lengthy delay in setting up this new structure; hopes that the instruments available to the Commission will also be used as part of this single strategic planning capacity in order to develop a holistic European approach; takes the view that the establishment of the EEAS, into which the CMPD will be incorporated as part of a coherent grouping that will also include the EU Military Staff, Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC) and the Joint Situation Centre (SitCen), should make it possible to meet these requirements;
Amendment 79 #
2009/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 84 #
2009/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. WelcomNotes the achievements of the ESDP on the occasion of its tenth anniversary, and notes that the Union launches civil and military operations under the CSDP in response to threats to international and European security; commends the 70 000 or so personnel involved in the 23 missions and operations currently in progress or already completed in the context of the ESDP; commends Mr Javier Solana, Secretary-General of the Council and High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, for his work on developing the ESDP;
Amendment 87 #
2009/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 94 #
2009/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Stresses that the European Union’s naval operation in Somalia (EU NAVFOR Somalia – Operation Atalanta) to combat piracy in the Gulf of Aden and off the coast of Somalia is not an adequate means of eliminating the causes of the piracy there; notes that, contrary to the statement by the Swedish Presidency of the Council that attacks in the Gulf of Aden have declined significantly, the International Maritime Bureau has indicated that 306 attacks took place in the first nine months of 2009 alone, whereas in 2008 only 293 had been recorded in the whole year; stresses furthermore that, according to the International Maritime Bureau, armed attacks have risen by 200% since the operation began; stresses in addition that the expenditure incurred by this operation and by other national and multilateral operations is out of all reasonable proportion to the estimated losses;
Amendment 147 #
2009/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Welcomes theall nuclear disarmament initiatives, particularly the most recent declarations and stated objectives of the newpresent American administration; and its commitment to take nuclear disarmament forwardt the same time deplores the fact that the USA still has not ratified the UN Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT);
Amendment 153 #
2009/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40 a (new)
Paragraph 40 a (new)
40a. Observes that continued stationing of nuclear weapons within the European Union undermines worldwide efforts to prevent third countries from developing nuclear weapons;
Amendment 157 #
2009/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
Amendment 161 #
2009/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Stresses the need to seek synergies between civil and military capabilities and to identify areas in which the Member States can pool their capabilities in a difficult economic climatat in a difficult economic climate the requirement laid down in the Lisbon Treaty for Member States 'progressively to improve their military capabilities' should be complied with by means of mutual division of labour and resources and better training of personnel in human rights and international law issues without increasing arms expenditure;
Amendment 163 #
2009/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 a (new)
Paragraph 42 a (new)
42a. Stresses that increasing arms expenditure is not compatible either with the objective of peace-keeping or with the budgetary priorities of the European Union, which is a peace project; calls on the Member States and the Council to take measures with the aim of saving on arms expenditure by means of a division of labour and resources, particularly as an alternative to new defence procurement;
Amendment 175 #
2009/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Views it as regrettable that the Battlegroups (BGs) – despite the significant investment they represent – have not yet been used, partly for political reasons and partly becauseWelcomes the fact that the criteria for their deployment is subject to very stringent criteria; supports more flexible use of the BGs so that they can also serve as a reserve force or as a partial substitute in the event of a disappointing force generation process; calls for an extension of the provisional agreement designed to cover the costs arising from strategic deployment of the BGs, and of the common funding for the costs associated with their use; calls on the Council to deploy them as part of full-scale military exercises; commends the work undertaken at the instigation of the Swedish Presidency on flexible use of the BGs and, on this basis, calls on the Member States to implement the recommendations adoptedof Battlegroups (BGs) are very strict and that it has not so far been necessary to deploy them;
Amendment 185 #
2009/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Supports the establishment of a competitive European industrial and technological defence base and an open, transparenttransparent, adequately regulated and fully monitored European market for defence equipment; accordingly, calls on the Member States to continue their research and development efforts by honouring their commitment to devote 2% of defence spending to this area, and to transpose the defence package directives in a harmonised manneror expand their efforts to fight corruption, in view of the above-average susceptibility to bribery in connection with large-scale public procurement of these goods, as regularly demonstrated in studies such as the Bribe- Payers' Index produced by the organisation Transparency International;
Amendment 191 #
2009/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58
Paragraph 58
58. Recalls the provision in the Lisbon Treaty on the start-up fund available to the Vice-President/High Representative for the purpose of financing preparatory activities for CSDP missions which, for one reason or another, are not covered by the EU budget; emphasises the added-value of this fund, which should make it easier for the Vice-President/High Representative to prepare effectively and rapidly for action in the context of the CSDP; encouragncourages the Member States to start the necessary implementation work in the near future and adopt precise criteria for the use of these funds, and stresses theat Member States to start the necessary implementation work in the near futuremust not be compelled to finance expenditure on measures with military or defence implications;
Amendment 192 #
2009/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59
Paragraph 59
Amendment 206 #
2009/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67
Paragraph 67
67. WelcomNotes the cooperation between the EU and NATO in the field of military capability, such as the efforts to improve operational helicopter capacity, and stresses in this context the need to take account of the special character of the security and defence policies of certain Member States, particularly those which are militarily neutral and non-aligned;
Amendment 227 #
2009/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 74
Paragraph 74
74. RecallStresses that the European Parliament is the only supranational institutLisbon Treaty has partially supranationalised the Common Foreign and Security Policy, because measures in this field have been assigned to the European Union, with a legitimate claim to exercise democratic supervision over the EU’s security and defence policy, and that this role has been strengthened by the entry into force of the Lhich has acquired legal personality and which is no longer represented at international level by the Foreign Ministers of the Member States but by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy; stresses that this has resulted in the creation of a hermaphroditic post, to the detriment of democratic control and of the precise powers required to exercise it; recalls that the European Parliament is the only supranational institution with a legitimate claim to exercise democratic supervisbion Treatover the EU’s security and defence policy; takes the view that the WEU Assembly – which owes its existence to a treaty (the Modified Brussels Treaty) that has not been signed by all the EU Member States – is not legally entitled to exercise parliamentary supervision over the CSDP;
Amendment 229 #
2009/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 76
Paragraph 76
76. Calls on the Council to inform it in advance of the preparation and conduct of mmpart democratic legitimacy to all ESDP operations by means of additional prior decissions and operations; suggests that of the European Parliament; calls on the Council, out of a concern for transparency, to keep it regularly informedthe European Parliament informed regularly and in detail regarding the use of the Athena mechanism and the start-up fund, as it already does in the case of the use of CFSP appropriations for civil missionsparticularly with reference to financial control;
Amendment 232 #
2009/2198(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 77
Paragraph 77
77. Calls for the revision of the 2002 interinstitutional agreements between the European Parliament and the Council concerning the European Parliament’s access to sensitive Council information relating to the ESDP and the CSDP, so that the MEPs responsible – including the Chaiall members of the subcommittees on security and defence and on human rights – can obtain the necessary information to exercise their prerogatives in an informed manner;
Amendment 5 #
2009/2070(DEC)
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. ________Postpones its decision on granting the Council’s Secretary- General discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2008;
Amendment 16 #
2009/2070(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Reminds the Council of its resolution of 25 November 20092, which requires it to verify progresPoints out that the decision on discharge is being held up because the Council has still not made any visible progress on the following points, which were raised in Parliament’s resolution of 25 November 20092; strongly urges the Council to demonstrate results oin the following matterareas:
Amendment 1 #
2009/2069(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes the general concept of 'corporategood governance' as a set of processes, customs, policies and rules affecting the way a company or institution is directed, administered and controlled’, particularly its inherent principles of administrative transparency, efficiency, participation and responsibility, with the aim of reducing costs and improving output for the benefit of the groups concerned;
Amendment 2 #
2009/2069(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Views the prevention and investigation of corruption as a fundamental precondition of 'good governance';
Amendment 4 #
2009/2069(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – introductory part
Paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Draws the attention to the need urgently to introduce a clear and transparent corporatesystem of governance system in Parliament, defined as a set of responsibilities and practices exercised by Parliament's principal decision-makers (the Bureau, the Secretary-General and senior line management), with the aim of:
Amendment 7 #
2009/2069(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that key elements of a good corporatesystem of governance include honesty and integrity, transparency and openness, responsibility and accountability and some degree of independence from top management on the part of the persons entrusted with corporate governance in an organisation;
Amendment 9 #
2009/2069(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that Parliament is a complex organisation in which the boundary between political and administrative decisions and responsibilities is not always clear due to the multilayered character of the institution's governance structure and the fact that high- level administrative decision-makers are not alwaysusually appointed on the basis ofnot for their managerial capabilities alone, but rather on the basis of their position of trust within a political group;
Amendment 13 #
2009/2069(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Invites the competent services, therefore, to review and reinforce the minimum internal control standards in order to include lessons learned and to keep in line with developments in risk management and corporate governance; recalls that authorising departments are under an obligation to respect the standards in developing their internal control systems and implementing measures; invites the competent services to seek the opinion of its Committee on Budgetary Control before the revised minimum internal control standards is sent to the Bureau for review and approval;
Amendment 56 #
2009/2069(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28a. Emphasises the decisive importance to Parliament's credibility of ensuring that the EU rules on public procurement, agreed with significant input from Parliament, are properly and rigorously applied;
Amendment 57 #
2009/2069(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 b (new)
Paragraph 28 b (new)
28b. Welcomes and supports the European Ombudsman's efforts to ensure that the rules on the award of public contracts are properly applied and that errors and infringements are investigated and corrected, because only in this way can transparency and fairness be guaranteed;
Amendment 58 #
2009/2069(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 c (new)
Paragraph 28 c (new)
Amendment 59 #
2009/2069(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 d (new)
Paragraph 28 d (new)
28d. Points to Special Report No 2/2007 of the Court of Auditors, in which the Court reviewed the procedure for the Willy Brandt and Jószef Antall buildings and found that in place of the competitive tendering normally envisaged by the Financial Regulation and the directives on public procurement, the method of 'negotiated procedure' (without advertising) had been used, which meant that the prices paid 'have not been determined under conditions of open competition' (Report, paragraph 23, Official Journal C 148 of 2.7.2007, page 1);
Amendment 60 #
2009/2069(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 e (new)
Paragraph 28 e (new)
Amendment 61 #
2009/2069(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 f (new)
Paragraph 28 f (new)
28f. In the light of the C-536/07 judgment and on the basis of Article 103 of the Financial Regulation, calls on the Praesidium of Parliament to investigate whether sums already paid to private contractors for the Willy Brandt and Jószef Antall buildings might not be recovered if tendering rules have been infringed;
Amendment 115 #
2009/2069(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68 a (new)
Paragraph 68 a (new)
68a. Calls on the Secretary-General, the Director-General for Personnel and the Director-General for Innovation and Technological Support to look at how far use might be made of new video- conferencing technologies as a way of reducing the cost of missions; points especially to the use of Open Source software as a secure and cheap way of conducting video conferences;
Amendment 116 #
2009/2069(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68 b (new)
Paragraph 68 b (new)
68b. Calls on the Secretary-General and the Director-General for Personnel to end the system of flat-rate reimbursement of mission expenses and replace it with a system whereby only costs actually incurred are reimbursed; points in this context to the need to encourage staff to choose less expensive travel and accommodation options, perhaps by publishing individuals' mission expenses on Parliament's website so that they are fully transparent;
Amendment 122 #
2009/2069(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75
Paragraph 75
75. Recalls – as stated in paragraph 104 of its resolution of 23 April 2009 accompanying the discharge decision in respect to the financial year 2007 – that the Members' additional voluntary pension scheme (the fund) originally should have been established as a self-governing entity outside the structure of Parliament and; takes the view that ultimate financial responsibility for the fund should be carriedis borne by the fund and its members and not by Parliament and that tax money may not be used to cover any losses of this fund;