717 Amendments of Baroness Sarah LUDFORD
Amendment 14 #
2014/2006(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 a (new)
Citation 11 a (new)
- having regard to the motion for a European Parliament resolution with recommendations to the Commission on the review of the European Arrest Warrant (2013/2109(INL), Rapporteur: Sarah Ludford, A7-0039/2014);
Amendment 47 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the 2013 Progress Report on Turkey and shares the Commission's conclusion that Turkey is a strategic partner for the European Union and that important progress on reforms was made in the preceding twelve months; underlines the importance and urgent need of further reforms and the promotion of dialogue across the political spectrum and in society more broadly, as well as the respect of fundamental rights in practice; regrets however that the events around Gezi Park and the heavy-handed response from security forces, along with increasingly reactionary and harsh public statements by Prime Minister Erdoğan, raise serious questions about the government's commitment to respect basic democratic values and tolerate different views and lifestyles;
Amendment 55 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the transformative power of negotiations between the Union and Turkey, which haveStresses that accession negotiations, conducted in good faith, could provided Turkey with a clear reference for its reform process; stresses therefore the importance of credible negotiations based on a mutual commitment by Turkey and the Union to effective reforms furthering the democratic foundations of Turkish society, promoting fundamental values and producing positive change in the institutions, in legislation and, in the mentality of society; welcomes, therefore the opening of Chapter 22;
Amendment 58 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the potential transformative power of negotiations between the Union and Turkey, which havecould provided Turkey with a clear reference for its reform process; stresses therefore the importance of crediblrestoring credibility to the negotiations based on a mutual commitment by Turkey and the Union to effective reforms furthering the democratic foundations of Turkish society, promoting fundamental values and producing positive change in the institutions, in legislation and, in the mentality of society; welcomes, therefore the opening of Chapter 22;
Amendment 68 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. StressWelcomes the importance of achieving a common understanding between Turkey and the EU on the relevance for both the EU and Turkey of the readmission agreement and the roadmap leading to visa liberalisation; recalls that Turkey is one of the key transit countries for irregular migration to the EU and therefore calls on Turkey to sign and implement the readmission agreement without further delay; calls on the Commission in parallel to take steps towards visa liberalisationsignature by Turkey of the readmission agreement on 16 December 2013, which enables the launch of the roadmap leading to visa liberalisation; recalls that Turkey is one of the key transit countries for irregular migration to the EU and stresses the clear benefits of facilitating access to the EU for business people, academics, students and representatives of civil society;
Amendment 87 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -4 (new)
Paragraph -4 (new)
-4. Expresses its great concern at recent developments which amount to a crisis of the Turkish State; deplores the statements of the government which point to a lack of understanding of the principle of the separation of powers; regrets the serious breakdown of trust between the government, the judiciary, the police and the media; urges the government to desist from actions which impede the investigation and prosecution of corruption and organised crime in high places; calls once again for all institutions, business interests and political forces to fully respect the rule of law and to guarantee the impartiality and independence of the judiciary; calls, moreover, on the Gülen Movement to improve its transparency and accountability, and expects that all allegations against the Movement will be subject to impartial enquiry;
Amendment 91 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points to the crucial role of a system of checks and balances for any modern democratic State and the fundamental role that the Turkish Grand National Assembly must play at the centre of Turkey’s political system in providing a framework for dialogue and consensus-building across the political spectrum; expresses concern about political polarisation and the lack of readiness on the part of government and opposition to work towards consensus on key reforms; urges all political actors, the government and the opposition to work together to enhance a pluralistic vision in State institutions and to promote the modernisation and democratisation of the State and society; calls on the political majority to actively involve the minority in the deliberation process on relevant reforms and take into consideration, whenever possible, their interests and views in an inclusive manner; emphasises that constitutional reform must remain the top priority for the modernisation of the Republic in which those elected democratically will also govern democratically;
Amendment 92 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points to the crucial role of a system of checks and balances for any modern democratic State and the fundamental role that the Turkish Grand National Assembly must play at the centre of Turkey’'s political system in providing a framework for dialogue and consensus-building across the political spectrum; expresses concern about political polarisation and the lack of readiness on the part of government and opposition to work towards consensus on key reforms; urges all political actors, the government and the opposition to work together to enhance a pluralistic vision in State institutions and to promote the modernisation and democratisation of the State and society; calls on the political majority to actively involve the minority in the deliberation process on relevant reforms and take into consideration, whenever possible, their interests and views in an inclusive manner; underlines that democracy is more than elections and expects those elected democratically also to govern democratically;
Amendment 100 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. expresses concern over the deepening cultural division in Turkey on so called 'life-style issues", which runs the risk that the authorities start to intrude in the private lives of the citizens, as exemplified by recent statements on: the number of children women should have, on mixed sex student residences and on the selling of alcohol;
Amendment 110 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. CommendsNotes that the Conciliation Committee forhas only been able to reaching consensus on 60 constitutional amendments and calls on its Members to continuredouble their work on ain order to elaborate a genuinely new Constitution for Turkey as this is essential for the reform process in Turkey; stresses the importance of achieving consensus in the framework of the constitutional reform process on an effective system of separation of powers and an inclusive definition of citizenship; underlines that Turkey, as a Member State of the Council of Europe, cshould try to benefit from active dialogue with the Venice Commission on the constitutional reform process; stresses that the rules governing the election and composition of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors should be fully in line with the criteria of the Venice Commission;
Amendment 112 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Commends the Conciliation Committee for reaching consensus on 60 constitutional amendments and calls on its Members to continue their work on a new Constitution for Turkey as this is essential for the reform process in Turkey; stresses the importance of achieving consensus in the framework of the constitutional reform process on an effective system of separation of powers and an inclusive definition of citizenship; underlines that Turkey, as a Member State of the Council of Europe, could benefit from active dialogue with the Venice Commission on the constitutional reform process; underlines that the constitutional changes should be carried out in a transparent and inclusive manner, with full involvement of civil society at all stages; stresses that the rules governing the election and composition of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors should be fully in line with the criteria of the Venice Commission;
Amendment 124 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Welcomes the democratisation package presented by the Government on 30 September 2013 and calls on the Government to duly consult the opposition and relevant civil society organisations in the preparation of the implementing legislation and to continue with its reform efforts towards revision of the electoral system, including the lowering of the 10% threshold, and the adequate inclusion of all components of Turkish society; calls on the Government to ensure that the legislation on hate crimes offers protection for all citizens, including minorities and LGBTI persons; encourages the government to take steps to improve the rights of the Alevi community;
Amendment 127 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. WelcomesUrges the full implementation of the democratisation package presented by the Government on 30 September 2013 and calls on the Government to duly consult the opposition and relevant civil society organisations in the preparation of the implementing legislation and to continue with its reform efforts towards revision of the electoral system, including the lowering of the 10% threshold, and the adequate inclusion of all components of Turkish society; calls on the Government to ensure that the legislation on hate crimes offers protection for all citizens, including minorities and LGBTI;
Amendment 133 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. TDeeply regrets the loss of life amongst the Gezi Park protesters and the police forces, the excessive use of force by the police and the violent acts by a number of protesters; takes the view that the protests in Gezi Park testify both to the existence in Turkey of a vibrant civil society and also the need for further vital reforms on the promotion of fundamental values; highlights the importance of including civil society more structurally in the decision making process; deeply regrets the loss of life amongst the protesters and the police forces, the excessive use of force by the police and the violent acts by a number of protesters; welcomes the on-going administrative investigations launched by the Ministry of Interior and the inquiries by the Ombudsman into complaints related to the events in Gezi Park and expects them to fully address the concerns without delay; calls on Turkey to adopt adequate internal review procedures and to establish an independent supervisory body for police offences; is of the opinion that the Gezi Park events underline the need for far- reaching reforms in order to ensure respect for freedom of assembly; encourages the Ministry of the Interior and the Turkish police to establish methods to deal with public protests in a less confrontational way, and in particular, not to arrest or hinder the work of lawyers and medical staff who are carrying out their duties;
Amendment 138 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Takes the view that the protests in Gezi Park testify both to the existence in Turkey of a vibrant civil society and also the need for further vital reforms on the promotion of fundamental values; highlights the importance of including civil society more structurally in the decision making process; deeply regrets the loss of life amongst the protesters and the police forces, the excessive use of force by the police and the violent acts by a number of protesters; welcomes the on-going administrative investigations launched by the Ministry of Interior and the inquiries by the Ombudsman into complaints related to the events in Gezi Park and expects them to fully address the concerns without delay; calls on Turkey to adopt adequate internal review procedures and to establish an independent supervisory body for police offences; is of the opinion that the Gezi Park events underline the need for far- reaching reforms in order to ensure respect for freedom of assembly; regrets the apparent failure of the courts to penalise those state officials responsible for violence connected with the Gezi Park protests;
Amendment 149 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Expresses concerns at the very limited coverage of the Gezi Park events by Turkish media and the dismissal of journalists who criticised the Government’s reactions to such events; recalls that freedom of expression and media pluralism are at the heart of European values and that an independent press is crucial to a democratic society; underlines that the freedom of expression extends to digital and social media; reiterates once again its concern at the fact that most media are owned by and concentrated in, large conglomerates with a wide range of business interests and points out to the worrying widespread phenomenon of self-censorship by media owners and journalists; expresses concern atcondemns the particularly high number of journalists currently in pre-trial detention and calls on Turkey’s judicial authorities to review and address these cases as soon as possible;
Amendment 163 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Highlights the important role of public-service media in strengthening democracy, in particular by serving information needs of citizens and enabling their participation in decision making processes; calls on the authorities to ensure public-service media's independence and sustainability in compliance with European standards;
Amendment 165 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes the concerns in Turkish society about the excessively wide scope, allegations of evidence fabrication and the shortcomings of thdue proceedingss in the Ergenekon case, which, like inand Sledgehammer cases; recalls that the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention finds theat Sledgehammer case, undermined the acceptance of the rulingdefendants are being held in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; stresses, once again, in light of the above, that the KCK case must demonstrate the strength and the proper, independent, impartial and transparent functioning of Turkey’'s democratic institutions and judiciary, as well as the firm, unconditional commitment to respect for fundamental rights;
Amendment 168 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes the concerns in Turkish society about the excessively wide scope and the shortcomings of the proceedings in the Ergenekon case, which, like in the Sledgehammer case, undermined the acceptance of the ruling; stresses, once again, in light of the above, that the KCK case must demonstrate the strength and the proper, independent, impartial and transparent functioning of Turkey’s democratic institutions and judiciary, as well as the firm, unconditional commitment to respect for fundamental rights; calls on the EU delegation in Ankara to closely monitor further developments in these cases, including possible appeal processes and detention conditions and to report back to the Commission and the European Parliament;
Amendment 189 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Reaffirms its support to the Commission’'s new approach of opening Chapters 23 (judiciary and fundamental rights) and 24 (justice and home affairs) early in the negotiation process and closing them at the end; stresses that delivering the official benchmarks for the opening of such Chapters to Turkey would provide a clear roadmap for and give a boost to the reform process; calls, therefore, on the Councilall Member States, including Cyprus, to make renewed efforts for the opening of Chapters 23 and 24; calls on Turkey to cooperate as much as possible to this effect;
Amendment 205 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Expresses support for the database on violence against women currently under preparation by the Ministry for Family and Social policies; asks to complement existing legislation on the creation of shelters for women who are victims of domestic violence with adequate follow-up mechanisms where municipalities fail to establish such shelters; supports the efforts of the Minister for Family and Social policies to raise penalties for forced earlychild marriages, which must be eradicated; calls for further efforts to eradicate so called ‘honour killings’; renews its concern at the low level of women’s participation in the labour force, in politics and at senior level in the administration and encourages the Government to adopt adequate measures to promote a more central role of women in the economic and political fabric of Turkey;
Amendment 221 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Strongly supports the Government’s initiative to strive for a settlement of the Kurdish problem on the basis of negotiations with the PKK and other Kurdish representatives; encourages the Government to devise the reforms directed at promoting the social, cultural and economic rights of the Kurdish community on the basis of adequate consultation of relevant stakeholders and the opposition; calls on the opposition to actively support the negotiations and the reforms as an important step for the benefit of Turkish society at large; calls on the Turkish authorities to cooperate closely with the European Commission to assess which programs under IPA could be used to promote sustainable development in the South East in the framework of negotiations on Chapter 22;
Amendment 233 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Is of the opinion that social dialogue and involvement of social partners are vital for the development of a prosperous society; Underlines the importance of further progress in the areas of social policy and employment, in particular to remove all obstacles to the effective functioning of trade unions, to establish a national employment strategy, address undeclared work, widen the coverage of social protection mechanisms, and increase employment rates among women and people with disabilities; calls, therefore, on Turkey to agree to the opening of Chapter 19;
Amendment 284 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Stresses the importance of a coherent and comprehensive security approach in the Eastern Mediterranean, and calls on Turkey to allow political dialogue between the EU and NATO by lifting its veto on EU-NATO cooperation including Cyprus, and calls, in parallel, on the Republic of Cyprus to lift its veto on Turkey’s participation in the European Defence Agency; calls on Turkey to align itself more closely with the common foreign and security stance of the European Union; calls on the Foreign Affairs Council and on the High Representative to more frequently consult with Turkey;
Amendment 310 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Notes that Turkey continues to be the EU’s sixth biggest trading partner and that the EU is Turkey’s biggest with 38% of Turkey’s total trade going to the EU and almost 71% of FDI coming from the EU; welcomes the ongoing Commission evaluation of the EU-Turkey Customs Union with the aim of assessing its impact on both parties and ways to update it; calls on the Commission to find innovative ways to include Turkey in trade negotiations the EU conducts with third countries, and which will affect Turkey;
Amendment 330 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Welcomes Turkey’s commitment to the provision of humanitarian assistance to Syrian refugees; notes that a large number of foreign fighters in Syria gain access to Syria via Turkey and asks Turkey to increase border patrols, prestricvent the entry of fighters and arm flows to groups credibly found to be implicated in systematic human rights violations; believes that the EU and Turkey should actively seek to develop a joint strategic vision to promote a political solution in Syria and support political and economic stability in the region, with particular reference to Jordan, Lebanon, Iran and Iraq;
Amendment 336 #
2013/2945(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Welcomes Turkey’s commitment to the provision of humanitarian assistance to almost one million Syrian refugees; notes that a large number of foreign fighters in Syria gain access to Syria via Turkey and asks Turkey to increase border patrols, restrict the entry of fighters and arm flows to groups credibly found to be implicated in systematic human rights violations; believes that the EU and Turkey should actively seek to develop a joint strategic vision to promote a political solution in Syria and support political and economic stability in the region, with particular reference to Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq;
Amendment 226 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Takes the view that, as under the current circumstances the Safe Harbour principl if by the announced deadline there is no satisfactory response from the US authorities dto not provide adequate protecthe Commission's 13 recommendations for EU citizensstrengthened safeguards within the current Safe Harbour, these transfers should be carried out under other instruments, such as contractual clauses or BCRs setting out specific safeguards and protections pending the replacement of Safe Harbour by a new framework for transatlantic transfers which meets European privacy standards;
Amendment 230 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Calls on the Commission to present measures providing for the immediate suspension ofa proposal for a new framework for transatlantic transfers which meets European privacy standards to replace Commission Decision 520/2000, which declared the adequacy of the Safe Harbour privacy principles, and of the related FAQs issued by the US Department of Commerce;
Amendment 232 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Calls on Member States’' competent authorities, namely the data protection authorities, to make use of their existing powers and immediately suspend data flows to any organisation that has wrongly or deceptively self- certified its adherence to the US Safe Harbour Principles and to require that such data flows are only carried out under other instruments, provided they contain the necessary safeguards and protections with respect to the protection of the privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals;
Amendment 234 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Calls on the Commission to present by June 2014 a comprehensive assessment of the US privacy framework covering commercial, law enforcement and intelligence activities in response to the fact that the EU and the US legal systems for protecting personal data are drifting apart and a strategy for convergence on the basis of high and enforceable privacy standards;
Amendment 359 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 77
Paragraph 77
77. Points out that recent incidents clearly demonstrate the acute vulnerability of the EU, and in particular the EU institutions, national governments and parliaments, major European companies, European IT infrastructures and networks, to sophisticated attacks using complex software and malware; notes that these attacks require such financial and human resources that they are likely to originate from state entities acting on behalf of foreign governments or even from certain EU national governments that support them; in this context, regards the case of the hacking or tapping of the telecommunications company Belgacom as a worrying example of an attack against the EU’s IT capacity;
Amendment 364 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 78
Paragraph 78
78. Takes the view that the mass surveillance revelations that have initiated this crisis can be used as an opportunity for Europe to take the initiative and build up an autonomous strong IT key-resource capability for the mid term; calls on the Commission and the Member States to use public procurement as leverage to support such resource capability in the EU by making EUthe strongest possible international security and privacy standards a key requirement in the public procurement of IT goods and services;
Amendment 369 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 80
Paragraph 80
80. Calls on all the Members States, the Commission, the Council and the European Council to address the EU’s dangerous lack of autonomy in terms ofgive the fullest support to development of European innovative and technological capability in IT tools, companies and providers (hardware, software, services and network), including for purposes of cybersecurity and encryption and cryptographic capabilities;
Amendment 372 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 81
Paragraph 81
81. Calls on the Commission, standardisation bodies and ENISA to develop, by September 2014, minimum security and privacy standards which can set global benchmarks and guidelines for IT systems, networks and services, including cloud computing services, in order to better protect EU citizens’' personal data; believes that such standards should be set in an open and democratic process, not driven by a single country, entity or multinational company; takes the view that, while legitimate law enforcement and intelligence concerns need to be taken into account in order to support the fight against terrorism, they should not lead to a general undermining of the dependability of all IT systems;
Amendment 381 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84
Paragraph 84
84. Calls on the Commission, by January 2015 at the latest, to present an Action Plan to develop more EU independencenovative and technological capability in the IT sector, including a more coherent approach to boosting European IT technological capabilities (including IT systems, equipment, services, cloud computing, encryption and anonymisation) and to the protection of critical IT infrastructure (including in terms of ownership and vulnerability);
Amendment 385 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 85
Paragraph 85
85. Calls on the Commission, in the framework of the next Work Programme of the Horizon 2020 Programme, to assess whether more resources should be directed towards boosting European research, development, innovation and training in the field of IT technologies, in particular privacy-enhancing technologies and infrastructures, cryptology, secure computing, open-sourcthe best possible security solutions and the Information Society;
Amendment 398 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 87
Paragraph 87
87. Deems it necessary for the EU to be supported by an EU IT Academy that brings together the best European and international experts in all related fields, tasked with providing all relevant EU Institutions and bodies with scientific advice on IT technologies, including security-related strategies; as a first step asks the Commission to set up an independent scientific expert panel;
Amendment 406 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88 – point 2
Paragraph 88 – point 2
· the inclusion in tender procedures for new IT systems of best practice specific IT security/privacy requirements, including the possibility of a requirement for Open Source Software as a condition of purchase from among the widest possible choice of software options;
Amendment 408 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88 – point 3
Paragraph 88 – point 3
· the list of US companies under contract with the European Parliament in the IT and telecom fields, taking into account revelations about NSA contracts with a company such as RSA, whose products the European Parliament is using to supposedly protect remote access to their data by its Members and staffany information that has come to light about their cooperation with intelligence agencies;
Amendment 411 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88 – point 4
Paragraph 88 – point 4
· the reliability and resilience of third-party commerciall software used by the EU institutions in their IT systems with regard to penetrations and intrusions by EU or third-country law enforcement and intelligence authorities;
Amendment 412 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88 – point 5
Paragraph 88 – point 5
· the use of more open-soand maintenance of the most securce systems and fewer off-the-shelf commercial systembased on relevant international standards, best practice security risk management principles and adherence to EU Network Information Security standards including on security breaches;
Amendment 417 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88 – point 10
Paragraph 88 – point 10
· the option for use of cloud storagecomputing and storage services by the EP, including what kind of data is stored on the cloud, how the content and access to it is protected and where the cloud is located, clarifying the applicable data protection legal regime;
Amendment 419 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88 – point 13
Paragraph 88 – point 13
· an analysis of the benefits of using the GNU Privacy Guard as a default encryption standard for emails which would at the same time allow for the use of digital signatures;
Amendment 424 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 92
Paragraph 92
92. Calls on the Commission and the EEAS to take action at the international level, with the UN in particular, and in cooperation with interested partners (such as Brazil), and to implement an EU strategy for democratic governance of the internet in order to prevent undue influence over ICANN’s and IANA’s activities by any individual entity, company or country by ensuring appropriate representation of all interested parties in these bodies, while avoiding the facilitation of state control or censorship or the 'balkanisation' and fragmentation of the internet;
Amendment 425 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 93
Paragraph 93
93. Calls for the overall architecture of the internet in terms of data flows and storage to be reconsidered, striving for more data minimisation and transparency and less centralised mass storage of raw data, as well as avoiding unnecessary routing of traffic through the territory of countries that do not meet basic standards on fundamental rights, data protection and privacEU to take the lead in shaping the architecture of the internet such as to facilitate global exchanges and interconnection while maximising citizens' freedom and data security;
Amendment 474 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 110
Paragraph 110
110. Calls on the Commission to present, in January 2015 at the latest, an EU strategy for democratic governance of the internet while avoiding the facilitation of state control or censorship or the 'balkanisation' and fragmentation of the internet;
Amendment 478 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 112
Paragraph 112
112. Calls on the Member States to develop a coherent and strong strategy within the United Nations, supporting in particular the resolution on ‘The right to privacy in the digital age’ initiated by Brazil and Germany, as adopted by the third UN General Assembly Committee (Human Rights Committee) on 27 November 2013 but avoiding the facilitation of state control or censorship or the 'balkanisation' and fragmentation of the internet;
Amendment 489 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114 – point 3
Paragraph 114 – point 3
Action 3: Suspend Safe Harbour until a full review has been conducted andif by the announced deadline there is no satisfactory response from the US authorities to the Commission's 13 recommendations for strengthened safeguards which remedy current loopholes are remedied, making sure that transfers of personal data for commercial purposes from the Union to the US can only take place in compliance with highest EU standards;
Amendment 491 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114 – point 3 a (new)
Paragraph 114 – point 3 a (new)
Action 3a: The Commission to present a proposal for a new framework for transatlantic transfers which meets European privacy standards to replace Safe Harbour;
Amendment 503 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114 – point 6
Paragraph 114 – point 6
Action 6: Develop a European strategy for IT independencegreater IT innovative and technological capability (at national and EU level);
Amendment 508 #
2013/2188(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114 – point 7
Paragraph 114 – point 7
Action 7: Develop the EU as a reference player for a democratic and neutral governance of the internet while avoiding the facilitation of state control or censorship or the 'balkanisation' and fragmentation of the internet;
Amendment 21 #
2013/2169(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas torture can be both physical and psychological; whereas there has been a growing number of cases where psychiatry is used as a tool for coercion of human rights defenders and dissidents, who are placed in psychiatric institutions in order to prevent them from carrying out their political and community activities;
Amendment 41 #
2013/2169(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Reiterates the vital importance of rehabilitation centres for torture victims both inside and outside the EU in addressing not only physical, but also long-term psychological problems experienced by torture victims; is convinced that funding for such centres in third countries provided by the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) should not be cut even in the face of the financial and economic crisis since national healthcare systems of these countries are often not in a position to adequately address the specific problems of torture victims;
Amendment 50 #
2013/2169(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Is particularly concerned by torture of human rights defenders, including community activists, journalists, human rights lawyers and bloggers in prisons; recognises that it is often the people who are most involved in the fight for human rights and democracy who suffer the most through unlawful detention, intimidation, torture and exposure to danger of their families; insists that both EU missions on the ground and high-level EU officials systematically and consistently raise this issue in meetings with their third-country counterparts, including mentioning specific names of human rights defenders in prisons;
Amendment 104 #
2013/2169(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls on the EEAS and the Working Party on Human Rights (COHOM) to make sure that Human Rights Country Strategies (HRCSs) contain country- specific objectives and benchmarks related to the fight against torture, including the identification of groups requiring special protection, such as children, women, displaced persons, refugees and migrants, and those facing discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, caste, religious or other beliefs, sexual orientation or gender identity;
Amendment 3 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)
Citation 1 a (new)
- having regard to Articles 2, 6, and 7 of the Treaty on European Union and to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
Amendment 6 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 a (new)
Citation 6 a (new)
- having regard to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2014 to 2020 the Justice Programme (COM(2011)0759 – C7- 0439/2011 – 2011/0369(COD)),
Amendment 7 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 b (new)
Citation 6 b (new)
- having regard to the Commission Communication 'Building Trust in EU- wide justice, a new dimension to European Judicial Training', 13.09.2011, COM(2011)551 final,
Amendment 8 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 c (new)
Citation 6 c (new)
- having regard to its Resolution on detention conditions in the EU (2011/2897(RSP)),
Amendment 9 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 d (new)
Citation 6 d (new)
- having regard to its report with a recommendation to the Council on the rights of prisoners in the European Union (2003/2188(INI)),
Amendment 17 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. Whereas to be effective, the principle of mutual recognition must be premised upon mutual trust which can only be achieved if respect for the fundamental rights of suspects and accused persons and procedural rights in criminal proceedings are guaranteed throughout the EU area of freedom, security and justice; whereas mutual trust is enhanced through training, cooperation and dialogue between judicial authorities and legal practitioners creating a genuine European judicial culture;
Amendment 22 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. Whereas problems have however arisen in its operation, some specific to Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and resulting largely from poorfrom gaps in the Framework Decision and from the incomplete and inconsistent implementation thereof, but others shared with the set of mutual recognition instruments due to the incomplete and unbalanced development of the Union area of criminal justice;
Amendment 30 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point iii
Recital C – point iii
(iii) the lack of regular review of the Schengen Information System (SIS II) and Interpol alerts as well as the lack of an automatic link between the withdrawal of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and the removal of such alerts, and uncertainty as to the effect of a refusal to execute an EAW on the continued validity of an EAW and the linked alerts with the result that persons subject to EAWs are unable to move freely within the area of freedom security and justice without the risk of future arrest and surrender;
Amendment 38 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point iv
Recital C – point iv
(iv) disproportionate use of the EAW for minor offences or in circumstances where less intrusive alternatives might be used, leading to unwarranted arrests, unjustified and often excessive time spent in pre-trial detention leading to interference with the fundamental rights of suspects and defendants and burdens on the resources of Member States;
Amendment 46 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point vii
Recital C – point vii
(vii) the absence of Unionminimum standards providing for effective judicial oversight with regard to mutual recognition instruments and inconsistent provisions on compensation for miscarriages of justice, which leads to greatly divergent Member State practices and frequently to the lack of effective judicial protection and the risk of violations of fundamental rights resulting from mutual recognition measures and the lack of compensation for victims of miscarriages such as mistaken identity,; this situation is contrary to standards laid down in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and in the well-established case- law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ);
Amendment 52 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point ix
Recital C – point ix
(ix) the poor conditions in a number of detention facilities across the Union and the impact that this has not only on the fundamental rights of the individuals concerned but on the effectiveness and functioning of Union mutual recognition instruments;
Amendment 58 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point x a (new)
Recital C – point x a (new)
(xa) the absence in Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of deadlines for the transmission of the translated EAWs, leading to variable practices and uncertainty;
Amendment 65 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that as the problems highlighted in recital C arise out of both the specifics of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and the incomplete and unbalanced nature of the Union area of criminal justice, the legislative solutions need to address both;
Amendment 66 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 (new)
Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 (new)
Considers that the weaknesses identified not only undermine mutual trust but are also costly in social and economic terms to the individuals concerned, their families and society in general.
Amendment 83 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – point c
Paragraph 3 – point c
(c) a standardised consultation procedure whereby the relevant authorities in the issuing and executing state can exchange information regarding the execution of judicial decisions, for example such as on the issue of proportionality and specifically in regard to the EAW to ascertain trial- readiness;
Amendment 90 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls on the Commission to require from Member States the following data relating to the operation of the EAW mechanism and to include such data in its next implementation report with a view to proposing appropriate action in any problems: (a) the length of time from surrender to the conclusion of the subsequent trial; (b) the outcome of trials following surrender pursuant to an EAW; (c) the extent to which pre-trial detention as ordered in each case and, where ordered, for what reasons and for how long; (d) the operation of the procedure under Art 16 of the Framework Decision for resolving cases of multiple EAW requests relating to the same person.
Amendment 94 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for a regular review of non- executed EAWs and consideration of whether they, together with the corresponding SIS II and Interpol alerts, should be withdrawn; also calls for the withdrawal of EAWs and the corresponding SIS II and Interpol alerts where the EAW has been refused on mandatory grounds; the ground of ne bis in idem or the infringement or risk of infringement of human rights; calls for provision to be made to annex to an SIS II alert the grounds for refusing the execution of the EAW corresponding to the alert;
Amendment 100 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on Member States to implement the whole body of Union criminal justice measures and thereby make available to judicial authorities alternative and less intrusive mutual recognition instruments including the European Investigation Order once adopted and the European Supervision Order; calls on the Commission to carefully monitor their correct implementation as well as their impact on the functioning of the EAW and the EU area of criminal justice;
Amendment 106 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Calls on the Council of the European Union to include in its revised version of the European Handbook on how to issue a European Arrest Warrant (17195/1/10 REV 1) a six day time limit for the transmission of translated EAWs in order to provide greater clarity and certainty;
Amendment 108 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on Member States and the Commission to cooperate in strengthening contact networks of judges, prosecutors and criminal defence lawyers to facilitate effective and well-informed EAW proceedings, and to offer relevant training including language training programmes at national and European level to judicial and legal practitioners including defence lawyers acting in such proceedings.; calls on the Commission to draft a practical EU handbook designed for defence lawyers acting in EAW proceedings and easily accessible throughout the Union taking into account the existing work of the European Criminal Bar Association on this matter and complemented by national handbooks;
Amendment 112 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 – introductory part
Paragraph 8 – introductory part
8. Calls on the Commission to provide adequate funding to bodies such as the European Judicial Training Network, to the potentialset up a specific European Arrest Warrant Judicial Network and to a network of defence lawyers working on European criminal justice and extradition matters and to provide adequate funding to them as well as to the European Judicial Training Network; believes that the Commission can ensure the appropriate funding via the existing programmes in the EU criminal justice area.
Amendment 113 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Calls on the Commission to establish and make easily accessible an EU database collecting all national case law relating to EAW and other mutual recognition proceedings to facilitate the work of practitioners and the monitoring and assessment of implementation and any problems arising;
Amendment 120 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. CIn order to ensure the effectiveness of the mutual recognition framework, calls on the Commission to explore the legal and financial means available at Union level to improve detention conditions in Member States.standards of detention including legislative proposals on the conditions of pre-trial detention;
Amendment 125 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 10 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Considers that any financial implications of the requested proposals for the budget of the Union should be covered by the existing budgetary allocations; stresses that for both Member States and citizens, the adoption and implementation of those proposals would lead to substantial cost and time savings, and will thus be beneficial both in economic and social terms, as clearly pointed out in the EU Added Value Assessment of EU measures concerning the review of the EAW. (Add link to the EAVU study in footnote)
Amendment 128 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 1 - indent 1
Annex – recommendation 1 - indent 1
- There are substantial grounds to believe that the execution of the measure would be incompatible with the executing Member State’s obligations under Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Amendment 133 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 2 - indent 1
Annex – recommendation 2 - indent 1
- When issuing a decision to be executed in another Member State, the competent authority shall carefully assess the need for the requested measure on the basis of the seriousness of the offence and apply the least intrusive available measure to achieve the intended objectives.
Amendment 137 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 3 - indent 1
Annex – recommendation 3 - indent 1
- AWithout prejudice to the possibility of the competent executing authority availing itself of the grounds for refusal prior to consultation, a standardised procedure shall be set up whereby the competent authorities of the issuing and executing States shall exchange information and consult each other with a view to facilitating the smooth and efficient application of the relevant mutual recognition instruments or the protection of the fundamental rights of the person concerned, as the case may be, including for instance with regard to the EAW in order to ascertain trial-readiness; as well as its necessity and proportionality.
Amendment 143 #
2013/2109(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 5 - indent 1
Annex – recommendation 5 - indent 1
- Member States shall ensure that everyone whose rights and freedoms are violated by a decision, action or omission including errors in the application of an instrument of mutual recognition in criminal matters has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. If such a remedy is exercised in the executing state and has suspensive effect, the final decision on such a remedy shall be taken within the time limits set by the applicable mutual recognition instrument or, in the absence of explicit time limits, with sufficient promptness to ensure that the purpose of the mutual recognition process is not jeopardised.
Amendment 10 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that, in its communication of 20 April 2010 entitled ‘Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens - Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme’3 , the Commission argued in favour of a more ambitious response to the day-to-day concerns and aspirations of EU citizens, residents and migrants and emphasised that the Union must be able to react to unexpected events and be swift in seizing opportunities and in anticipating and adjusting to future trends;
Amendment 119 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. AcknowledgRecognises the progress madthat has been made to date with the roadmap for strengthening procedural rights in criminal proceedings, but regrets that key proposals on legal aid and vulnerable suspects are outstanof suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings, including the adoption of Directives on the right to interpretation and translation and on the right to information in criminal proceedings, and the agreement of a Directive on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and that the level of ambireiterates that these measures are crucial to the proper functioning of the Council seems to be decreasing more and more; EU mutual recognition crime cooperation measures such as the European Arrest Warrant and that continuing progress on the protection of the rights of suspects and defendants is essential;
Amendment 128 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26 a. Regrets that key proposals set out in the roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings remain outstanding and recognises the need for proposals on, and the conclusion of, the remaining measures on legal aid and vulnerable suspects; strongly believes that legal aid in particular must be effectively guaranteed to ensure effective implementation of the Directive on the right to access a lawyer;
Amendment 133 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 b (new)
Paragraph 26 b (new)
26 b. Regrets that further work remains outstanding in relation to pre-trial detention, in relation to which standards in many Member States fall short of human rights and other international standards; recognises the need for an assessment of the effectiveness of non- legislative work on existing Framework Decisions, the widespread recognition of problems with pre-trial detention law and practice across Europe identified as part of the Commission's consultation, and a commitment to revisit the case for establishing minimum and enforceable standards in relation to pre-trial detention through legislative action;
Amendment 145 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28 a. Recognises that each of the Directives adopted under the roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings must be implemented effectively to ensure that they improve standards of criminal justice across the EU, by working with Member States towards full transposition into domestic law and by providing training to government officials, judges, prosecutors and defence practitioners;
Amendment 181 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Acknowledges that cross-border crime is on the increase in the EU and therefore underlines the importance of European law enforcement information exchange; believes that the current ‘landscape’ of the different instruments, channels and tools is complicated and scattered, leading to inefficient use of the instruments available and to inadequate democratic oversight at EU level; calls for a future-oriented vision on how to shape and optimise law enforcement data sharing in the EU while guaranteeing a robust level of data protection, using collection methods respecting the right to privacy, dignity, and non-discrimination, and adhering to and respecting the fundamental rights of those under suspicion;
Amendment 214 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Acknowledges that the Schengen area is a kind of laboratory that so far has been developed step by step; is nevertheless of the opinion that a long-term reflection about its further development is necessary; believes that the Schengen external borders should in the future be guarded by European border guards, trained in human rights standards of protection;
Amendment 271 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46 a (new)
Paragraph 46 a (new)
46 a. Calls European institutions and Member State governments to raise attention among the wider public and employers about the EU Immigration Portal, which provides EU and national guidelines, procedural steps and lists the required documentation third country nationals need for working in the EU; governments need to elaborate on this online information by providing relevant information for third country nationals already residing in the EU to work either in the country of EU residence or in another EU country, including relevant information about pension schemes, unemployment benefits, workers' rights and job postings; and made available in multiple languages;
Amendment 290 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 a (new)
Paragraph 49 a (new)
49 a. Stresses the continued need for the Union to provide practical support and best practices to Member States, so they can effectively ensure the correct application of existing EU migration as well as anti-discrimination legislation; draws attention to some existing efforts made by the Commission to help Member States ensure that existing legislation is properly applied to tackle discrimination, notably the preparation of a Council Recommendation on practical measures to help Member States integrate the Roma in the wider community, which has been adopted by the Commission in June 2013 and tools such as the LIME Assessment Framework to assess the economic impact of migration and integration policies, as this has the potential to put migration and integration firmly on national and EU agendas by demonstrating the importance of sound migration policies and the need for comprehensive efforts to increase labour market and educational outcomes for migrants;
Amendment 297 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
Paragraph 50
50. Welcomes the initiative of the Commission in drawing up the EU Justice Scoreboard which aims at ensuring a high- quality justice system in the area of civil, commercial and administrative law since, at the end of the day, the concrete application of laws is in the hands of the courts; calls for the justice scoreboard exercise to assess all justice areas, including criminal justice and all horizontal issues; proposes that the Scoreboard be updated to also prioritise the monitoring of discrimination against ethnic minorities, migrants, and other disadvantaged groups; proposes that data regarding the state of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights, and the fulfilment of European values (Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU)) in all Member States be included as well;
Amendment 300 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Requests the Commission to put more emphasis on overseeing and ensuring the concrete implementation of EU legislation by the Member States; notes that, when the rights of citizens, residents and migrants are concerned, this needs to be done as of the first day an act enters into force; considers that more needs to be done in this area, and that the reasons for any failure to implement EU legislation should be identified;
Amendment 305 #
2013/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
52. Is of the opinion that improving the quality of EU legislation in the area of freedom, security and justice requires a joint effort by the Member States and the European institutions in order to improve the exchange of information on each national system and to provide accurate legal information (on national/regional applicable legislation and standards) while ensuring the protection of fundamental rights as well as information on implementation and practises;
Amendment 776 #
2013/0309(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – point 3 a (new)
Article 37 – point 3 a (new)
Regulation (EU) No 531/2012
Article 6a
Article 6a
(3a) Article 37 point 4 (new) the following article is inserted: Article 6a Abolition of retail roaming charges With effect from 1 July 2015, roaming providers shall not levy any surcharge in comparison to the charges for mobile communications services at domestic level on roaming customers for any regulated roaming call made or received, for any regulated roaming SMS message sent, for any roaming MMS message sent or for any regulated data roaming services used- or any general charge to enable the terminal equipment or service to be used abroad.
Amendment 15 #
2013/0255(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas crime – in particular organised crime – is increasingly taking on a cross- border dimension and the only effective response can come from the EUEU must give its response, giving added value to the joint efforts of all the Member States;
Amendment 41 #
2013/0255(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point i
Paragraph 4 – point i
(i) the European Public Prosecutor’s Office should operate in the strictest compliance with the principle of the natural court, which requires that the non-discretionary criteria determining which competent court is to exert jurisdiction should be clear and known in advance. As the current formulation of Article 27 (4) grants the European Public Prosecutor’s Office excessive discretion in applying the various jurisdiction criteria, which fails to ensure foreseeability in the choice of jurisdiction, constituting a disproportionate interference with defence rights under Article 48 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, a hierarchy should be created between the listed criteria in order to ensure foreseeability and to render them binding on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office;
Amendment 47 #
2013/0255(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point ii
Paragraph 4 – point ii
(ii) the scope of the competence of the EPPO should be precisely determined, to enable the criminal acts that fall within that scope to be identified beforehand. The European Parliament suggests that the definitions set out in Article 13 of the Commission proposal, concerning ancillary competence, should be carefully reviewed so that such competence applies where: 1) the particular conduct simultaneously constitutes offences affecting the Union’s financial interests and other offence(s); and 2) the offence(s) affecting the Union’s financial interests is/are predominant and the other(s) is/are merely ancillary; and 3)the other offence(s) would be barred from further trying and punishment if they were not prosecuted and brought to judgment together with the offence(s) affecting the Union’s financial interests;
Amendment 63 #
2013/0255(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point iv
Paragraph 4 – point iv
(iv) the admissibility of evidence and its assessment are key elements in the ascertainment of guilt. The relevant rules must therefore be clear and uniform throughout the area covered by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and should fully comply with personal defence safeguards. To ensure such compliance, conditions for admissibility of evidence should be such as to respect all rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as explicitly requiring these rights to be taken into account in the assessment of evidence;
Amendment 70 #
2013/0255(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point v
Paragraph 4 – point v
(v) all decisions taken by the European Public Prosecutor should be subject to legal challenge before a superior court. In this regard, decisions taken centrally by the Public Prosecutor, as described in Articles 27, 28 and 29 concerning competence, dismissal of cases or transactions, should logically be subject to appeal before the Court of Justice. Given the serious risk that Article 29 could be interpreted so as to allow arbitrary administration of justice, it should be redrafted. By seeking to re-label acts and omissions of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office as being those of a national authority in order to prevent direct actions as well as preliminary ruling procedures before the Union’s courts, Article 36 circumvents the Treaty provisions on the jurisdiction of the Union’s courts and disproportionately interferes with the right to an effective judicial remedy under Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and should be carefully reviewed;
Amendment 88 #
2013/0255(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point i
Paragraph 5 – point i
(i) all the activities of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office should meet the highest standards with regard to the rights of defence. It should be noted that the Roadmap concerning safeguardfor strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings, adopted by the Council on 30 November 2009, has not yet been completed and that the proposal merely refers to the national legal systems for all issues relating to the right to remain silent, the principle of innocence, the right to legal aid and to investigations for the defence. It should be clarified however, that after the expiry of the relevant transposition period, non-transposition or wrong transposition into national law of one of the procedural rights acts of Union law pursuant to the Roadmap shall not prevent the application of these acts in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union;
Amendment 140 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) To increase the effectiveness of Europol as a hub for information exchange in the Union, clear obligations for Member States toMember States shall on their own initiative provide Europol with the data necessary for it to fulfil its objectives should be laid down. While implementing such obligations,. Member States have discretion to decide what information to provide to Europol. In doing so it is acknowledged that Europol is the EU information exchange hub. Member State cooperation with Europol in the fulfilment of its tasks, including through an increase in the volume of quality information provided to it, improves Europol's ability to support Member States' action in cross border law enforcement investigations. In providing such information Member States should payconsider paying particular attention to providing data relevant for the fight against crimes considered to be strategic and operational priorities within relevant policy instruments of the Union. Member States should also provide Europol with a copy of bilateral and multilateral exchanges of information with other Member States on crime falling under Europol's objectives. At the same time, Europol should increase the level of its support to Member States, so as to enhance mutual cooperation and sharing of information. Europol should submit an annual report to all Union institutions and to national Parliaments on the extent to which individual Member States provide it with information.
Amendment 240 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. At the same time, Europol shall request the National Units of the Member StMember States shall deal with any request by Europol to initiates, concerned established on the basis of Article 7(2) to initiate, conduct or coordinate a criminal investigationduct or coordinate investigations in specific cases. They shall give such requests due consideration, but shall have absolute discretion over whether or not to comply with them.
Amendment 244 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. The Member States, via their National Units shall promptly inform Europol without delay of the iniand Eurojust whether an investigation of thwill be invesitigationed.
Amendment 247 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Amendment 256 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4
Article 7 – paragraph 4
4. Europol may, where considered appropriate and in agreement with a Member State's National Unit, directly cooperate with competent authorities of the Member States in respect of individual investigations. In that case, Europol shall inform the National Unit without delay andEuropol shall provide a copy of any information exchanged in the course of such direct contacts between Europol and the respective competent authorities.
Amendment 258 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. Member States shall, via their National Unit or a competent authority of a Member State, in particular:
Amendment 260 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 5 – point a
Article 7 – paragraph 5 – point a
(a) supply Europol, on their own initiative with the information necessary for it to fulfil its objectives. This includes providing Europol without delay with information relating to crime areas that are considered a priority by the Union. It also includes providing a copy of bilateral or multilateral exchanges with another Member State or Member States in so far as the exchange refers to crime that falls under Europol's objectives; Without prejudice to the Member States discharging the responsibilities incumbent upon them with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security, a national unit shall not in any particular case be obliged to supply information or intelligence if that would entail: (a) harming national security interests; (b) jeopardising the success of a current investigation or the safety of individuals; or (c) disclosing information relating to organisations or specific intelligence activities in the field of State security.
Amendment 268 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 10
Article 7 – paragraph 10
10. Each year Europol shall draw up a report on the quantity and quality ofregarding information providedsharing by each Member State pursuant to paragraph 5(a) and on the performance of its National Unit. The report shall be analysed by the Management Board with the objective of continuously improving the mutual cooperation between Europol and the Member States. A summary of the annual report shall be sent to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and national parliaments.
Amendment 269 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 10 – point a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 10 – point a (new)
(a) In addition to the annual report as in the paragraph above, the Europol Director may regularly report on Member States performance in data provision to Europol as part of his evaluation of the effectiveness of Europol. Following this assessment he may raise any concerns directly with the relevant Member State.
Amendment 39 #
2012/2870(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 15
Citation 15
– havNoting regard to the fact that Turkey has still not fully implemented, for the seventh consecutive year, the provisions stemming from the EC-Turkey Association Agreement and the Additional Protocol thereto the provisions of the Additional Protocol to the EC-Turkey Association Agreement and that the European Union has still not taken all the necessary steps towards lifting the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots as stipulated in the EU Council Conclusions of 26 April 2004,
Amendment 89 #
2012/2870(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses Turkey's strategic role, politically and geographically, for the foreign policy of the EU and its neighbourhood policy; recognises Turkey's role as an important regional player and calls on the EU and Turkey to further reinforce their existing political dialogue on foreign policy choices and objectives; regrets that the alignment of Turkey with CFSP declarations continued to be low in 2012; encourages Turkey to develop its foreign policy in the framework of dialogue and coordination with the EUrequires Turkey, in particular, to align itself closely with the common foreign and security stance of the European Union against Islamist fundamentalism; encourages Turkey to develop its foreign policy in the framework of dialogue and coordination with the EU; to that end proposes that Turkey is invited to participate in the European Council meeting in December 2013 which is to be devoted to common foreign, security and defence policy;
Amendment 115 #
2012/2870(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. CommendsNotes the commitment of the Constitution Conciliation Committee for its commitment totowards the drafting of a new Constitution and for the inclusive process of consultation of civil society, which reflected the diversity of Turkish society; encourages the Committee to continue its workis concerned, nevertheless, at the apparent lack of progress made by the Committee so far; encourages the Committee to review its working methods with the aim of reaching genuine consensus based on compromise, and to tackle in a collegial way, and in line with the values of the EU, key issues such as (i) the separation of power and an adequate system of checks and balances, (ii) relations between the State, society and religion, (iii) an inclusive system of governance securing the basic rights of all citizens and (iv) an inclusive concept of citizenship;
Amendment 145 #
2012/2870(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7a (new)
Paragraph 7a (new)
7a. Is deeply concerned about serious, constant and multi-fold political discriminations that pro-Kurdish opposition party BDP has been facing in 2012, including waivers of parliamentary immunity against several elected TGNA Members and threats of dissolution of the party; deeply regrets the damage done by the arrests of thousands of BDP and other activists and their retention in pre-trial detention for years and asks Turkish government to urgently change laws and regulate the judiciary in order to undo the damage done;
Amendment 168 #
2012/2870(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls that freedom of expression and media pluralism are core European values and that a truly democratic society requires true freedom of expression, including the right of dissent; underlines the importance of abolishing legislation providing for disproportionately high fines on the media, leading in some cases to their closure or to self-censorship, and the urgent need to reform the internet law; condemns the continued imprisonment of journalists and insists that the Turkish government begin to implement adequate procedures to guarantee freedom of speech and expression within Turkish society;
Amendment 172 #
2012/2870(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9a (new)
Paragraph 9a (new)
9a. Recommends Turkish authorities to allow the free the use of Kurdish in all aspects of public life in Kurdish-speaking areas including in schools, municipalities, courts and business life; encourages the government of Turkey to work towards Kurdish to be part of bilingual education from kindergarten onward and starting a program of state support for teacher- training in Kurdish languages; underlines the importance of Prime Minister Erdoğan and his government to go further in convincing Turkish public opinion that reforms aiming at equal treatment are justified on the basis of justice, fairness and a common history as well as to convince Kurds that reforms will be fully implemented; recommends Turkish government to help inform public opinion about the international legitimacy of multi-lingualism in education, ethnic diversity and wider powers for local government;
Amendment 225 #
2012/2870(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16a (new)
Paragraph 16a (new)
16a. Notes the increasing difficulties in buying alcoholic drinks; calls on the public authorities to actively defend secular lifestyles throughout the country;
Amendment 254 #
2012/2870(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Notes that Turkey continued to demonstrate resilience at the terrorist attacks by the PKK; calls on Turkey to invest renewed efforts towards a political solution to the Kurdish issue; asks all political forces to ensure an adequate political platform and to debate in a constructive way the Kurdish issue and to facilitate a real opening to the claims for basic rights in the Constitutional process; asks all political forces to work in alliance towards the goal of reinforced political dialogue and a process of further political, cultural and socio-economic inclusion and participation of citizens of Kurdish origin, in order to guarantee the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly and promote the peaceful inclusion of citizens of Kurdish origin into Turkish society; recalls that a political solution can only be built upon a truly democratic debate on the Kurdish issue and expresses concern at the large number of cases launched against writers and journalists writing on the Kurdish issue and the arrest of several Kurdish politicians, mayors and members of municipal councils, trade unionists, lawyers, protestors and human rights defenders in connection with the KCK trial; calls for the murders of three Kurdish activists in Paris on 9th January to be fully investigated by the appropriate French and Turkish authorities; underlines the importance of promoting a discussion of the Kurdish issue within the democratic institutions, particularly the TGNA;
Amendment 258 #
2012/2870(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Condemns firmly the assassination in Paris, on 9 January 2013, of three Kurdish female activists; calls on the French authorities to do everything possible to ensure that the perpetrators and those who ordered these killings are brought swiftly to justice and sentenced;
Amendment 260 #
2012/2870(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18b (new)
Paragraph 18b (new)
18b. Welcomes the direct political dialogue that the Turkish government has recently opened with Abdullah Öcalan; deems that a perspective for negotiations has been opened which could lead to a historical agreement settling the Kurdish conflict in a peaceful and democratic way; therefore, encourages the conflict parties to transform talks into structured negotiations as soon as possible; underlines the importance of strong and positive support to the process that should be given by the EU Member States as well as the constructive role that political parties, media and civil society in Turkey must play for the peace process to succeed; further underlines the importance of the constitutional reform process for a lasting settlement of the Kurdish question;
Amendment 261 #
2012/2870(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18b. Calls on the Turkish authorities to ensure that the circumstances of the massacre of Uludere / Sirnak on 28 December 2011, in which 34 innocent civilians lost their lives due to indiscriminate army shelling, are fully clarified and that the ongoing investigation is relaunched so that those responsible are brought to justice;
Amendment 264 #
2012/2870(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Welcomes the incentives package seeking to increase investment and economic development in the least developed regions of Turkey, including the South East and the continuation of the South East Anatolia project; calls on the Turkish government not to override the Turkish State Council's decision to halt the construction of the Ilisu Dam due to the potential environmental and human rights guidelines that could be violated by continuing the project;
Amendment 268 #
2012/2870(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Reiterates the need to strengthen cohesion among Turkish regions and between rural and urban areas to open opportunities for the population at large and promote economic and social inclusion; highlights the particular role of education and the need to tackle persistent and substantial regional disparities in the quality of education and enrolment rates; calls for steps conducive to the opening ofto be taken to open Chapter 22 on Regional Policy, and hopes that the impending visit of President Hollande to Turkey will provide the occasion for progress in this regard;
Amendment 300 #
2012/2870(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Expresses once again its strong support to the reunification of Cyprus, based on a fair and viable settlement with agreed UN parameters of bi-zonality, bi-communality and political equality for both communities; underlines the urgency of an agreement between the two communities on how to proceed with the substantive settlement negotiations and stresses the importance of setting up a timeframe, so that the negotiating process, under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General, can soon regain momentum; at leaders level; recalls onthat Turkey to beginhas often expressed its readiness to withdrawing its forces from Cyprus and transfer Famagusta to the UN in accordance with UNSC Resolution 550 (1984); calls, in parallel, on the Republic of Cyprus to open the port of Famagusta under EU customs supervision in order to promote a positive climate for the successful solution of the ongoing reunification negotiations and allow Turkish Cypriots to trade directly in a legal manner that is acceptable to allupon a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus as also stipulated in the 2004 Annan Plan; calls on the Republic of Cyprus to allow the adoption of the Direct Trade Regulation which would enable the Turkish Cypriots to trade directly with the EU with preferential tariffs, which shall bring Turkish Cypriot people closer to the European Union;
Amendment 328 #
2012/2870(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Encourages Turkey toand all other sides to further intensify its support for the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus (CMP), as CMP is one of the most sensitive and important projects in the island and its work affects equally lives of thousands of people on both sides of the island;
Amendment 375 #
2012/2870(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26a (new)
Paragraph 26a (new)
26a. Notes that non-settlement of the Cyprus issue affects the process of EU- Turkey relations and therefore calls on all sides concerned to make a concerted effort towards the resolution of the Cyprus problem;
Amendment 384 #
2012/2870(RSP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Reiterates its condemnation, in the strongest terms, of the continuing terrorist violence by the PKK, which is on the EU list of terrorist organisations, and expresses its full solidarity to Turkey and to the families of the many victims; calls on the Member States, in close coordination with the EU counter terrorism coordinator and Europol, to intensify cooperation with Turkey in the fight against terrorism and organised crime as a source of financing of terrorism; calls on TurkeyDeeply deplores the estimated number of 500 victims that fights and attacks related to the Kurdish conflict have caused in 2012; underlines that the Kurdish conflict is currently among the most violent conflicts happening in a European country; reiterates its condemnation, in the strongest terms, of the continuing terrorist violence by the PKK, which is on the EU list of terrorist organisations, and expresses its full solidarity to Turkey and to the families of the many victims; encourages Turkish government and mainstream media to resist the impulse to further call for anti- terrorist war and focus instead, together with Kurds, on long-term conflict resolution; encourages the Kurdish movement, including PKK leaders, to abjure on violence and publicly commit to realistic political goals; calls on Turkey's international partners, notably the U.S., Canada, UK, Ireland and Spain to engage with the Turkish government and opinion leaders to share experiences of defusing ethnic, linguistic, and regional tensions, including through travel programs for officials, politicians and opinion-makers from all relevant sides and parties in Turkey; calls on the Member States, in close coordination with the EU counter terrorism coordinator and Europol, to intensify cooperation with Turkey in the fight against terrorism including against violent extremist Turkish groups operating in Europe; calls on Turkey to review its definition of terrorism is in line with EU and other international norms as well as to adopt a data protection law and legislation on the financing of terrorism so that a cooperation agreement can be concluded with Europol and judicial cooperation with Eurojust and with the EU Member States can further develop; takes the view that the assignment of a police liaison officer to Europol would help improve bilateral cooperation;
Amendment 17 #
2012/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 22 a (new)
Citation 22 a (new)
- having regard to the draft UN Principles and Guidelines on effective elimination of discrimination based on Work and Descent published by the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/11/CRP.3),
Amendment 18 #
2012/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 22 b (new)
Citation 22 b (new)
- having regard to observations and recommendations on caste discrimination by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN Treaty Bodies and UN Special Procedures, noting in particular the Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance of 24 May 2011 (A/HRC/17/40),
Amendment 72 #
2012/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Welcomes the positive impact on coherence of EU internal and external policies of the EU's exercise of its legal personality created by the Lisbon Treaty to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities (UNCPD) in December 2010; calls for a similar approach to be taken to other international human rights treaties and conventions; calls for the Council and Commission to take a proactive approach in this area in order to address the negative effects of the piecemeal signature and ratification among EU Member States of other important external treaties and conventions;
Amendment 183 #
2012/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Underlines that a longer-term approach covering the whole election cycle is required to appropriately follow up on the reports and recommendations of the EU Election Observation Missions; stresses the importance of drawing up realistic and achievable recommendations and of ensuring that these recommendations are monitored and become part of political dialogue and assistance by the EU delegations; considers that Parliament's standing delegations and the joint parliamentary assemblies should also play an enhanced role in following up these recommendations and analysing progress with regard to human rights and democracy;
Amendment 207 #
2012/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40 a (new)
Paragraph 40 a (new)
40a. Stresses that despite some steps taken by the Chinese authorities in the right direction, the human rights situation continues to deteriorate and is marked by widening social unrest and the tightening of control and repression of human rights defenders, lawyers, bloggers, and social activists, as well as by targeted policies aimed at marginalising Tibetans and their cultural identity; urges the Chinese authorities to engage seriously with the Tibetan people to assess the underlying causes of self-immolations of Tibetan monks and nuns and cease harassment and intimidation of Tibetans who exercise their rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association, end all use of unnecessary excessive force in facing protestors, investigate all instances of human rights violations, and allow independent monitors into areas of protest;
Amendment 208 #
2012/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40 b (new)
Paragraph 40 b (new)
40b. Reiterates its call for the need to appoint an EU Special Representative for Tibet who would be responsible for the defence of human rights and, among other topical issues, the right to freely practice one's religion and culture in China;
Amendment 234 #
2012/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Notes that the EU is developing a human rights monitoring mechanism to be included as part of new partnership and cooperation agreements, and other trade agreements, with a number of countries; is concerned that these monitoring mechanisms are not ambitious enough and not clearly defined, compromising the EU's treaty commitment to the promotion of human rights and democracy in the world; is particularly concerned in this regard about the PCA with Uzbekistan and the pending PCA with Turkmenistan;
Amendment 255 #
2012/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53 a (new)
Paragraph 53 a (new)
53a. Welcomes Council decisions to ban the export of certain information technologies and services to Syria and Iran and urges the European Union to consider these cases as precedents for future restrictive measures against other repressive regimes; strongly supports the proposal to include human rights violations in the EU dual-use export control system as a reason for which non- listed items may be subject to export restrictions by Member States;
Amendment 274 #
2012/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 63 a (new)
Paragraph 63 a (new)
63a. Welcomes the Commission's 2011 decision to amend Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 to strengthen export controls on certain drugs capable of being used in capital punishment; welcomes the proactive steps taken by certain EU pharmaceutical companies to halt exports to third countries where there is a foreseeable risk of such drugs being used for executions; urges more EU pharmaceutical companies to take similar steps; calls on the Commission to establish a catch-all clause in Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 that would inter alia require prior export authorisation of any drug capable of being used for executions;
Amendment 296 #
2012/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 70
Paragraph 70
70. Strongly regrets that homosexuality remains criminalised in 78 states, including five in which it is subject to the death penalty; calls on these states to decriminalise homosexuality without delay, to free those imprisoned on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity and not to execute them; calls on the EEAS to make full use of the LGBT Toolkit to protect the rights of LGBTI people; calls on the Council to work towards binding guidelines in this area; calls on the EEAS and Member States to assist LGBTI human rights defenders in countries where they are at risk, and calls on the VP/HR to continue making clear the European Union's firm commitment to equality and non-discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression in the world, including by launching and supporting initiatives at bilateral, international and UN level on these matters; repeats its call on the Commission to issue a roadmap for equality on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity;
Amendment 298 #
2012/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 70 a (new)
Paragraph 70 a (new)
70a. Calls on Member States to grant asylum to people fleeing persecution in countries where LGBT people are criminalised, on the basis of applicants' well-founded fears of persecution, and relying on their self-identification as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex;
Amendment 299 #
2012/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 70 b (new)
Paragraph 70 b (new)
70b. Reasserts that the principle of non- discrimination, including on grounds of sex and sexual orientation, is a fundamental element in the ACP-EU partnership;
Amendment 300 #
2012/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 70 c (new)
Paragraph 70 c (new)
70c. Underlines that for the EU's foreign policy to be credible and coherent in the field of fundamental rights, equality and anti-discrimination, the Council should adopt the directive on equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation and enlarge the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia to cover other targeted groups, such as LGBT persons;
Amendment 301 #
2012/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71
Paragraph 71
71. Condemns the continued human rights violations committed against people suffering from caste-based discrimination, including the denial of equality and access to justice, continued segregation and caste- induced barriers to the achievement of basic human rights; requests the Council, the EEAS and the Commission to take joint action on caste-based discrimination, including in EU human rights communications, frameworks and country- based strategies and dialogues, wherever appropriate; , and to promote the draft UN Principles and Guidelines for the elimination of discrimination based on work and descent as a guiding framework to eliminate caste discrimination, and work for their endorsement by the UN Human Rights Council;
Amendment 303 #
2012/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71 a (new)
Paragraph 71 a (new)
71a. Requests the High Representative and the Special Representative for Human Rights to give full recognition to caste discrimination as a cross-cutting human rights and poverty predicament affecting most severely women;
Amendment 309 #
2012/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72 a (new)
Paragraph 72 a (new)
Amendment 321 #
2012/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75
Paragraph 75
75. Urges the EU to enhance its action to end the practices of female genital mutilation (FGM), early and forced marriages, and gender-selective abortion; insists that these policies should be essential elements in EU approach to development cooperation; stresses the importance of adequate access to medical means, and of information about sexual and reproductive health and rights, to the wellbeing of women in all countries;
Amendment 327 #
2012/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75 a (new)
Paragraph 75 a (new)
75a. Notes that there continues to be insufficient attention given to sexual and reproductive rights violations that undermine efforts towards the Cairo Programme of Action (ICPD) commitments; underlines that progress on reproductive health has been limited in some contexts by violations such as child, early and forced marriage and failure to enforce a legal minimum age of marriage, coercive practices such as forced sterilisation or FGM, as well as denial of autonomy to women and girls to make decisions about their sexual and reproductive health free of discrimination, coercion and violence;
Amendment 399 #
2012/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 83 a (new)
Paragraph 83 a (new)
83a. Stresses the importance of the protection of freedom of religion and belief, including atheism and other forms of non-belief, under international human rights conventions and insists that such freedom should not be undermined by the application of blasphemy laws used to oppress and persecute those of a differing religion or belief;
Amendment 400 #
2012/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 83 a (new)
Paragraph 83 a (new)
83a. Recalls that in a number of countries the prohibition, confiscation and destruction of both places of worship and religious publications, and prohibition of the training of clergy, are still common practice; urges the EU institutions, in their contacts with the relevant governments, to counter such violations;
Amendment 158 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital BS
Recital BS
BS. whereas the respect for the rights of persons belonging to minorities is explicitly recognised among the values referred to in Article 2 TEU and the Union is committed to promoting these values and combating social exclusion, racism, anti- Semitism and discrimination;
Amendment 161 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital BT
Recital BT
BT. whereas the responsibility of Member States to ensure that the fundamental rights of all are respected, irrespective of their ethnicity or belief, covers all levels of public administration as well as the law enforcement authorities and also implies actively promoting tolerance and firmly condemning phenomena such as racial violence and hate speech, anti-Semitic and anti-Roma hate speech, particularly when it is expressed in official or public forums including in the Hungarian parliament;
Amendment 167 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital BW
Recital BW
BW. whereas, although intolerance against the members of Roma and Jewish communities is not a problem solely associated with Hungary and other Member States are faced with the same predicament, recent events have raised concerns as to the increase in anti-Roma and anti-Semitic discoursehate speech in Hungary;
Amendment 276 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Welcomes the Commission's proposal for a permanent scoreboard on justice in all 27 EU Member States as put forward by Vice-President Reding, which shows that safeguarding the independence of the judiciary is a general concern of the EU, but calls for its enlargement to cover also criminal justice, fundamental rights, the Rule of law and democracy, as already requested by the European Parliament;
Amendment 300 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Notes that the Hungarian Parliament has enacted legislation in criminal and civil areas to combat racial incitement and hate speech;, points out, however, that legislation on its own cannot achieve the goal of creating a society free from intolerance and discrimination throughout Europe, especially when it is not being actively implemented;
Amendment 304 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Underlines that the authorities in all Member States have a positive obligation to act to avoid violation of the rights of persons belonging to minorities and, cannot remain neutral and should take the necessary legal, educational and political measures when faced with such violations;
Amendment 321 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Concludes – for the reasons explained above – that the systemic and general trend of repeatedly modifyingication of the constitutional and legal framework in very short time frames, and the content of such modifications, are incompatible with the values referred to in Article 2 TEU, Article 3, paragraph 1 and Article 6 TEU and deviate from the principles referred to in Article 4, paragraph 3 TEU; considers that -this constitutes a clear risk of a serious breach of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU and considers that, unless corrected in a timely and sufficient manner -, this trend will result in a clear risk of a serious breachwill lead to the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU;
Amendment 334 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. States that it is ready – and cCalls on the Council and Commission to also be prepared – in the event that Hungary does not implement the recommendations set out in paragraph 61, to take action under Article 7(12) TEU to determine the existence of a clear risk of a seriousserious and persistent breach by Hungary of the common values of the Union as set out in Article 2 TEU;
Amendment 363 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 5
Paragraph 60 – indent 5
– to create – as soon as risks of violations of Article 2 TEU are identified – an ‘'Article 2 TEU/Rule of Law Alarm Agenda’' to be dealt with by the Commission with exclusive priority and urgency, coordinated at the highest political level and fully taken into account in the various EU sectoral policies until full compliance with Article 2 TEU is restored and any risks of violation thereof are defused;
Amendment 367 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 8
Paragraph 60 – indent 8
– to updateimplement its 2003 communication on Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union (COM(2003) 606) and to draw up a detailed proposal for a swift and independent monitoring mechanism and an early warning system;
Amendment 368 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 8 a (new)
Paragraph 60 – indent 8 a (new)
- to draw up a detailed proposal for a swift and independent monitoring mechanism applying to all Member States, based on objective indicators developed on Article 2 TEU; an evaluation and early warning system; a list of proportionate and progressive measures and sanctions, including freezing or withdrawal of EU funds, to be taken in cases of clear risk of a serious breach, or existence of a serious and persistent breach, by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU;
Amendment 372 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 13
Paragraph 60 – indent 13
– to address these issues in the framework of the implementation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive in order to improve cooperation between regulatory bodies of the Member States and the Commission, bringing forward as soon as possible a legislative proposalrevision and aimed at reviewing Article 30 of that Directivendment of the Directive and notably of its Articles 29 and 30;
Amendment 487 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 20
Paragraph 61 – indent 20
– to take positive action and effective measures to ensure that the fundamental rights of all persons, including persons belonging to minorities, are respected;
Amendment 508 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68
Paragraph 68
68. Given the current institutional mechanism laid down in Article 7 TEU, reiterates the calls it made, in its resolution of 12 December 2012 on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (2010- 2011), for the establishment of a new mechanism (‘Copenhagen high-level group’which could take the form of a strengthened Commission-FRA monitoring, evaluation and recommendation exercise and a strengthened Commission-Council- European Parliament-Member States dialogue on measures to be taken, a 'Copenhagen high-level group', a "wise men group" as precedently foreseen by the Treaties, an Article 70 TFEU evaluation, etc) to ensure compliance by all Member States with the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU;
Amendment 511 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69
Paragraph 69
69. ReiteratBelieves that the setting- up of such a mechanism cshould fully involve the rethinking of the mandate of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, which should be enhanced to include regular monitoring of Member States' compliance with Article 2 of the TEUcarry out horizontal and regular monitoring and evaluation of EU and Member States' compliance with Article 2 of the TEU; reiterates its request to review the mandate of the FRA to strengthen its competences and powers;
Amendment 521 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72
Paragraph 72
72. Instructs its committee responsible for the protection within the territory of the Union of citizens' rights, human rights and fundamental rights, and for determining clear risks of a serious breach by a Member State of the common principles, to submit a detailed proposal in the form of a report to the Conference of Presidents and to theCalls on the Council to act pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union, Rule 74e of the European Parliament Rules of Procedure and on the basis of the present detailed proposal and specific report to Plenary;
Amendment 522 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72 a (new)
Paragraph 72 a (new)
72a. invites also Member States and the European Commission, pursuant to Article 7(1) TEU to take up their responsibilities and issue reasoned proposals for the Council in the view of the determination that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values referred to in Article 2, hear the Member State in question and address recommendations to it;
Amendment 523 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72 b (new)
Paragraph 72 b (new)
72b. Instructs its committee responsible for the protection within the territory of the Union of citizens' rights, human rights and fundamental rights, and for determining clear risks of a serious breach by a Member State of the common principles, as well as its committee responsible for the determination of the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the principles common to the Member States, to follow up the developments of the situation in Hungary;
Amendment 547 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 77
Paragraph 77
77. AskCalls the Conference of Presidents to activate the mechanism laid down inmmission and Member States to activate Article 7(12) TEU in case the replies from, shall the Hungarian authorities to the above- mentioned recommendations do not comply with the requirements of Article 2 TEUfail to comply with the requirements of Article 2 TEU and with the above mentioned concerns and recommendations;
Amendment 7 #
2012/2033(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
C a. whereas the UN joint study on global practices in relation to secret detention in the context of countering terrorism prepared by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (A/HRC/13/42) detailed the use of secret detention sites on EU Member States' territory as part of the CIA programme, and follow-up letters were sent to Member States requesting additional information as detailed in the Communications Reports of the Special Procedures, including that of 23 February 2012 (A/HRC/19/44);
Amendment 13 #
2012/2033(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
D a. whereas on 22 January 2009, President Obama signed three executive orders banning torture during interrogations, establishing an inter- agency task force to systematically review detention policies and procedures, and a review of all individual cases, and ordering the closure of Guantanamo;
Amendment 14 #
2012/2033(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
D b. whereas, however, Guantanamo has yet to be closed due to strong opposition from the US Congress; whereas in order to hasten the closure the US has called on EU Member States to host Guantanamo detainees; whereas the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed deep disappointment at the failure to close Guantanamo and at the entrenchment of a system of arbitrary detention;
Amendment 15 #
2012/2033(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital D c (new)
Recital D c (new)
D c. whereas Guantanamo detainees are still subjected to military tribunals, notably following the US President's decision of 7 March 2011 to sign the executive order which lifted a two-year freeze on new military trials and the 7 January 2012 law barring transfers of Guantanamo detainees to US for trial, and the NDAA (National Defence Authorisation Act) which codified indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law;
Amendment 16 #
2012/2033(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital D d (new)
Recital D d (new)
D d. whereas the European Parliament has repeatedly called for the fight against terrorism to fully respect human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms, including in international cooperation in the field, on the basis of the European Convention of Human Rights, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and national constitutions and fundamental rights laws, and repeated this call most recently in its report on EU counter- terrorism policy where it also said that respect for human rights is a precondition for ensuring the policy's effectiveness;
Amendment 17 #
2012/2033(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital D e (new)
Recital D e (new)
D e. whereas although the EU has demonstrated its commitment to avoiding collusion in torture through Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005, most recently amended in December 2011, which prohibits any export or import of goods that have no practical use other than for the purpose of capital punishment, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, more work still needs to be done to ensure comprehensive coverage;
Amendment 18 #
2012/2033(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital D f (new)
Recital D f (new)
Amendment 40 #
2012/2033(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Urges NATO and United States authorities to conduct their own investigations, collaborate fully with EU and Member State parliamentary or judicial inquiries on these issues1, including by responding promptly to Mutual Legal Assistance requests, disclose information on extraordinary rendition programmes and clarify that all NATO agreements and NATO-EU and other transatlantic arrangements comply with fundamental rights; ______________ 1 See inter alia European Parliament resolution of 9 June 2011 on Guantánamo: imminent death penalty decision (P7_TA(2011)0271).
Amendment 61 #
2012/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that Member States have so far not properly fulfilled their positive obligation under international law to investigate serious human rights violations connected with the CIA programme and to afford full redress to victims including apologies and compensation where appropriate;
Amendment 71 #
2012/2033(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Calls on the US authorities to repeal the power of indefinite detention without charge or trial under the NDAA and to rule out the imposition of the death penalty on Abd -Rahim al-Nashiri or any other persons;
Amendment 72 #
2012/2033(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10 b. Calls on the FYROM authorities to clarify responsibility and ensure accountability for the extraordinary rendition and alleged torture, apparently through mistaken identity, of Khaled el- Masri whose case is being heard at the ECHR; deplores the decision of the US authorities not to act on the arrest warrants issued by Germany, and calls the US government to disclose the truth, fully collaborate in enquiries, and lift privilege invoked on the basis of state secrets;
Amendment 73 #
2012/2033(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 c (new)
Paragraph 10 c (new)
10 c. Reiterates its call to the Council to rule out reliance on mere diplomatic assurances from third countries as a basis for extradition or deportation, where there are substantial grounds for believing that individuals would be in danger of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment or would be tried using evidence extracted through torture;
Amendment 74 #
2012/2033(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 d (new)
Paragraph 10 d (new)
10 d. Calls on all EU Member States to sign and ratify the UN Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances;
Amendment 74 #
2012/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls on Member States, in the light of the increased cooperation and exchange of information between their secret intelligence and security agencies, to ensure full democratic scrutiny of those agencies and their activities through appropriate internal, executive, judicial and independent parliamentary oversight, preferably through specialised parliamentary committees with extensive remit and powers including to require information, and with sufficient investigative and research resources to be able to examine not only issues such as policy, administration and finances but also the operative work of the agencies;
Amendment 75 #
2012/2033(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 e (new)
Paragraph 10 e (new)
10 e. Pays tribute to the work of UN officials including and notably the 2010 joint study by the UN Special Procedures on global practices in relation to secret detentions1 and urges Member States to fully cooperate with them in the context of countering terrorism, and to respond as a matter of urgency to the outstanding requests for information transmitted to them in the follow-up to the joint study, including by communicating measures taken to address the allegations and to implement the related recommendations;
Amendment 119 #
2012/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Council to hold hearings with relevant EU security agencies, in particular Europol, Eurojust and the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator, in order to clarify their knowledge of Member States‘' involvement in the CIA programme and the EU's response; also calls on the Council to propose safeguards so as to guarantee respect for human rights in intelligence sharing, and a strict delimitation of roles between intelligence and law-enforcement activities so that intelligence agencies are not permitted to assume powers of arrest and detention, and to report to Parliament within a year;
Amendment 37 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a) This Directive concerns only criminal law confiscation measures. It does not prescribe minimum rules in respect of any civil law measures which a Member State may have in respect of the confiscation of assets considered to be the proceeds of crime.
Amendment 38 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 b (new)
Recital 7 b (new)
(7b) Member States are free to take confiscation procedures which are linked to a criminal case in front of any court whether criminal, civil or administrative.
Amendment 81 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
(6a) 'affected person' means any person directly affected by the freezing or confiscation of an accused or convicted person's assets.
Amendment 94 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to enable judicial authorities, in the absence of a criminal conviction, to confiscate instrumentalities and proceeds obtained through conduct which is unlawful under the criminal law where a court finds on the balance of probabilities that any matters alleged to constitute unlawful conduct have occurred. This provision does not apply to Member States who already have civil forfeiture powers which enable confiscation in the absence of a criminal conviction.
Amendment 106 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to enable it to confiscate proceeds and instrumentalities without a criminal conviction, following proceedings which could, if the suspected or accused person had been able to stand trial, have led to a criminal conviction or in any other proceedings, where:
Amendment 110 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the deathillness or permanent illness of the suspected or accused person prevents any further prosecution; or, which results in the person being unfit to stand trial, prevents effective prosecution or where the statutory limitation period has expired due to the illness,
Amendment 112 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the illness or flight from prosecution or sentencing of the suspected or accused person combined with an inability to have the accused person returned by FD 2002/584/JHA or other means, prevents effective prosecution within a reasonable time, and poses the serious risk that it could be barred by statutory limitations.
Amendment 114 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) the suspected or accused person has died
Amendment 115 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
This provision does not apply to Member States which already have civil confiscation powers which enable confiscation in these categories of case.
Amendment 141 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that affected persons have the right to an effective remedy prior to the final decision on confiscation being taken, including the opportunity to make legal representations, in order to preserve their rights.
Amendment 146 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 3
Article 8 – paragraph 3
3. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the accused or convicted person has the opportunity to challenge the application for confiscation before an independent judicial authority. They shall be given access to material evidence in accordance with the Directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings; have at least the right to be heard, the right to ask questions and the right to provide evidence before a final decision on confiscation is taken. Each Member State shall take the further necessary measure to ensure that reasons are given for any decision to confiscate and that the decision is communicated to the person affectedccused or convicted person. Each Member State shall provide for the effective possibility to appeal against the decision to confiscate before a court by the persons whose property is affected.
Amendment 148 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 4
Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. In proceedings referred to in Article 4, the suspected or accusconvicted person shall have an effective possibility to contest the probability on the basis of which the property concerned is considered to be proceeds.
Amendment 150 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 5
Article 8 – paragraph 5
5. In the cases referred to in Article 5, the The person whose property is affected by the decision to confiscate shall have the right to be represented by a lawyer throughout the proceedings in order to pursue the rights of the defence of the person relating to the establishment of the criminal offence and to the determination of the proceeds and instrumentalities.
Amendment 156 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. If the court comes to the conclusion that confiscation would lead to the destruction of livelihood of the concerned person, the confiscation ought to be omitted in part or completely in consideration of the principle of proportionality.
Amendment 392 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) The principles of protection should apply only to any specific information concerning an identified or identifiable person. To determine whether a person is identifiable, account should be taken of allonly those means likely reasonably to be used either by the controller or by any other natural or legal person to identify the individual and of the reasonable likelihood of a person being identified. The principles of data protection should not apply to data rendered anonymous in such a way that the data subject is no longer or not yet identifiable from the data.
Amendment 412 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Consent should be given explicitly by any appropriate method enabling a freely given specific and informed indication of the data subject’s wishes, either by a statement or by a clear affirmative action by the data subject, ensuring that individuals are aware that they give their consent to the processing of personal data, including by ticking a box when visiting an Internet website or by any other statement or conduct which clearly indicates in this context the data subject’s acceptance of the proposed processing of their personal data. The act of seeking and agreeing to specific healthcare treatment should be considered as consent within the meaning of Articles 4(8) and 6(1)(a) to the processing of personal health data related to that specific treatment and as meeting the burden of proof under Article 7(1), without preventing Member States from maintaining existing more stringent national rules in this regard. Silence or inactivity should therefore not constitute consent. Consent should cover all processing activities carried out for the same purpose or purposes. If the data subject’s consent is to be given following an electronic request, the request must be clear, concise and not unnecessarily disruptive to the use of the service for which it is provided.
Amendment 466 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40
Recital 40
(40) The processing of personal data for other purposes should be only allowed where the processing is compatible with those purposes for which the data have been initially collected, in particularsuch as where the processing is necessary for historical, statistical or scientific research purposes. Where the other purpose is not compatible with the initial one for which the data are collected, the controller should obtain the consent of the data subject for this other purpose or should base the processing on another legitimate ground for lawful processing, in particular where provided by Union law or the law of the Member State to which the controller is subject. In any case, the application of the principles set out by this Regulation and in particular the information of the data subject on those other purposes should be ensured.
Amendment 494 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 53
Recital 53
(53) Any person should have the right to have personal data concerning them rectified and a ‘right to be forgotten’ where the retention of such data is not in compliance with this Regulation. In particular, data subjects should have the right that their personal data are erased and no longer processed, where the data are no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which the data are collected or otherwise processed, where data subjects have withdrawn their consent for processing or where they object to the processing of personal data concerning them or where the processing of their personal data otherwise does not comply with this Regulation. This right is particularly relevant, when the data subject has given their consent as a child, when not being fully aware of the risks involved by the processing, and later wants to remove such personal data especially on the Internet. However, the further retention of the data should be allowed where it is necessary for historical, statistical and scientific research purposes, for rheasons of public interlth purposest in the area of public healthaccordance with Article 81, for exercising the right of freedom of expression, when required by law or where there is a reason to restrict the processing of the data instead of erasing them.
Amendment 687 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point e a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point e a (new)
(ea) that has been rendered anonymous;
Amendment 729 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new)
(2a) ‘pseudonymised data’ means any personal data that has been altered so that it cannot be attributed to a data subject without the use of additional data which is subject to separate and distinct technical and organisational controls to ensure such non-attribution;
Amendment 733 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2 b (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2 b (new)
(2b) ‘anonymised data’ or ‘data rendered anonymous’ means personal data that has been modified in a way that the information can no longer be attributed to an identifiable natural person;
Amendment 762 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 8
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 8
(8) ‘the data subject’s consent’ means any freely given specific, and informed and explicit indication of his or her wishes by which the data subject, either by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies agreement to personal data relating to them being processed;
Amendment 821 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a way incompatible with those purposes; further processing of data for health, historical, statistical, or scientific purposes shall not be considered as incompatible subject to compliance with the conditions in Article 81 or Article 83 as appropriate;
Amendment 841 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
(ea) protected against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage, using appropriate technical or organisational measures;
Amendment 842 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point e b (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point e b (new)
(eb) afford appropriate safeguards when processed outside the EEA. Such processing will remain the responsibility of the controller;
Amendment 862 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation or regulatory rule or industry code of practice, either domestically or internationally, to which the controller is subject;
Amendment 876 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by a controller such as to detect crime or to prevent crime, fraud, loss or harm or to meet the legitimate expectations of the data subject in the efficient delivery of the service, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. This shall not apply to processing carried out by public authorities in the performance of their tasks.
Amendment 930 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) internationally recognised regulations, rules, guidance, standards and/or industry codes of practice relevant to the business of the controller.
Amendment 981 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. The data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or her consent at any time. The withdrawal of consent shall not affect the lawfulness of processing based on consent before its withdrawal, or legitimate processing post consent such as record retention or health, historical, statistical or scientific research.
Amendment 994 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4
Article 7 – paragraph 4
4. Consent shall not provide a legal basis for the processing, where there is a significant imbalance or coercive relationship between the position of the data subject and the controller. The patient-healthcare provider relationship is not considered a significantly imbalanced or coercive relationship.
Amendment 1120 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Amendment 1133 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. The controller shall inform the data subject without delay and, at the latest within one month of receipt of the request,excessive delay whether or not any action has been taken pursuant to Article 13 and Articles 15 to 19 and shall provide the requested information. This period may be prolonged for a further month, if several data subjects exercise their rights and their cooperation is necessary to a reasonable extent to prevent an unnecessary and disproportionate effort on the part of the controller. The information shall be given in writing. Where the data subject makes the request in electronic form, the information shall be provided in electronic form, unless otherwise requested by the data subjecte information shall be given in writing.
Amendment 1137 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3
Article 12 – paragraph 3
3. If the controller refuses todoes not take action on the request of the data subject, the controller shall inform the data subject of the reasons for the refusal and on the possibilities ofdata subject shall have the right to lodginge a complaint towith the supervisory authority and seeking a judicial remedy.
Amendment 1146 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. The following shall apply to requests under Article 15: (a) the controller may charge a fee for providing the relevant information. Such a fee shall not be excessive; (b) no obligation to provide the relevant information shall apply until the controller has received the following; (i) any fee required in accordance with (a) above; and (ii) any information as to the identity of the person making a request as the controller may reasonably require. (c) where a data controller has previously complied with a request by an individual, the data controller is not obliged to comply with a subsequent identical or similar request under that section by that individual unless a reasonable interval has elapsed between compliance with the previous request and the making of the current request; (d) the controller must have regard to any guidance issued under Article 38 in deciding: (i) whether a subsequent request is identical or similar to a previous request; (ii) whether a reasonable interval has elapsed between compliance with the previous request and the making of the current request.
Amendment 1153 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 5
Article 12 – paragraph 5
Amendment 1159 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 6
Article 12 – paragraph 6
Amendment 1177 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Where personal data relating to a data subject are collected, the controller shall provide or make readily available to the data subject with at least the following information:
Amendment 1188 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the purposes of the processingr purposes for which the personal data are intended, including the contract terms and general conditions where the processing is based on point (b) of Article 6(1) and the legitimate interests pursued by the controller where the processing is based on point (f) of Article 6(1); to be processed; and
Amendment 1192 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 1210 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point g
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point g
Amendment 1217 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point h
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point h
(h) any further information necessary to guarantee fair processing in respect of the data subject, having regard to the specific circumstances in which the personal data are collectedwhich is necessary, having regard to the specific circumstances in which the data are or are to be processed, to enable processing in respect of the data subject to be fair.
Amendment 1220 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Amendment 1223 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 14 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. In deciding on further information which is necessary to make the processing fair under 1(d), controllers must have regard to any relevant guidance under Article 38.
Amendment 1224 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Amendment 1232 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 4
Article 14 – paragraph 4
Amendment 1241 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 14 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Article 14 shall not apply where: (a) the data subject already has the information; (b) the provision of such information proves impossible or would involve a disproportionate effort; (c) obtaining or disclosure is found in Union or Member State law; (d )where the data originate from publicly available sources; (e) where the data must remain confidential in accordance with a legal provision or on account of the overriding justified interests of a third party.
Amendment 1242 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5
Article 14 – paragraph 5
Amendment 1261 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point d a (new)
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point d a (new)
(da) the data consists of information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege, or equivalent professional secrecy provisions could be maintained under national law or rules established by national competent bodies.
Amendment 1267 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point d a (new)
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point d a (new)
(da) the data are processed for health, historical, statistical or scientific research purposes subject to the conditions and safeguards referred to in Articles 81 or 83 as appropriate, and the provision of such information proves impossible or would involve a disproportionate effort.
Amendment 1270 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6
Article 14 – paragraph 6
Amendment 1280 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 7
Article 14 – paragraph 7
Amendment 1285 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 8
Article 14 – paragraph 8
Amendment 1297 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. TSubject to Article 12(4), the data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller at any time, on request, confirmation as to whether or not personal data relating to the data subject are being processed. Where such personal data are being processed, the controller shall provide the following information from the controller:
Amendment 1299 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Where a data controller cannot comply with the request without disclosing information relating to another individual who can be identified from that information, he is not obliged to comply with the request unless: (a) the other individual has consented to the disclosure of the information to the person making the request; or (b) it is reasonable in all the circumstances to comply with the request without the consent of the other individual.
Amendment 1300 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. In paragraph (1) the reference to information relating to another individual includes a reference to information identifying that individual as the source of the information sought by the request; and that paragraph is not to be construed as excusing a data controller from communicating so much of the information sought by the request as can be communicated without disclosing the identity of the other individual concerned, whether by the omission of names or other identifying particulars or otherwise. In determining for the purposes of this paragraph whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances to comply with the request without the consent of the other individual concerned, regard shall be had, in particular, to: (a) any duty of confidentiality owed to the other individual; (b) any steps taken by the data controller with a view to seeking the consent of the other individual; (c) whether the other individual is capable of giving consent; and (d) any express refusal of consent by the other individual.
Amendment 1307 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 1316 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point h
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point h
(h) the significance and envisaged consequences of such processing, at least in the case of measures referred to in Article 20where the processing by automatic means of personal data of which that individual is the data subject for the purpose of evaluating matters relating to him such as, for example, his performance at work, his creditworthiness, his reliability or his conduct, has constituted or is likely to constitute the sole basis for any decision significantly affecting him, to be informed by the data controller of the logic involved in that decision-taking.
Amendment 1336 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. There shall be no right of access in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 when data within the meaning of Article 14(5)(da) are concerned, except if the data subject is empowered to lift the secrecy in question and acts accordingly.
Amendment 1344 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2 b (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. In complying with requests under this Article, data controllers shall take account of any relevant guidance.
Amendment 1354 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
Article 15 – paragraph 3
Amendment 1363 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 4
Article 15 – paragraph 4
Amendment 1390 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The data subject shall have the right to obtain, as appropriate, from the controller the erasure of personal data relating to them and the abstention from further dissemination of such data, especially in relation to personal data which are made available by the data subject while he or she was a child, where one of the following grounds applies:
Amendment 1401 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 1414 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2
Article 17 – paragraph 2
Amendment 1433 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) for rheasons of public interest in the area of public healthlth purposes in accordance with Article 81;
Amendment 1434 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
(ba) for maintaining medical records for prevention, medical diagnosis, treatment, palliative care, clinical trials, patient registries, and other health research and medical innovation purposes;
Amendment 1443 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point d
Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point d
(d) for compliance with or to avoid a breach of a legal obligation to retain the personal data by Union or Member State law to which the controller is subject; Member State laws shall meet an objective of public interest, respect the essence of the right to the protection of personal data and be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued;
Amendment 1460 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 4 – point b
Article 17 – paragraph 4 – point b
(b) the controller no longer needs the personal data for the accomplishment of its task but they have to be maintained for the purposes of proofdefending legal claims;
Amendment 1637 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) other public interests of the Union or of a Member State, in particular an important economic or financial interest of the Union or of a Member State, including monetary, budgetary and taxation matters and the protection of market stability and integrity;
Amendment 1643 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
(fa) legal professional privilege and lawyer-client confidentiality.
Amendment 1826 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28
Article 28
Amendment 2097 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1
Article 34 – paragraph 1
Amendment 2102 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1
Article 34 – paragraph 1
1. TWhe controller or the processor as the case may be shall obtain an authorisation from the supervisory authority prior to the processing of personal data, in order to ensure the compliance of the intended processing with this Regulation and in particular to mitigate the risks involved for the data subjects where a controller or processor adopts contractual clauses as provided for in point (d) of Article 42(2) or does not provide for the appropriate safeguards in a legally binding instrument as referred to in Article 42(5) for the transfer of personal data to a third country or an international organisationre an impact assessment has been undertaken in accordance with Article 33, the controller must consult the supervisory authority in accordance with this Article if, despite the measures envisaged in the impact assessment to ensure protection of personal data, the controller considers that it is likely that the intended processing would result in serious harm to fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects.
Amendment 2104 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 34 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 2118 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 3
Article 34 – paragraph 3
3. Where the supervisory authority is of the opinion that the intended processing doesreferred to in paragraph 2 would not comply with this Regulation, in particular wt shall within a maximum period of 6 weeks following the re risks are insufficiently identifiquest for consultation make appropriate recommendations to the data controller. This period may be extended for mitigated, it shall prohibit the intended processing and make appropriate proposals to remedy such incompliancea further month, taking into account the complexity of the intended processing. Where the extended period applies, the controller of processor shall be informed within one month of receipt of the request of the reasons for the delay.
Amendment 2122 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 4
Article 34 – paragraph 4
4. The supervisory authority shall establish and make public a list of the processing operations for which are subject to prior consultation would be recommended pursuant to point (b) of paragraph 2. The supervisory authority shall communicate those lists to the European Data Protection Board.
Amendment 2125 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 5
Article 34 – paragraph 5
5. Where the list provided for in paragraph 4 involves processing activities which are related to the offering of goods or services to data subjects in several Member States, or to the monitoring of their behaviour, or may substantially affect the free movement of personal data within the Union, the supervisory authority shall apply the consistency mechanism referred to in Article 57 prior to the adoption of the listEuropean Data Protection Board shall produce guidance to ensure consistent application, taking into account the specific circumstances of Member States.
Amendment 2150 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The controller and the processor shall consider whether to designate a data protection officer in any case where:
Amendment 2183 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 35 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. In considering whether to appoint a data protection officer, a controller or processor must have regard to factors including the nature, scope and purposes of the processing, the risks for the fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects that may arise from it, the other measures it proposes to take in order to comply with this Regulation and cost- effectiveness.
Amendment 2184 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 35 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Member States may provide in national law for controllers or processors to be required to appoint a data protection officer for the purposes of this Regulation. In doing so, Member States must at least consider the factors referred to in paragraph 1a. Any such measures shall be notified to the European Commission.
Amendment 2202 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 3
Article 35 – paragraph 3
3. Where the controller or the processor is a public authority or body, tha single data protection officer may be designated for several of its entitsuch authorities or bodies, taking account of their organisational structure of the public authority or bodyand size.
Amendment 2209 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 5
Article 35 – paragraph 5
Amendment 2215 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 6
Article 35 – paragraph 6
Amendment 2224 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 7
Article 35 – paragraph 7
Amendment 2252 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 11
Article 35 – paragraph 11
Amendment 2270 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 2
Article 36 – paragraph 2
2. The controller or processor shall ensure that the data protection officer performs the duties and tasks independently and does not receive any instructions as regards the exercise of the function. The data protection officer shall directly report to the management of the controller or the processor.
Amendment 2285 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37
Article 37
Amendment 2336 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 2
Article 38 – paragraph 2
2. Associations and other bodies representing categories of controllers or processors in one Member State which intend to draw up codes of conduct or to amend or extend existing codes of conduct may submit them to an opinion of the supervisory authority in that Member State. The supervisory authority may give an opinion whether the draft code of conduct or the amendmentprocessing under the code is in compliance with this Regulation. The supervisory authority shall seek the views of data subjects or their representatives on these drafts.
Amendment 2358 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 1
Article 39 – paragraph 1
1. The Member States, professional bodies and the Commission shall encourage, in particular at European level, the establishment of data protection certification mechanisms and of data protection seals and marks, allowing data subjects to quickly assess the level of data protection provided by controllers and processors. The data protection certifications mechanisms shall contribute to the proper application of this Regulation, taking account of the specific features of the various sectors and different processing operations.
Amendment 2366 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 2
Article 39 – paragraph 2
Amendment 2375 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 3
Article 39 – paragraph 3
Amendment 2384 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1
Article 40 – paragraph 1
Any transfer of personal data which are undergoing processing or are intended for processing after transfer to a third country or to an international organisation may only take place if, subject to the other provisions of this Regulation, the conditions laid down in this Chapter are complied with by the controller and processor, including for onward transfers of personal data from the third country or an international organisation to another third country or to another international organisation, without prejudice to decisions adopted by the Commission on the basis of Article 25(6) or Article 26(4) of Directive 95/46/EC or authorisations by a supervisory authority on the basis of Article 26(2) of Directive 95/46/EC.
Amendment 2395 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 41 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) the international commitments the third country or international organisation in question has entered into, in particular any legally binding conventions or instruments under human rights law or international law.
Amendment 2401 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 41 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. The Commission shall adopt and make public binding procedures for reaching decisions concerning the adequacy of protection, which shall contain at least the following information: (a) the procedures by which a third country, territory, a processing sector within that third country (which can be represented by an association or group of data controllers or data processors), or an international or regional organisation may request that an adequacy decision be issued; (b) the steps of the decision-making procedure, including time limits within which each step must be completed; (c) the rights of the party or parties that have requested an adequacy decision to present their case in the various steps of the procedure; (d) how interested parties (including individuals, consumer organisations, academic experts, government entities, data controllers and processors, and others) may express their opinion concerning the proposed decision. The Commission shall either approve or refuse an application for a decision regarding the adequacy of protection within one year of its submission.
Amendment 2437 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 2 – point d b (new)
Article 42 – paragraph 2 – point d b (new)
(db) the measures referred to in Article 81 for health purposes or Article 83 for historical, statistical or scientific research purposes.
Amendment 2452 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 4
Article 42 – paragraph 4
4. Where a transfer is based onthe relevant safeguards are provided for on the basis of contractual clauses as referred to in point (d) of paragraph 2 of this Article the controller or processor shall obtain prior authorisation of the contractual clauses according to point (a) of Article 34(1) from the supervisory authority. If the transfer is related to processing activities whichensure compliance of the intended processing with this Regulation and mitigate any risks involved for the data subject. The supervisory authority shall support the compliance of the Regulation by providing guidance and advice under this provision. If the processing concerns data subjects in another Member State or other Member States, or substantially affect the free movement of personal data within the Union, the supervisory authority shall apply the consistency mechanism referred to in Article 57EDPB shall provide guidance to ensure consistent application of the Regulation, taking into account the specific circumstances of individual Member States.
Amendment 2464 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 5
Article 42 – paragraph 5
5. Where the appropriate safeguards with respect to the protection of personal data are not provided for in a legally binding instrument, the controller or processor shall obtain prior authorisation for the transfer, or a set of transfers, or for provisions to be inserted into administrative arrangements providing the basis for such transfer. Such authorisation by the supervisory authority shall be in accordance with point (a) of Article 34(1). If the transffor example in a memorandum of understanding, the controller shall ensure compliance of the intended processing with this Regulation and mitigate any risks involved for the data subject. The supervisory authority shall support the compliance of the Regulation by providing guidance and advice under this related to processing activities whichprovision. If the processing concerns data subjects in another Member State or other Member States, or substantially affect the free movement of personal data within the Union, the supervisory authority shall apply the consistency mechanism referred to in Article 57EDPB shall provide guidance to ensure consistent application of the Regulation, taking into account the specific circumstances of individual Member States. Authorisations by a supervisory authority on the basis of Article 26(2) of Directive 95/46/EC shall remain valid, until amended, replaced or repealed by that supervisory authority.
Amendment 2469 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1
Article 43 – paragraph 1
1. A supervisory authority shall in accordance with the consistency mechanism set out in Article 58 approve binding corporate rules,Where appropriate safeguards are provided through binding corporate rules data controllers shall ensure compliance with the Regulation by provideding that theyBCRs: (a) are legally binding and apply to and are enforced by every member within the controller’'s or processor's group of undertakings, and include their employees; (b) expressly confer enforceable rights on data subjects; (c) fulfil the requirements laid down in paragraph 2. The supervisory authority shall support the compliance of this Regulation by providing guidance and advice under this provision.
Amendment 2506 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 1 – point h
Article 44 – paragraph 1 – point h
(h) the transferprocessing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or the processor, which cannot be qualified as frequent or massive, and where the controller or processor has assessed all the circumstances surrounding the data transfer operation or the set of data transfer operations and based on this assessmentand where the controller has adduced appropriate safeguards with respect to the protection of personal data, where necessary.
Amendment 2508 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 1 – point h a (new)
Article 44 – paragraph 1 – point h a (new)
(ha) the personal data has been anonymised;
Amendment 2510 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 1 – point h b (new)
Article 44 – paragraph 1 – point h b (new)
(hb) the personal data has been pseudonymised, and the key and the data are kept separately, and contractual clauses forbid the controller to access the key.
Amendment 2598 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 3
Article 51 – paragraph 3
3. The supervisory authority shall not be competent to supervise processing operations of courts acting in their judicial capacity: (a) by a judge; or (b) by a person acting on the instructions or on behalf of a judge; or (c) for the purpose of exercising judicial functions including functions of appointment, discipline, administration or leadership of judges.
Amendment 2608 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1 – point j a (new)
Article 52 – paragraph 1 – point j a (new)
(ja) provide micro, small and medium sized enterprise processors and controllers with a comprehensive list of their responsibilities and obligations in accordance with this Regulation.
Amendment 2703 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 60
Article 60
Amendment 2854 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 1
Article 79 – paragraph 1
1. Each supervisory authority shall be empowered to impose administrative sanctions in accordance with this Article. The administrative sanctions available to supervisory authorities must include at least financial penalties and other administrative sanctions such as warnings and recommendations for remedial action, including in relation to technical and organisational measures.
Amendment 2866 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 2
Article 79 – paragraph 2
2. TheAn administrative sanction shall be in eachvery individual case effective, proportionate and dissuasive. The amount of the administrative fine shall be fixed with due regard toIn deciding on the nature, scope and seriousness of the administrative sanction to apply the supervisory authority shall have regard to all the circumstances and, in particular: (a) the nature, gravity and duration of the breach, the intentional or negligent cha; (b) whether the breach was deliberacter of the infringement, the degree of responsibility of the natural or legal person and of previous breaches by this person, the technical and organisational measures and procedures implemented pursuant to Article 23 and; (c) whether reasonable steps were taken to prevent it; (d) whether the breach did or is likely to cause substantial harm or substantial prejudice to the fundamental rights and freedoms of a data subject, or substantial distress to a data subject; (e) any steps taken to mitigate the consequences of a breach, including the degree of co-operation with the supervisory authority in order to remedy the breach. or its consequences; (f) any previous breaches.
Amendment 2871 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 3
Article 79 – paragraph 3
Amendment 2884 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 79 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. A supervisory authority may, in particular, decide that it is appropriate to apply a sanction other than a financial penalty if the nature, scope or purposes of the processing activities are such that the activity is unlikely to represent risks for the fundamental rights of a data subject.
Amendment 2895 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
Article 79 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. The supervisory authority shallmay impose a fine up to 250 000 EUR, or in case of an enterprise up to 0,5 % of its annual worldwide turnover, to anyone who, intentionally or negligently:
Amendment 2907 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
Article 79 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. The supervisory authority shallmay impose a fine up to 500 000 EUR, or in case of an enterprise up to 1 % of its annual worldwide turnover, to anyone who, intentionally or negligently:
Amendment 2928 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 6 – introductory part
Article 79 – paragraph 6 – introductory part
6. The supervisory authority shallmay impose a fine up to 1 000 000 EUR or, in case of an enterprise up to 2 % of its annual worldwide turnover, to anyone who, intentionally or negligently:
Amendment 2956 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 80 – paragraph 1
Article 80 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall provide for exemptions or derogations from the provisions on the general principles in Chapter II, the rights of the data subject in Chapter III, on controller and processor in Chapter IV, on the transfer of personal data to third countries and international organisations in Chapter V, the independent supervisory authorities in Chapter VI and on co-operation and consistency in Chapter VII and the provisions regarding processing concerning health and processing for historical, statistical and scientific research purposes in this chapter whenever this is necessary for the processing of personal data carried out solely for journalistic purposes or the purpose of artistic or literary expression in order to reconcile the right to the protection of personal data with the rules governing freedom of expression.
Amendment 2962 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 80 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 80 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 2981 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 81 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 81 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) other reasons of public interest in areas such as social protection, especially in order to ensure the quality and cost- effectiveness of the procedures used for settling claims for benefits and services in the health insurance system and the provision of health services.
Amendment 2985 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 81 – paragraph 2
Article 81 – paragraph 2
2. PWithout prejudice to any exemptions or derogations made under Article 80, processing of personal data concerning health which is necessary for historical, statistical or scientific research purposes, such as patient registries set up for improving diagnoses and differentiating between similar types of diseases and preparing studies for therapies, is subject to the conditions and safeguards referred to in Article 83.
Amendment 2987 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 81 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 81 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Amendment 2992 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 81 – paragraph 3
Article 81 – paragraph 3
Amendment 2997 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 81 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 81 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. A controller or processor may transfer personal data to a third country or an international organisation for health purposes if: (a) these purposes cannot reasonably be fulfilled by processing data which does not permit or not any longer permit the identification of the data subject; (b) the recipient does not reasonably have access to data enabling the attribution of information to an identified or identifiable data subject; and (c) contractual clauses between the controller or processor and the recipient of the data prohibit re-identification of the data subject and limit processing in accordance with the conditions and safeguards laid down in this Article.
Amendment 2998 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 81 – paragraph 3 b (new)
Article 81 – paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Within the limits of this Regulation, personal data may be processed for the purposes of a manufacturer's regulatory pre- and post-marketing obligations with respect to clinical evaluation of medical devices.
Amendment 3054 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 83 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 83 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 3069 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 83 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 83 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 3072 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 83 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 83 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) these purposes cannot be otherwise fulfillreasonably be achieved by processing data which does not permit or not any longer permit the identification of the data subject; and
Amendment 3079 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 83 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 83 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Where the data subject is required to give his/her consent under this article, the option of broad consent should be available.
Amendment 3089 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 83 – paragraph 3
Article 83 – paragraph 3
Amendment 3094 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 83 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 83 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. A controller or processor may transfer personal data to a third country or an international organisation for historical, statistical or scientific research purposes if: (a) these purposes cannot reasonably be fulfilled by processing data which does not permit or not any longer permit the identification of the data subject; (b) the recipient does not reasonably have access to data enabling the attribution of information to an identified or identifiable data subject; and (c) contractual clauses between the controller or processor and the recipient of the data prohibit re-identification of the data subject and limit processing in accordance with the conditions and safeguards laid down in this Article.
Amendment 3095 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 83 – paragraph 3 b (new)
Article 83 – paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. The provisions in this Article are without prejudice to exemptions or derogations which Member States should provide for under Article 80 in order to reconcile the right to the protection of personal data with the rules governing freedom of expression including as these relate to freedom of academic inquiry.
Amendment 3096 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 83 a (new)
Article 83 a (new)
Article 83a Processing of criminal convictions data for the purpose of the prevention of financial crime Within the limits of this Regulation and in accordance with Article 9(2)(j), processing of personal data concerning criminal convictions or related security measures shall be permitted if it provides for appropriate measures to protect the data subject's fundamental rights and freedoms and is for: (a) the purposes of the prevention, investigation or detection of financial crime; or (b) reasons of public interest such as protecting against cross-border threats of financial crime, and in either case, must necessarily be carried out without the consent of the data subject being sought so as not to prejudice those purposes.
Amendment 33 #
2011/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
G a. whereas different EU Member States have unique experiences to offer in terms of overcoming authoritarian regimes in their own past, and whereas this transition experience should be better utilised in the Union's relations with partner countries in strengthening democracy and human rights;
Amendment 37 #
2011/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses, too, that the Union's policies must not onlyshould be consistent, but also exemplary, in order to maximise its moral authority globall and exemplary; insists that a clear indication that the recommendations made in the 2007 Fava report on the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners will be implemented, and welcomes the initiative to draw up a follow-up Parliamentary report;
Amendment 45 #
2011/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Regrets that, despite the explicit call made by the European Parliament in the 2007 Fava report, a number of EU Member States have failed to fully and openly address their complicity in the worldwide violation of human rights that took place in the context of the US rendition and secret detention programme, and the domestic human rights violations that accompanied this; believes this situation to be a grave and serious impediment to the EU's promotion of human rights in the world and claims to moral authority; urges EU Member States to take action to fully shed light upon, acknowledge, repair and prevent in the future these human rights violations, and calls on the EU institutions to maintain pressure on Member States for full and open investigations;
Amendment 48 #
2011/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Calls on the United States to honour its pledge to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay; urges EU Member States to step up efforts to resettle non- European detainees released from Guantánamo who cannot be repatriated to their home states as they are under threat of death, torture or cruel and inhumane treatment;
Amendment 68 #
2011/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Believes that the promotion and support of non-violence reflects an international value that should constitute a priority for the EU's human rights and democracy policies, particularly considering that the non-violent methodology offers an effective and appropriate means and outcomes in terms of the prevention of conflict and support for democracy, rule of law and civil society around the world;
Amendment 73 #
2011/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. InvitUrges the HR/VP in her drafting of future Annual Reports to consult actively and, systematically and in a transparent fashion with Parliament, and to report on the way that Parliament's resolutions have been taken into account; asks the HR/VP to more regularly provide information on the stage of preparation of future Annual Reports whenever requested to do so by Parliament;
Amendment 90 #
2011/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13 a. Further recommends that, whenever a gross breach of human rights occurs by a partner country with which an international agreement such as a PCA has been concluded, the EU takes bolder steps in carrying out the appropriate sanctions as stipulated in the human rights clauses of the agreement, including possible temporary suspension of the agreement;
Amendment 167 #
2011/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Stresses that the application of the clause as it currently stands , for example with the Colombia/Peru Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) due to come before Parliament, provides an opportunity for the European Parliament itself to explore the potential for setting human rights benchmarks in advance of ratification, in order to achieve concrete and verifiable progress in respect for human rights; encourages the Commission to draft a new ‘model clause’ referring to the parties' international obligations, comprising a procedure for consultation and specifying political and legal mechanisms to be used in the event of a request for cooperation to be suspended on the grounds of repeated or systemic human rights violations in breach of international law; recommends that a clear system of sanctions short of suspension be developed; insists strongly on the need for Parliament to be a joint decision-maker with the Commission and the Council in this respect;
Amendment 204 #
2011/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 a (new)
Paragraph 49 a (new)
49 a. Welcomes the Commission's decision of 20 December 2011 to amend Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005, and thereby tightening export controls on certain drugs that can be used for executions and equipment that can be used for torture; calls on the Commission to tackle the remaining loopholes in the Regulation by introducing an end-use catch-all clause that would prohibit the export of any drug that could be used for torture or executions;
Amendment 230 #
2011/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57 a (new)
Paragraph 57 a (new)
57 a. Is concerned that in Egypt, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) has failed to conduct an investigation into reports of sexual assault of female protestors, including the so- called 'virginity checks' and death threats against female protesters;
Amendment 231 #
2011/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58
Paragraph 58
58. Welcomes the indefatigable championingemphasis put ofn women's empowerment by the HR/VP and calls on her to institutionalise the EU Inter- institutional Informal Task Force on Women, Peace and Security (WPS) by providing it with a full- time chair, who will also act as the gender focal point in the EEAS, as part of allocating adequate human and financial resources to its task;
Amendment 276 #
2011/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 66 a (new)
Paragraph 66 a (new)
66 a. Recommends initiatives for EU legislation to ensure attention is paid in EU human rights policy and instruments of cooperation to eliminate caste discrimination, and action in caste- affected countries, including Nepal, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Yemen;
Amendment 284 #
2011/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68
Paragraph 68
68. Stresses that freedom of expression and media, both offline and online, independence and pluralism are essential elements of a sustainable democracy, maximising the involvement of civil society and empowering citizens; calls and are therefore indispensable for ensuring transparency and accountability in public life; calls for increased support in the areas of promoting the freedom of media, protecting independent journalists and bloggers, reducing the digital divide and facilitating Internet access; unrestricted access to information and communication and uncensored access to the internet (digital freedom);
Amendment 286 #
2011/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69
Paragraph 69
69. Notes that the Iinternet has become one of the most important vehicles through which individuals exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression, and that it has played a crucial role in promoting human rights, democratic participation, accountability, transparency and economic development; notes however that ICTs can also be misused to violate human rights and fundamental freedoms;
Amendment 292 #
2011/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 70
Paragraph 70
70. Welcomes the Commission initiative on the ‘No Disconnection Strategy’; invites the Commission to submit a proposal for regulating the export of products and services aimed at blocking websitessmart regulatory proposals, including increased transparency and accountability for EU (based) companies, in order to improve the monitoring of the export of products and services aimed at, but also custom- made for, blocking websites, mass surveillance, monitoring all internet traffic and (mobile) communications, breaking into private conversations and transcribing them, filtering search results, and intimidating internet users including human rights defenders; believes telecommunications and internet service providers and software developers must learn the lessons of past mistakes, such as Vodafone's decision to give in to demands from the Egyptian authorities in the last weeks of the Mubarak regime to suspend services and to disseminate pro- government propagandaand should engage with policymakers, NGOs and activists in an open dialogue in order to set common minimum standards for human rights impact assessments and increased transparency;
Amendment 293 #
2011/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71
Paragraph 71
Amendment 294 #
2011/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71 a (new)
Paragraph 71 a (new)
71 a. Welcomes the inclusion of a ban on the export of technologies and services in the EU's restrictive measures against the governing authorities in Syria; notes that this ban should become a precedent for future restrictive measures against other repressive regimes, in particular towards Iran; notes however that EU policies should be precise to be effective and not to hurt human rights defenders;
Amendment 295 #
2011/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72
Paragraph 72
72. Notes that new technologies also allow witnesses and human rights defenders to collect information and share documentation of human rights abuses which may later be used to secure justice for victims; calls on the EU to work with the Global Network Initiativewelcomes multi-stakeholder initiatives and codes of conduct such as the Global Network Initiative; notes however that democratic oversight and the defence and promotion of fundamental rights are core tasks of government; calls on the Commission to support the development and dissemination of digital security technologies to empower human rights defenders through secure collection, encryption and storage mechanisms for such sensitive records and the use of ‘'cloud’' technology to ensure such material cannot be discovered and deleted; calls in particular on the Commission to examine and support the development of open- source technologies such as that developed by the Martus Project supported by the US State Department;
Amendment 314 #
2011/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 80
Paragraph 80
80. Recognises the need for human rights concerns to be mainstreamed through the work of all parliamentary committees and delegations dealing with external relations; recommends that Members of the European Parliament systematically meet with human rights defenders during official missions to third countries, including with imprisoned activists wherever possible, to provide the latter with greater visibility; welcomes the decision to augment the resources available to the Subcommittee on Human Rights in the light of the changes arising from the Treaty of Lisbon;
Amendment 1 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that EU citizenship is the fundamental status of Member States' nationals; underlines the close link between the rights inherent to EU citizenship and those enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights applicable to all persons on EU territory; calls on the EU institutions and Member States to align the rights of third-country nationals permanently residing in EU with the rights of EU citizensat the fundamental rights and personal freedoms enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Treaties as regard to EU citizenship are directly applicable and inherent to all persons on EU territory including third- country nationals permanently residing in EU with the rights of EU citizens; urges the EU institutions and Member States to have a more proactive approach as respecting fundamental rights and personal freedoms is of the utmost importance;
Amendment 33 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is concerned about the poor implementation of current directivand adherence to directives in force by Member States, especially the Free Movement Directive, whichsince such situation causes many problems related to free movement and other rights of EU citizens, and calls on all parties to correctly and fully transpose and implement the acquis and most importantly adhere to it;
Amendment 36 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Underlines that some categories of persons encounter discriminatory obstacles in the exercise of the right to free movement, notably LGBT persons in same-sex unions, transgender people, third country family members and Roma;
Amendment 42 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Calls on the Commission to issue clear guidelines and bring infringement proceedings against those Member States that violate articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States by denying same-sex spouses, same-sex and different-sex registered partners, or same-sex and different-sex partners in a durable and attested relationship and their families the right to free movement and residence, or the facilitation thereof, calls on the Commission to examine the implementation of Directive 2004/38/EC fully in conjunction with Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and initiate infringement proceedings against Member States that discriminate against persons in same-sex unions, transgender people, third-country family members and Roma;
Amendment 44 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Calls the Commission to come up urgently with an ambitious proposal on the full mutual recognition of the effects of civil status documents across the EU so as to finally overcome the legal and administrative obstacles citizens face when moving in the EU, including same- sex spouses, different-sex and same-sex registered partners, or same-sex and different-sex partners in a durable attested relationship and their families, including their children;
Amendment 47 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Regrets that citizens of Roma origin are often targeted by Member States for expulsion, in violation of the Free Movement Directive and of the Race Directive, and subjected to collective expulsion procedures, such as in the case of France in 2010; underlines that Roma integration and inclusion is still pending issue in the EU agenda and in this regard calls on the Commission to urge Member States to treat Roma minorities equally and deepen their efforts in the areas of unemployment, housing health, education, free movement, anti- discrimination and fundamental rights; urges the Member States especially to focus on social inclusion of the Roma children;
Amendment 50 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes the view that, gGiven the low number of EU citizens resident in a Member State other than their own who exercise their right to vote or stand as candidate in either European or local elections in their place of residence, the Commission andakes the view that the Commission should call the Member States shouldto promote such participation by various means including by ensuring that membership of political parties is allowed to all EU citizens and by launching a special informational campaign targeting those EU citizens resident in a Member State other than their own;
Amendment 53 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Regrets that a large number of EU citizens resident in a Member State other than their own are not fully and effectively informed about their rights; calls on the Commission to urge the Member States to focus their efforts in enhancing their information systems especially in areas EU citizens initially encounter problems, denial or restriction of their EU rights such as residence, work, social rights, health, marital status, consumer rights;
Amendment 56 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Calls on the Commission, the Council and Member States to make the most of the upcoming European Year of Citizenship 2013 so to ensure that information campaigns on European citizenship and the rights connected to it are carried out and calls on the Commission to strengthen its activity of monitoring and support to citizens in facing violations of citizens' rights and overcoming them so to ensure that the European Year allows for concrete progress in citizens' lives;
Amendment 57 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Regrets that the administrative procedures in some Member States are too time consuming and thus sometimes are equal to a denial of EU citizen's rights; calls on the Commission to be more proactive on infringement procedures in this area ;
Amendment 66 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes with regret that the Commission has not been very activesufficiently active and transparent in addressing infringements related to citizens' rights; and consequently calls on the Commission to behave more proactively;strengthen monitoring, reporting and supporting citizens when they face citizens' rights violations, as well as finding solutions to overcome them, including by launching infringement proceedings, in its role of guardian of the Treaties
Amendment 109 #
2011/2109(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Strongly encourages the EU and its Member States, with the help of the EEAS, to put in place a set of stringent internal guidelines, modelled on existing UN guidelinesthose followed by the Office of the Prosecutor, outlining a code of conduct for contact between EU and Member State officials and persons wanted by the ICC, in particular when the latter still occupy official posts;
Amendment 114 #
2011/2109(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Recognises the recent decision by the ICC prosecutor to issue arrest warrants for Colonel Gaddafi, his son Said al Islam and intelligence chief Abdullah al Sanoussi, in relation to the alleged crimes against humanity since the beginning of the country's uprising; stresses that their successful capture, and subsequent trial by the ICC, will serve as a crucial contribution to the fight against impunity in the region;
Amendment 201 #
2011/2109(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)
Paragraph 29 a (new)
29a. Stresses however, that increased EU funding should be additional and should not be used as a pretext by Member States to reduce their funding for core functions in the regular ICC budget;
Amendment 211 #
2011/2109(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30a. Strongly supports the ICC's efforts to expand and strengthen its field presence as this is key to improving its ability to carry out its functions, including investigations, outreach to victims and affected communities, witness protection and facilitating victims' rights to participation and reparations and additionally, is a crucial factor in enhancing the Court's impact and its ability to leave a strong and positive legacy;
Amendment 252 #
2011/0427(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 a (new)
Article 17 a (new)
Amendment 1910 #
2011/0281(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 125 a (new)
Article 125 a (new)
Article 125 a Suspension of import duties in the sugar sector (1) By 30 November each year, the Commission shall make a forecast of the expected volume of imports of cane sugar into the EU for that marketing year. (2) The forecast under paragraph (1) shall be based upon an estimate of exports under trade agreements between the EU and countries which export cane sugar. (3) Where the Commission's forecast for imports is less than 3.5 million tonnes, the Commission shall adopt a delegated act in accordance with article 160 providing for the application of import duties to be suspended for imports of cane sugar equal to 50 per cent of the additional imports necessary to bring the total imports to 3.5 million tonnes. (4) The Commission shall revise its forecast under paragraph 1 by 30 June to include up-to-date information on imports under trade agreements with countries which export cane sugar and the imports referred to in paragraph (3). Where the Commission's forecast for imports is less than 3.5 million tonnes, the Commission shall adopt a delegated act providing for the application of import duties to be suspended for imports of cane sugar necessary to bring the total forecast of imports to 3.5 million tonnes.
Amendment 6 #
2011/0167(NLE)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines, at the same time, that it is crucial to strike the appropriate balance between enforcement of IPRs and fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, the right to privacy and protection of personal data, the right to due process and confidentiality of communications, the right to due process -notably the presumption of innocence and effective judicial proteciton1 - and recalls the case- law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as regards this fair balance,; ______________ 1 See also in this sense the Opinion of the EDPS of 24 April 2012 <http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/my Site/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2012/12- 04-24_ACTA_EN.pdf.
Amendment 9 #
2011/0167(NLE)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3a (new)
Paragraph 3a (new)
3a. Notes the safeguards contained in ACTA on privacy, due process and proportionality and the fact that implementation of ACTA in the Union must be subject to and constrained by the requirements of Union and national law on the protection of fundamental rights;
Amendment 20 #
2011/0167(NLE)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls that the Commission has decided to refer ACTA to the CJEU on the question of whether ACTA is compatible with Union Treaties, in particular the Charter, and believes that the Parliament's final position on ACTA should only be taken after the CJEU has given its judgement on this matter;
Amendment 32 #
2011/0167(NLE)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Considers that when fundamental rights are at stake ambiguity must be avoided and at the least reduced to a minimumthere shall be no place for any ambiguity; recalls that the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence affirms that any limitation to the fundamental rights and freedoms foreseen by law must be foreseeable in its effects, clear and precise and accessible, as well as necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the aims pursued; underlines that ACTA might create a legal basis for third countries controls and subsequent measures, notably at the borders, on Union citizens travelling outside of the Union, as well as on their properties; moreover, and without assigning any wrongful intentions ("procès d'intention") to the ACTA implementation measures, takes the view that in the current state of affairs precaution should be exercised as regards ACTA in light of the serious and remaining question-marks surrounding the balance reached within the agreement between IPRs and other core fundamental rights and its level of legal certainty.;
Amendment 72 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17 a (new)
Recital 17 a (new)
(17a) The right of the suspect or accused person to communicate with his lawyer should ordinarily include the opportunity of the person concerned to meet his lawyer. In respect of certain relatively minor cases however, the right to obtain legal assistance can be by telephone.
Amendment 87 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. This Directive does not cover preliminary questioning by the police or other law enforcement officers, immediately after the apprehension of a suspect, the purpose of which is to determine whether an investigation should be started or if there are any safety issues.
Amendment 105 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notwithstanding provisions of national law concerning the mandatory presence of a lawyer, in all cases where the suspect or accused person is deprived of liberty, and in any event during the trial stage before a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters, Member States shall ensure that a suspect or accused person is effectively able to exercise his right of access to a lawyer, unless he has waived this right in accordance with Article 9. Before a case is before a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters, Member States may, but are not obliged to, assist a person who is not detained in exercising his right of access to a lawyer. They shall at least provide information on this right in accordance with the Directive on right to information in criminal proceedings 2010/0215(COD). In any event, Member States should not prevent a person from contacting or consulting with a lawyer on matters concerning his defence.
Amendment 106 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 b (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. In cases involving minor offences, the access to a lawyer for the suspect or accused person may be via telephone.
Amendment 121 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The lawyer shall have the right to be present at any otherMember States shall determine in their national law in respect of which investigative or other evidence-gathering act at whichs the suspect or accused person’s presence is required or permitted as a right, in accordance wi has the right for his lawyer to attend, provided evidence will not be altered, removed or destroyed pending the lawyer’s arrival. In addition, the suspect or accused person shall have the right for his lawyer to attend at least the following investigative or other evidence-gathering acts, if they exist in the national law, unless this would prejudice the acquisi concerned: (i) identity parades; (ii) confrontations; (iii) experimental reconstructions of evidence. the scene of crime.
Amendment 139 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7
Article 7
Member States shall ensure thatguarantee the confidentiality of meetingscommunication between thea suspect or accused person and his lawyer is guaranteed. They shall also ensure the confidentiality ofrelating to the defence and the preparation of the case, including meetings, correspondence, telephone conversations and any other forms of communication permitted under national law between the suspect or accused person and his lawyer.
Amendment 140 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
In exceptional circumstances Member States may derogate from paragraph 1 on a case-by-case basis where this is regulated by national law, and a) when there is sufficient reason to believe that the privilege between lawyer and client is being abused or b) where there is reason to believe that the lawyer concerned has colluded in a criminal offence with the suspect or accused person, and the derogation is granted by a judicial authority.
Amendment 159 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that any person other than a suspect or accused person who is heard by the police or other enforcement authority in the context of a criminal procedure is granted access to a lawyer if, in the course of questioning, interrogation or hearing, he becomes suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence. Where a lawyer is requested by the suspect or accused person, the proceedings shall be postponed until the person has had the opportunity to have access to a lawyer.
Amendment 172 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Amendment 174 #
2011/0154(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that the question of the value to be given to statements made by the suspect or accused person or evidence obtained in breach of his right to a lawyer or in cases where a derogation to this right was authorised in accordance with Article 8, may not be used at any stage of the procedure as evidence against him, unless the use of such evidence would not prejudice the rights of the defencethis Directive, shall be determined by that court being responsible for ensuring the overall fairness of the proceedings, in accordance with national legal procedures.
Amendment 1926 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1
Article 30 – paragraph 1
1. The controller and the processor shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risks represented by the processing and the nature of the personal data to be protected, having regard to the state of the art and the costs of their implementationHaving regard to the state of technological development and the cost of implementation, the controller must implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure a level of security in relation to the processing personal data that is appropriate to: (a) the harm that might result from unauthorised or unlawful processing or accidental loss, destruction or damage as mentioned in Article 5(1)(ea), and (b) the nature and scope of the data to be processed.
Amendment 1931 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 2
Article 30 – paragraph 2
2. The controller and the processor shall, following an evaluation ofIn complying with the prisks, take the measures referred to in paragraph 1 to protect personal data against accidental or unlawful destruction or accidental loss and to prevent any unlawful forms of processing, in particular any unauthorised disclosure, dissemination or access, or alteration of personal datanciple as set out at Article 5(1)(ea), a controller must consider any relevant guidance drawn up by the supervisory authority under Article 38.
Amendment 1937 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 3
Article 30 – paragraph 3
Amendment 1943 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 4
Article 30 – paragraph 4
Amendment 1959 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1
Article 31 – paragraph 1
1. In the case of a personal data breach, the controller shall without undue delay and, where feasible, not lat where there is a significant risk that the personal data breach will adversely affect the rights and freedoms of data subjects, the controller tshan 24 hoursll without undue delay after having become aware of it, notify the personal data breach to the supervisory authority. The notification to the supervisory authority shall be accompanied by a reasoned justification in cases where it is not made within 24 hours.
Amendment 1967 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 31 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Amendment 1968 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 3
Article 31 – paragraph 3
Amendment 1974 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 31 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The national supervisory authority should provide guidance under Article 38 on the particular circumstances in which notification to the supervisory authority should take place. Furthermore, the level of detail and the specific information required when a controller notifies the supervisory authority of the data breach should be contained in guidance.
Amendment 1975 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 4
Article 31 – paragraph 4
Amendment 1988 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 5
Article 31 – paragraph 5
Amendment 1991 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 6
Article 31 – paragraph 6
Amendment 2023 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1
Article 33 – paragraph 1
1. Where processing operations present specific risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects by virtue of their nature, their scope or their purposes, the controller or the processor acting on the controller's behalf shall carry out an assessment of the impact of the envisaged processing operations on the protection of personal data. A single assessment shall be sufficient to address a set of processing operations that present similar risks.
Amendment 2027 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 33 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Such a requirement shall not apply to: (a) micro small and medium-sized enterprises that process data only as an activity ancillary to their main activities; (b) all micro, small and medium-sized enterprises for the first three years after the enterprise was founded.
Amendment 2040 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 33 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) automated monitoring publicly accessible areas, especially when using optic-electronic devices (video surveillance) on a large scale;
Amendment 2043 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 33 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The supervisory authority shall establish and make public a list of the kind of processing for which a data protection impact assessment would be recommended. The supervisory authority shall communicate those lists to the European Data Protection Board.
Amendment 2046 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 3
Article 33 – paragraph 3
3. The assessment shall contain at least a general description of the envisaged processing operations, an assessment of the risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects, the measures envisaged to address the risks, safeguards, security measures and mechanisms to ensure th the likelihood of the processing operation giving rise to harm to the fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects or any other person, and the seriousness of any such harm, and explain the measures the controller intends to take to mitigate the chance of that harm or its seriousness, including the security measures and other safeguards and mechanisms the controller intends to put in place to ensure protection of personal data and to demonstrate compliin accordance with this Regulation, taking into account the rights and legitimate interests of data subjects and other persons concerned.
Amendment 2057 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 4
Article 33 – paragraph 4
Amendment 2078 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 6
Article 33 – paragraph 6
Amendment 2088 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 7
Article 33 – paragraph 7
Amendment 6 #
2010/2311(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Considers that EU external relations related to counter-terrorism in the context of CFSP and CSDP must meet high standards with regard to the rule of law, civil liberties and human rights, democratic scrutiny and accountability; stresses that a comprehensive evaluation of the EU counter-terrorism policies by a panel of independent experts would enable the strategy to be evidence-based, coherent and comprehensive;
Amendment 21 #
2010/2311(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises the strategic cooperation between the EUnion and the US reflected by various agreements; stresses therefore that the EU-US Agreement on the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme, the Toledo declaration on aviation security and the Coupports enhanced transatlantic cooperation in counter- terrorism within a context of respect for human rights and civil liberties, untder-Terrorism Declaration are positive examples to be followed in the Union's relations with other third countrieslines that EU requirements for the fair, proportionate and lawful processing of personal information are of paramount importance in this field and must always be upheld;
Amendment 30 #
2010/2311(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines that counter-terrorism isand support for development, good governance, the rule of law and human rights are an integral part of the Union'’s relations with third countries; asks for an increase in the funding of counter-terrorism assistance measures towards these objectives in the next Instrument for Stability in order to prevent state failureand other external support instruments; agrees, in this respect, with the priority areas being South Asia, in particular Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Sahel region (Mauretania, Mali, Niger) and Yemen; calls on the Council to adopt a Comprehensive Union Strategy for tackling terrorism in the Saharo-Sahelian region in consultation with the European Parliament; welcomes the adoption of counter-terrorism clauses in international agreements but demands that they be accompanied by provisions on respect for human rights and the rule of law and that their clarity and effectiveness be evaluated in the context of development cooperation agreements;
Amendment 32 #
2010/2311(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Demands that the EU and EU Member States fully clarify, in line with the recommendations of the European Parliament and the Council of Europe, their role in the US programme of rendition, Guantanamo, secret detention and torture, and make clear whether judicial or other inquiries into such issues have been cancelled at the request of third countries; underlines that the EU must help the US in finding appropriate solutions for the closing of Guantanamo and ensuring that the detainees get fair civilian trials;
Amendment 35 #
2010/2311(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points out the common values that the Union shares with other international organisations, especially the UN; sStresses the need for the universal ratification and implementation of the UN conventions and protocols againstrelevant to terrorism; advocates the adoption ofnd calls for a UN Comprehensive Convention on Terrorism; asks for greater flexibility in theconsiders that the EU and its Member States must ensure procedures regarding terrorist blacklisting and asset-freezing, including those emanating from UN Sdecurity Council process of listing terrorist organisations and individualsisions, are placed in a sound framework in conformity with all relevant legal instruments and court rulings allowing individuals and organisations suspected of terrorist activities to seek judicial review;
Amendment 31 #
2010/2310(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Encourages the Commission to continue to include in its impact assessments the necessity and proportionality test, to draw on the best practices of Member States with high procedural rights guarantees, as well as to introduce a test specifying how its proposals reflect the aforementioned general principles governing criminal law, as well as human rights and fundamental freedoms in general;
Amendment 42 #
2010/2310(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls for an inter-institutional agreement on the principles and working methods governing proposals for future EU substantive criminal law provisions and invites the Commission and the Council to establish an inter-institutional working group in which these institutions and, the Parliament and independent experts can draw up such an agreement and discuss general matters with a view to ensuring coherence in EU criminal law;
Amendment 43 #
2010/2310(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. The inter-institutional working group should help in defining a proper scope and application for criminal law sanctions at EU level as well as examining existing legislation with at view to reducing the current fragmented approach and conflicting jurisdictions;
Amendment 45 #
2010/2310(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Instructs its BureauCalls on the European Parliament to examine how a coherent approach to EU legislation on substantive criminal law can best be ensured within Parliament and points in this respect to the current lack of a coordinating committee as well as to the important potential role of its Legal Service;
Amendment 42 #
2010/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Takes note of the definition of five key areas for which different concrete actions have been proposed at EU and Member State level; takes the view that these objectives are not exhaustive, and that the order of priorities could have been better structured; observes that, while not only the fight against terrorism and organised crime is, and must remain, a key priority, it does not seem to be fully justified or appropriate to take action but also resilience to man-made and natural disasters including fields such as man-made disasters and the enforcement of intellectual property rightailures in critical infrastructure are and must remain key priorities within the framework of the ISS;
Amendment 8 #
2010/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5a (new)
Citation 5a (new)
- having regard to the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, the activities of the Special Representatives of the UN Secretary General on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders as well as the EU guidelines on Human Rights Defenders,
Amendment 16 #
2010/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Ea (new)
Recital Ea (new)
Ea (new). whereas justice, democracy and the rule of law are the pillars of sustainable peace, by guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and human rights, and whereas sustainable peace cannot be achieved through protecting those responsible for systematic human rights abuses and violations of international criminal law,
Amendment 100 #
2010/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the EU Member States to sign up to, and ratify, all core UN and Council of Europe human rights conventions and the optional protocols thereto, in particular to ratify the 1990 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; insists that the Optional Protocol to the Convention should be regarded as an integral part thereof, and calls for simultaneous accession to the latter (Convention and Protocol);
Amendment 108 #
2010/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15b (new)
Paragraph 15b (new)
15b (new). Stresses the importance of strengthening the rationalization and if possible coordination of international bodies with jurisdiction over human rights and of their procedures, with the goal of always better granting an effective promotion and defense of the fundamental rights as contained in the related international instruments;
Amendment 111 #
2010/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the Council and the Commission to continue their efforts to promote universal ratification of the Rome Statute and the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court and national implementing legislation, in accordance with Council Common Position 2003/444/CFSP of 16 June 2003 on the International Criminal Court and the 2004 Action Plan to follow up on the Common Position; welcomes the fact that the ratifications of the Rome Statute by the Czech Republic and Chile in the reporting period brought the total number of States Parties to 110 by December 2009; calls on all EU member States that have not done so to enact ICC implementing legislation, covering substantive crimes and cooperation with the ICC, to do so as a matter of urgency;
Amendment 130 #
2010/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17a (new)
Paragraph 17a (new)
17a (new). Underscores the need to strengthen the international criminal justice system in general and in this respect notes with concern that Ratko Mladić and Goran Hadžić remain at large and have not been brought before the ICTY; in this regard, calls on the Serbian authorities to ensure full cooperation with the ICTY, which should lead to the arrest and transfer of all remaining indictees, in order to open the way to the ratification of a Stabilisation and Association Agreement; notes the need for ongoing support, including financial support, for the Special Court for Sierra Leone to complete ongoing trials, including through to end of any appeals process; also notes progress in multilateral cooperation for the supply of expertise and assistance where the identification, collection and preservation of information would assist a wide range of international and transitional justice options, in particular through the Justice Rapid Response (JRR), in which more than half of the EU member States are participants, and encourages ongoing and increased support for the JRR;
Amendment 135 #
2010/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls for enhanced cooperation between the Council of Europe and the European Union in the field of promoting minority rights and, protecting regional and minority languages and promoting the rights of LGBTI individuals and defenders of LGBTI rights, and ensuring that victims of discrimination are aware of and have access to effective legal remedies before a national authority to combat discrimination, using the legal tools of non-discrimination to advocate diversity and tolerance;
Amendment 145 #
2010/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20a (new)
Paragraph 20a (new)
20a (new). Welcomes the European Union’s support to initiatives encouraging the decriminalisation of homosexuality at the United Nations and in other international fora; calls for the European Union’s continued support in favour of initiatives condemning human rights breaches in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity in all international fora, in coordination with like-minded states;
Amendment 184 #
2010/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38a (new)
Paragraph 38a (new)
38a (new). Expresses grave concern about the Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009 currently under consideration by Uganda’s parliament, which punishes support to lesbian, gay or bisexual people with fines and imprisonment, and punishes consensual homosexual acts with fines, imprisonment and the death penalty; calls on the Ugandan parliament to reject this and any similar legislation; condemns the criminalisation of homosexuality worldwide;
Amendment 189 #
2010/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Notes that the programme of the Trio Presidency of France, the Czech Republic and Sweden (July 2008 - December 2009) gave priority to the question of violence against women and girls, and asks for coherence on principles and policies both outside and inside the EU, including with respect to supporting a ban on female genital mutilation as a human rights violation; notes the recent adoption of a new set of guidelines on the matter and expects the Commission to present the results of its implementation to Parliament;
Amendment 195 #
2010/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40a (new)
Paragraph 40a (new)
40a (new). calls on the Commission, the Council, the Member States to activate all political and institutional means in order to support initiatives aiming at the adoption as soon as possible of a resolution by the UNGA calling on a worldwide moratorium on female genital mutilation;
Amendment 336 #
2010/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72
Paragraph 72
72. Supports the right of expression and peaceful assembly in Russia as guaranteed by Article 31 of the Russian Constitution; expresses solidarity with the organisers and participants of Strategy-31, the series of civic protests in support of this right which started on 31 July 2009 and take place on Triumfalnaya Square in Moscow on the 31st of every month with 31 days; regrets that so far all of Strategy-31 demonstrations have been refused permission by the authorities on the grounds that other activities had been scheduled to take place in Triumfalnaya Square at the same time; is deeply concerned that on 31 December 2009, among dozens of other peaceful protesters, Russian police detained the Chairperson of the Moscow Helsinki Group, Lyudmila Alexeyeva, who had been awarded Parliament’s Sakharov Prize only a few weeks before her detention; expresses concern about attempts to intimidate lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender human rights defenders by Russian authorities, including through state- sponsored abductions, illegal arrests and intimidation;
Amendment 344 #
2010/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 73
Paragraph 73
73. Notes that measures to fight terrorism have resulted in violations of basic human rights in a number of countries around the world, in the form of the application of excessive surveillance measures, illegal detentions and the use of torture as a means of extracting information from suspected terrorists; condemns these violations of human rights, underlines the EU's position that the fight against terrorism must be conducted with full respect for fundamental rights and the rule of law and is convinced that civil liberties should not be compromised in the fight against terrorism, as the disruption of normal democratic life in Western societies is precisely what the terrorists are seeking;
Amendment 352 #
2010/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 74
Paragraph 74
74. Recalls the decision of US President Barack Obama to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in January 2009; expresses its regret that this decision has not been fully implemented; recalls its resolution of 13 June 2006 on the situation of prisoners at Guantanamo which insists that every prisoner be treated in accordance with international humanitarian law and, if charged, tried without delay in a fair and public hearing; urges the US Government to live up fully to its commitments; welcomes the constructive engagement of a number of EU Member States in their efforts to assist with reception of certain former Guantanamo detainees and with finding accommodation for some of the people cleared for release from the detention camp;
Amendment 357 #
2010/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 74a (new)
Paragraph 74a (new)
74a (new). Recalls the EU-US Joint Statement of 15 June 2009 on the Closure of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility and Future Counter-Terrorism Cooperation which welcomed the determination of the US to eliminate secret detention facilities; is concerned about the ongoing detention without trial of detainees by the US, for example, at the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan; insists that the US allow 'habeas corpus' and due process for all prisoners it is detaining anywhere under assumed executive powers; and calls on the Council to deepen its dialogue with the US on this and other questions raised by the fight against terrorism;
Amendment 391 #
2010/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 82a (new)
Paragraph 82a (new)
82a (new). Continues to be concerned that the human rights dialogue with Iran has been interrupted since 2004 due to a lack of cooperation from Iran and considers that time has come for the international community to act in support of Iranian civil society at this crucial juncture in the history of the country’s democratic movement; calls on the Council, the Commission as well the Member States to support and strengthen – through peaceful and non-violent means – those processes that can provide support to democratic reforms, ensure their sustainability and consolidate the involvement of Iranian human rights defenders and civil society representatives within policy-making processes, reinforcing the role of civil society within the general political discourse;
Amendment 11 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 a (new)
Citation 13 a (new)
– having regard to the fact that Iran's violations of its NPT Treaty obligations add to world's concerns about the safety of the world non-proliferation system, with the nuclear powers India and Israel refusing to join, the DPRK leaving the treaty and Pakistan's chief nuclear specialist operating a proliferation system in the past,
Amendment 33 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the leadership has continuously used the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) to suppress internal dissent, and whereas IRGC intervention in internal Iranian politics has peaked under President Ahmadinejad,
Amendment 89 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Observes that previous Iranian mass movements were based on a dual pillar – the quest for both welfare and liberty – and suggests that the Green Movement add to its powerful political call of "Where is my voice?" the socio-economic and anti- corruption call "Where is my oil money?"that these remain unfulfilled promises of the 1979 revolution; whereas economic shortcomings such as inflation, corruption, high unemployment, energy shortages, an inefficient state sector and the waste of public funds have increased drastically over the last years;
Amendment 93 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Expresses its solidarity with the millions of Iranians who have taken to the streets peacefully after the June 2009 presidential elections in the hope of political change in Iran;
Amendment 98 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Warns that the IRGC is slowly taking over Irdevelopment of an; indicates that despite ideological congruity between Supreme Leader Khamenei and the IRGC leadership, the development of the IRGC into a state within a state is turning Khamenei into a hostage in the hands of his own Praetorian Guardcreasingly greater role for the IRGC in different spheres of Iranian society raises fears of further militarization of the state;
Amendment 112 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Reiterates its opposition to the death penalty and calls on the Iranian authorities, in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolutions 62/149 and 63/138, to institute a moratorium on executions pending the abolition of the death penalty;
Amendment 118 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Calls on the Islamic Republic of Iran finally to abolish the death penalty for crimes committed before the age of 18 and to amend its legislation to bring it into line with the international human rights conventions that Iran has ratified, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the ICCPR;
Amendment 122 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Expresses its grave consternation that Iran continues to be one of the very few countries, together with Afghanistan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Nigeria, which still practise stoning; calls on the Iranian Parliament to pass legislation outlawing this cruel and inhumane form of punishment;
Amendment 125 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 d (new)
Paragraph 5 d (new)
5d. Strongly condemns the continuing legal discrimination of women and the persecution of sexual minorities in Iran; denounces the inhumane and medieval practice of sentencing people to death for alleged acts pertaining to the choice of partners or sexual practices; in this context, reiterates its condemnation of the death sentence against Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, charged with having had relations with two men; expresses continued concern about the fate of Ebrahim Hamidi, condemned to death by hanging on false charges of sodomy;
Amendment 128 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 e (new)
Paragraph 5 e (new)
5e. Urges the Iranian authorities to eliminate, in law and in practice, all forms of torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, and to uphold due process of law and to end impunity for human rights violations; in particular, calls on the Iranian Parliament and judiciary to abolish such cruel and inhumane punishments as limb amputation, stoning and flogging, which are inconsistent with Iran's international obligations; firmly rejects the notion promoted by the Iranian judicial authorities that such punishments are culturally justified;
Amendment 134 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Is horrifiappalled by the fact that shooting into demonstrating crowds was considered acceptable by the security forces from the night of 15 June 2009 on, as shown in video footage; urges the EU institutions to present to the Iranian authoritiesCommission and the Council to establish a detailed list of all known incidents/violent actions against Iranian civilians in the aftermath of the elections, and insist that there be an honescalls on the Iranian authorities to set up an independent judicial investigation;
Amendment 141 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Insists that in any possible future negotiations with Iran the HR/VP makes the situation of human rights in the country a top priority; calls on the Commission to implement all the instruments at its disposal for the protection and promotion of human rights in Iran; in particular urges it to devise additional measures in the context of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights in order to actively protect human rights defenders; stresses that facilitating shelter to human rights defenders and access to organisational resources and communication platforms is of particular importance; encourages the Member States to support the European Shelter City Programme and programmes to develop measures against media interception technology;
Amendment 151 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 157 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Deplores the fact that, in contradiction with the Constitution, members of religious minorities endure discrimination in housing, education and official jobs, which is leading young members of these minorities to opt for emigration; condemns in particular the systematic persecution of the Baha'i community, the wave of arrests of Christians in 2009, and the harassment of religious dissidents or non-believers as well as Sufi and Sunni Moslems; reiterates its call for the release of the 7 Baha'i leaders and calls on the Iranian Parliament to change Iranian legislation so as to ensure that all adherents of different beliefs in Iran can follow their convictions free from persecution;
Amendment 166 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Concludes that the position of Iranian NGOs worsened considerably in the wake of the disturbanceprotests following the controversial presidential election of 12 June, 2009; strongly supports the Coucriticizes the fact that all international contacts or financial and the Commission for backing these NGOs in a sensible waysupport for NGOs in Iran are systematically abused by the authorities to try to discredit these organisations and their work;
Amendment 172 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Expects the Council and the Commission toCalls for the re-establishment of a UN mandate for a Special Rapporteur to investigate human rights abuses and encourage accountability for those perpetrating human rights violations in Iran; urges the Iranian authorities to react positively to longstanding requests by several UN Special Rapporteurs (e.g. Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions; Torture; Freedom of Religion or Belief; Independence of Judges and Lawyers) for official visits to Iran;
Amendment 179 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Urges the Council and the Commission to demandDemands that the Iranian regimeauthorities do not deter human rights activists from making use of their constitutional rights; calls for the immediate release of all those human rights defenders and prisoners of conscience who are still imprisoned;
Amendment 185 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Calls on the Islamic Republic of Iran to sign, ratify and implement the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW);
Amendment 191 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Stresses that representatives of EU institutions should include in the programmes of their official visits to Iran meetings with opposition leaders/representatives of the Green Movement and prominent Iranian human rights dissidents; stresses also that official mutual contacts between the delegations of the EP and the Majlis should be conditional on concrete improvements idevelop contacts with representatives from a broad range of Iranian political and social life including prominent Iranian human rights defenders;
Amendment 195 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Urges official representatives of the EU and its Member States, when meetingCondemns the repression by the Iranian authorities of the independent media, including the censorship of video and photo materials; calls on their Iranian counterparts, to insist onauthorities to respect the freedom of the media and to allow for the re-opening of the many dailyforcibly closed newspapers; closed down in recent years, as well as the release of political prisoners, by presenting lists of names in both casesondemns the practice of expulsion of foreign correspondents by the Iranian Government, including reporters from major European newspapers such as El Pais and the Guardian; believes that the censorship imposed by the Government is leading Iran into increasing isolation;
Amendment 201 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Expresses concern about the oppression of cultural, musical and artistic expression through censorship, prohibition, and the repression of artists, musicians, film directors, writers and poets;
Amendment 203 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Amendment 204 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 c (new)
Paragraph 15 c (new)
15c. Welcomes steps taken by several Member States to provide shelter to those Iranian human rights defenders, dissidents, journalists, students, women, children and artists who are persecuted for their religious beliefs, expression, sexual orientation, or other forms of exercising their human rights;
Amendment 212 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Condemns the campaign of dismissals of prominent university professors on political grounds as an intolerable attack on their human rights and academic freedom; believes that these policies will further politicise and debase Iranian universities, long a source of national pride and admiration by scholars around the world; calls on the Iranian authorities to take immediate steps to restore academic freedom in the country;
Amendment 231 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on the Commission, the Council and EU Member States to strengthen all enforcement mechanisms for the implementation of the EU Common Position - especially with regard to export licensing, custom and border controls, air cargo and shipping – in order to prevent Iran from evading the sanctions regime through third parties and locally registered front companiNotes that in view of Iran's persistent lack of full cooperation with the IAEA, additional sanctions have become the logical consequence and re-iterates its position that these measures should not negatively affect the general population; welcomes in this context the decision of the US to impose targeted sanctions on Iranian officials determined to be responsible for or complicit in serious human rights abuses in Iran since the disputed presidential election of June 2009; calls on the Council to adopt similar measures;
Amendment 233 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on the Commission, the Council and EU Member States to strengthenassess all enforcement mechanisms for the implementation of the EU Common Position - especially with regard to export licensing, custom and border controls, air cargo and shipping – in order to prevent Iran from evading the sanctions regime through third parties and locally registered front companiesbe able to give a realistic judgement of whether or not sanctions render the anticipated result;
Amendment 235 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Believes that renewed efforts are needed worldwide to rid the globe of the threat of nuclear weapons; welcomes President Obama's appeal for nuclear disarmament and calls on High Representative Catherine Ashton to make this issue one of her priorities both in her dealings with Member States and in her contacts with governments in the Middle East and Asia;
Amendment 237 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Calls on the Commission, Council and U Member States to assess trade relations with Iran beyond sanctions, with the goal of limiting human rights violations through the export of technologies built according to European standards, including mobile phones, communication networks, (dual use) technologies, surveillance technologies and software for internet scanning and censorship and data mining, including data of a personal nature, to Iran; asks the Commission to table a proposal for a regulation on a new licensing system if this review suggests that legislative action is needed;
Amendment 240 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18b. Calls on the Commission/Council to take immediate steps to ban the export of surveillance technology (especially monitoring centres) by EU companies to Iran;
Amendment 243 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the current Belgian Presidency and the forthcoming Hungarian Presidency to keep the Iranian nuclear file and the human rights of the Iranian people high on the agenda;
Amendment 297 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Takes note of the converging interests of the EU and Iran in finding peace and stability in Afghanistan; welcomes the constructive role of Iran in reviving infrastructure and economy in as well as preventing drug trafficking from Afghanistan; stresses, however, that sustainable peace and stability in Afghanistan will require all neighbours to refrain from political interference in the country;
Amendment 298 #
2010/2050(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Encourages transatlantic coordination and complementarity regarding Iran;
Amendment 82 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) ‘'executing authority’' shall mean an authority having competence to recognise or execute an EIO in accordancan EIO and ensure with this Directive. The executing authority shall be an authority competent to undertake the investigative measure mentioned in the EIO in a similar national cass execution in accordance with this Directive.
Amendment 87 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
(ca) controlled deliveries as provided for in Article 12 of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union.
Amendment 89 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c b (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c b (new)
(cb) covert investigations as provided for in Article 14 of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union.
Amendment 98 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The EIO set out in the form provided for in Annex A shall be translated by the competent authority of the issuing State into the official language or one of the official languages of the executing State in accordance with Article 5(2).
Amendment 100 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5a These conditions shall be assessed by the issuing authority in each case. Where the executing authority has reasons to believe that: (a) the investigative measure is not proportionate, or (b) it concerns an offence which it might consider being very minor, the executing authority shall consult the issuing authority on the importance to execute the investigative measure in the specific case if such an explanation has not been made in the EIO. After such consultation, the issuing authority may decide to withdraw the EIO.
Amendment 108 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Any supplementary EIO must be certified in accordance with Article 5 and validated in accordance with Article 5a.
Amendment 109 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 8 – paragraph 3
Article 8 – paragraph 3
3. The issuing authority may request that one or several authorities of the issuing State assist in the execution of the EIO in support to the competent authorities of the executing State. The executing authority shall comply with this request provided that: (a) such participation is not contrary to the fundamdomestic law of the executing State; (aa) such participation does not harm its essential principles of law of the executing State. national security interests; and, (ab) that the participation of the authorities of the issuing state does not place an excessive burden on the resources of the executing State. The authorities of the issuing State present in the executing State shall be bound by the law of the executing State during the execution of the EIO. They shall not have any law enforcement powers in the territory of the executing State.
Amendment 119 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) if the conduct for which the EIO has been issued does not constitute an offence under the law of the executing State and if the investigative measure requested is coercive, including where it would require search or seizure, carrying out bodily examinations, or obtaining from a person bodily material or biometric data such as DNA or fingerprints.
Amendment 132 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
In order to protect legitimate interest, Member States shall ensure that any interested party shall be entitled to legal remedies, which are equivalent to those which would be available in a similar domestic case, to challenge the recognition or the execution of an EIO or the investigative measure in question.
Amendment 137 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) The issuing authority shall inform the executing authority immediately of any modifications to the EIO or of its expiry or revocation.
Amendment 138 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 18 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Personal data processed when implementing this Directive should be protected in accordance with Council 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 matters1 and with the principles laid down in the 1981 Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data. _______________ 1 OJ L 350, 30.12.2008, p. 60.
Amendment 139 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 18 – paragraph 4 b (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Evidence gathered under the EIO may not be for other purposes than the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of crime or the enforcement of criminal sanctions and the exercises of the right of defence.
Amendment 140 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 18 – paragraph 4 c (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Member States shall provide that their authority controlling the personal data takes all reasonable steps to have transparent and easily accessible policies with regard to the processing of personal data and for the exercise of the data subjects' rights to legal remedies under Article 13.
Amendment 141 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 18 – paragraph 4 d (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 4 d (new)
4d. Member States shall provide that the competent authority adopts policies and implements appropriate measures to ensure that the processing of personal data is performed in compliance with the provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive.
Amendment 145 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Article 19 – paragraph 1
1. An EIO may be issued for the temporary transfer of a person in custody in the executing State in order to have an investigative measure carried outfor the purpose of conducting an investigative measure with a view to collecting evidence in respect of an ongoing case for which his presence on the territory of the issuing State is required, provided that he shall be sent back within the period stipulated by the executing State.
Amendment 146 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Before executing the EIO the person concerned shall be given opportunity to state their opinion to the executing authority on the temporary transfer. Where the executing State considers it necessary in view of the person's age or physical or mental condition, that opportunity shall be given to their legal representative. The opinion of the person shall be taken into account when deciding to execute an EIO.
Amendment 150 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) the issuing and executing authorities cannot reach an agreement on the arrangements for the temporary transfer.
Amendment 152 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 19 – paragraph 4
Article 19 – paragraph 4
4. The practical arrangements regarding the temporary transfer of the person and the dates by which he must be transferred from and returned to the territory of the executing State shall be agreed between the Member States concerned. Practical arrangements must ensure that the person is detained in custody arrangements equivalent to the level of security and in accordance with his physical or mental needs as in the issuing state.
Amendment 156 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 19 – paragraph 8
Article 19 – paragraph 8
8. The immunity provided for in paragraph 7 shall cease when the transferred person, having ha, in a case in which the person is not required to be transferred back to the State from which he has been transferred, cease when the transferred person: (a) has remained in the State to which he was transferred for a period of fifteen consecutive days from the date whenon which his presence is no longer required by the judicial authorities andespite having been given the opportunity tof leave, has nevertheless remained in the territory, or having left iting; or (b) having left the State to which he was transferred, has returned there.
Amendment 157 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 19 – paragraph 8 a (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. At the request of the issuing State or the person to be transferred, the executing State shall ensure that, where necessary, the person is assisted by an interpreter and receives translations of any important documents in accordance with Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings1, receives information in accordance with the Directive [...] on the right to information in criminal proceedings2 and receives legal advice in accordance with the national law of the issuing State. _______________ 1 OJ L 280, 26.10.2010, p. 1. 2 OJ L ...
Amendment 158 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 19 – paragraph 9
Article 19 – paragraph 9
9. Costs arising from the transfer sharesulting from the application of this Article shall be borne in accordance with Article Y, except from the costs arising from the transfer of the person between States, which will be borne by the issuing State.
Amendment 161 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
(aa) the transfer is liable to prolong his detention;
Amendment 164 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 20 – paragraph 5
Article 20 – paragraph 5
5. Paragraphs 3 to 89 of Article 19 are applicable mutatis mutandis to the temporary transfer under this Article.
Amendment 165 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 20 – paragraph 6
Article 20 – paragraph 6
Amendment 179 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 22 – paragraph 1
Article 22 – paragraph 1
1. If a person is in the territory of one Member State and has to be heard as a professional witness or expert by judicialcompetent authorities of another Member State, the issuing authority of the latter Member State may issue an EIO in order to hear a professional witness or expert by telephone conference, as provided for in paragraphs 2 to 4 (...) 4. A telephone conference shall only be used in exceptional circumstances where no other means of taking evidence are available and the evidence is not disputed.
Amendment 190 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 26
Article 26
Amendment 199 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 32 – paragraph 1
Article 32 – paragraph 1
No later than fiveour years after the date of entry into force of this Directive, and at regular intervals thereafter, the Commission shall present to the European Parliament and the Council a report on the application of this Directive, on the basis of both qualitative and quantitative information, including in particular the evaluation of its impact on cooperation in criminal matters, on fundamental rights, the rights of the defence and on data protection requirements. The report shall be accompanied, if necessary, by proposals for amending this Directive.
Amendment 123 #
2010/0802(COD)
Draft directive
Article - 1 (new)
Article - 1 (new)
Amendment 127 #
2010/0802(COD)
Draft directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1) “European protection order” means a judicial decision relating to a protection measure issued by a Member State and aimingin the context of criminal proceedings following the commission of a criminal offence aimed at facilitating the taking by another Member State, where appropriate, of a protection measure under its own national law with a view to the safeguard of the life, physical and psychological integrity, freedom or sexual integrity of a person.
Amendment 131 #
2010/0802(COD)
Draft directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2) "Protection measure" means a decision adopted by a competent authority of a Member State imposing on a person causing dangerin the issuing State in the context of criminal proceedings by which one or more of the obligations or prohibitions, referred to in Article 2(2), provided that the infringement of such obligations or prohibitions constitutes a criminal offence under the law of the Member State concerned or may otherwise be punishable by a deprivation of liberty in that Member Stateare imposed on a person causing danger, for the benefit of a protected person with a view to protecting the latter against a criminal act which may endanger his life, physical or psychological integrity, personal liberty or sexual integrity.
Amendment 189 #
2010/0802(COD)
Draft directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. The competent authority of the executing State shall inform without delay the person causing danger, the competent authority of the issuing State and the protected person about the measures adopted in accordance with this Article. whilst avoiding disclosing the address or other contact details concerning the protected person. The person causing danger must have the opportunity to challenge the measures.
Amendment 210 #
2010/0802(COD)
Draft directive
Article 10 – paragraph 3 c (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. If the competent authority in the issuing State has modified the European protection order in accordance with paragraph 1(a), the competent authority in the executing State shall, as appropriate: (a) change the measures taken on the basis of the European protection order, acting in accordance with Article 8; (b) refuse to enforce the modified obligation or prohibition when it does not fall within the types of obligations or prohibitions referred to in Article 4, does not respect the wishes of the victim or is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), or if the information transmitted with the European protection order in accordance with Article 6 is incomplete and has not been completed within the time limit set by the competent authority of the executing state in accordance with Article 8(2a).
Amendment 212 #
2010/0802(COD)
Draft directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a
1. The competent authority of the executing State may revoke the recognidiscontinue the measures taken in execution of a European protection order: (a) where there is evidence that the protected person has definitively left the territory of the executing State. victim requests the discontinuation of the protection measure or the discontinuation of the protection measure is required to protect any person’s rights under the ECHR.
Amendment 43 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a) On 30 November 2009, the Council adopted the Roadmap on Procedural Rights which requested the Commission to put forward proposals on a "step by step" basis, on the right to interpretation and translation, the right to information about rights, the right to legal advice, before trial and at trial, the right for a detained person to communicate with family members, employers and consular authorities, and protection for vulnerable suspects.
Amendment 45 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Recital 7 b (new)
Recital 7 b (new)
(7b) This Directive, the first measure on the Roadmap, should lay down common standards to be applied in the fields of interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings in order to enhance the necessary confidence among Member States.
Amendment 50 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Recital 10 a (new)
Recital 10 a (new)
(10a) The suspected or accused person should be able, inter alia, to explain his version of the events to his legal counsel, point out any statements with which he disagrees and make his legal counsel aware of any facts that should be put forward in his defence.
Amendment 51 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) The finding that there is no need for interpretation or translation should be subject to the possibility of review, in accordance with national law. Such review may be carried out, for example, throughappeal. Member States should ensure that the suspect or accused person has the right to challenge a spdecific complaint procedure, or in the context of an ordinary appeal procedure against decisions on the meritssion finding that there is no need for interpretation including cases where interpretation or translation is so deficient that it amounts to an absence of interpretation.
Amendment 59 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Recital 16 a (new)
Recital 16 a (new)
(16a) Member States should strive for a high level of qualification for interpreters and translators employed in criminal proceedings, including for those assisting suspected or accused persons with a physical or mental impairment, in order to ensure an adequate standard of interpretation and translation and guarantee the fairness of proceedings. In addition to general language skills, these translators and interpreters should have specialist knowledge of legal terminology. The qualification of interpreters and translators employed in criminal proceedings should be verified by a formal degree or any similar proof of proficiency in the language concerned and attested through accreditation or certification.
Amendment 60 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Recital 16 b (new)
Recital 16 b (new)
(16b) Member States should ensure that there is a national register, or registers, of qualified interpreters and translators to be employed in criminal proceedings. The register or registers should be kept up to date so as to reflect, inter alia, the status of the interpreter's or translator’s qualifications, without prejudice to the application of rules on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data. Member States are encouraged to make their national registers accessible to competent authorities of other Member States. In this context, particular attention should be paid to the aim of facilitating the interconnection of databases for legal translators and interpreters, as envisaged in the European e-Justice action plan of 27 November 2008.
Amendment 67 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Recital 19 a (new)
Recital 19 a (new)
Amendment 69 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. For the purpose of this Directive, the term "suspect or accused person" should be read as meaning a person suspected, arrested, prosecuted or convicted awaiting sentence, as long as the criminal proceedings to which the right to interpretation and translation applies have not been finally concluded.
Amendment 71 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that a suspected or accused person who does not understand or speak the language of the criminal proceedings concerned is provided without delay with interpretation in his/her mother tongue ornecessary in order to ensure he ins another language that he/she understands, in order to safeguard his/her rights to fair proceedings. Interpretation, including of communication between the suspected or accused person and his/her legal counsel, shall be provided during criminal proceedings before investigative and judicial authorities, including during police questioning, during all cble to understand the case against him and exercise his rights and to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings. Interpretation, including of communication between the suspect and his lawyer and covering legal advice received, shall be provided throughourt hearings and during any necessary interim hearings, and maythose proceedings. It shall also be provided in other situations. This provision does not affect rules of national law concerning the presence of a legal counsel during any stage of the criminal proceedings case of detention for official contacts between the detaining authorities and the suspect.
Amendment 89 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Article 6
Article 6
Nothing in this Directive shall be construed as limiting or derogating from any of the rights and procedural safeguards that may be ensured under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, under other relevant provisions of international law or under the laws of any Member States which provide a higher level of protection.
Amendment 91 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Amendment 92 #
2010/0801(COD)
Draft directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
When Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by the Member States.
Amendment 30 #
2010/0312(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The experience gathered during previous evaluations demonstrates the need to maintain a coherent evaluation mechanism covering, all areas of the Schengen acquis, except those where a specific evaluation mechanism already exists within EU law, judicial reform, and the fight against corruption and organised crime.
Amendment 44 #
2010/0312(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a.The Member States to which, according to the relevant Protocol to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Schengen acquis applies in part, shall participate in the evaluation mechanism as regards both purposes to the extent of their participation in the Schengen acquis.
Amendment 50 #
2010/0312(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. By not later than 30 September each year, Frontex shall submit to the Commission a risk analysis taking into account migratory pressure and making recommendations for priorities for evaluations in the next year. The recommendations shall refer to specific sections of the external borders and to specific border crossing-points to be evaluated in the next year under the multiannual programme. The Commission shall make this risk analysis available to the Member States and to the European Parliament.
Amendment 71 #
2010/0312(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. A report shall be drawn up following each evaluation. The report shall be based on the findings of the on-site visit and the questionnaire, as appropriate. . It shall include a thorough assessment of compliance with the Schengen acquis as well as with the benchmarks regarding judicial reform and the fight against corruption and organised crime, as established in Commission decisions C(2006)6569 and C(2006)6570.
Amendment 74 #
2010/0312(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4
Article 13 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall communicate the report to the Member State concerned within sixfour weeks of the on-site visit or of receipt of the replies to the questionnaire, as appropriate. The Member State concerned shall provide its comments on the report within two weeks.
Amendment 78 #
2010/0312(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
The Member State concerned shall report to the Commission on implementation of the action plan within sixfour months of receipt of the report and shall thereafter continue to report every three months until the action plan is fully implemented. Depending on the severity of the weaknesses identified and the measures taken to remedy them, the Commission may schedule announced visits in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 15(2) to verify implementation of the action plan. The Commission may also schedule unannounced on-site visits.
Amendment 82 #
2010/0312(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 7
Article 13 – paragraph 7
7. If an on-site visit reveals a serious deficiency deemed to have a significant impact on the overall level of security of one or more Member States, the Commission, on its own initiative or at the request of a Member State, shall inform the Council and the European Parliament as soon as possible and keep them regularly informed during the six month support period in accordance with Article 13a and after taking any final decision on follow- up and possible sanctions in accordance with Article 13b.
Amendment 28 #
2010/0215(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14 a (new)
Recital 14 a (new)
Amendment 37 #
2010/0215(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 a (new)
Recital 21 a (new)
(21a) The competent authority must make efforts to ensure, so far as practicable, that the suspected or accused person understands the rights which have been explained to him.
Amendment 46 #
2010/0215(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31 a (new)
Recital 31 a (new)
(31a) This Directive should be evaluated in the light of the practical experience gained. If appropriate, it should be amended so as to improve the safeguards which it lays down,
Amendment 48 #
2010/0215(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. "Competent authorities" shall include, but not be limited to, police and other investigatory authorities, prosecutors, magistrates and judges.
Amendment 53 #
2010/0215(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Where the law of a Member State provides for the imposition of a sanction regarding minor offences by an authority other than a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters, and the imposition of such a sanction may be appealed to such a court, this Directive shall apply only to the proceedings before that court following such an appeal.
Amendment 55 #
2010/0215(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that any person who is suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence is provided promptly with information on his procedural rights in simple and accessible language. That information shall be provided at the point when those rights become applicable, and in any event before questioning by law enforcement authorities, in due time to allow their effective exercise.
Amendment 61 #
2010/0215(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall include as a minimum, as they apply under national law:
Amendment 62 #
2010/0215(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – indent 1 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – indent 1 a (new)
– any entitlement to legal advice free of charge and the conditions for obtaining it,
Amendment 64 #
2010/0215(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – indent 4
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – indent 4
Amendment 76 #
2010/0215(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Where a person is arrested by the competent authorities of a Member State in the course of criminal proceedings, he shall be promptly provided with information about his procedural rights in writing (Letter of Rights). He shall be given an opportunity to read the Letter of Rights and be allowed, save in exceptional circumstances, to keep it in his possession throughout the time he is deprived of his liberty.
Amendment 81 #
2010/0215(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall ensure that when a person is arrested, the Letter of Rights should also contain information on the maximum length of deprivation of liberty before being brought before a judicial authority after arrest, on rights to contact a family member or other trusted person and on entitlement to medical care, as they apply in national law.
Amendment 85 #
2010/0215(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Member States shall ensure that all translations of the Letter of Rights meet the quality required under Directive 2010/64/EU.
Amendment 86 #
2010/0215(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. Where a Letter of Rights is not available in the appropriate language, the suspected or accused person shall be informed of his rights orally in a language he understands and shall have the right, where necessary, to interpretation which meets the quality requirements under Directive 2010/64/EU. A Letter of Rights in a language he understands shall then be given to him without undue delay.
Amendment 90 #
2010/0215(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – title
Article 6 – title
The right to information about the chargealleged criminal act
Amendment 95 #
2010/0215(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The information to be givenreferred to in paragraph 1 shall be provided in detail and at the latest upon submission of the merits of the accusation to the judgment of a court and shall include:
Amendment 97 #
2010/0215(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) a description of the circumstances in which the offence was committed, including the time, place and degree of participation in the offence by the suspected or accused personacts which the suspected or accused person is alleged to have committed, including time and place and
Amendment 98 #
2010/0215(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) the nature andof the offence, including its legal classification of the offence.,
Amendment 99 #
2010/0215(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
(ba) any change in the nature of the offence, including its legal classification,
Amendment 105 #
2010/0215(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. Where a suspected or accused person is arrested and detained at any stage of the criminal proceedings, Member States shall ensure that he or his lawyer is granted access to those documents contained in the case-file which are relevant for the determination of the lawfulness of the arrest or detentionall information which relates to the specific case in the possession of the competent authorities and which is essential to effectively challenge the lawfulness of the arrest or detention under national law, is made available to the arrested person or his lawyer.
Amendment 106 #
2010/0215(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that an accused person or his lawyer is granted access to the case-file once the investigation of the criminal offence is concluded. Access to certain documents contained in the case-file may be refused by a competent judicial authority where access to these documents may lead to serious risk to the life of another person or may seriously harm the internal security of the Member State in which the proceedings take place. Where it is in the interccess is granted at least to all material evidence in the possession of the competent authorities for or against the suspected or accused person to that person or his lawyer to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings and to prepare the defence. This shall include accests of justice, the accused person or his lawyer may request an index of the documents containto any new evidence or material facts which emerge during the proceed in the case-filegs.
Amendment 113 #
2010/0215(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. By way of exception to paragraphs 2 and 3, provided that it does not prejudice the right to a fair trial, access to certain materials may be refused if it may lead to serious risk for the fundamental rights of another person or if it is strictly necessary to safeguard an important public interest, such as in the cases where it risks jeopardising an ongoing investigation, or where it may seriously harm the national security of the Member State in which the proceedings take place. These limitations should be interpreted strictly and in accordance with the principle of the right to a fair trial as provided for by the ECHR and interpreted by case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.
Amendment 328 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 1
Article 21 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to obtain the blocking of access by Internet users in their territory to Internet pages containing or disseminating child pornographWhere the removal of webpages containing or disseminating child pornography is not possible, Member States shall take the necessary measures, whether legislative or non-legislative, to ensure that the blocking of access to webpages containing or disseminating child pornography is possible towards the Internet users in their territory. The blocking of access shall be subject to adequate fundamental rights and other safeguards, in particular to ensure that the blocking, taking into account technical characteristics, is limited to what is necessary and proportionate, that users are informed of the reason for the blocking and that content providers, as far as possible, are informed of the possibility of challenging it. This amendment allows for the possibility of industry voluntary agreements or self-regul including ultimately through judicial review. Or. enJustification.
Amendment 338 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 2
Article 21 – paragraph 2
2. Without prejudice to the above, Member States shall take the necessary measures to obtainwithin the appropriate legal, regulatory and self-regulatory framework to ensure the removal of internet webpages containing or disseminating child pornography. This amendment allows for the possibility for Member States to remove webpages and also recognises that extra territorial action may be more difficult. hosted in their territory and to endeavour to obtain the removal of such pages hosted outside of their territory. Or. enJustification
Amendment 7 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6
Citation 6
– having regard to all the related conventions, recommendations, reports and activities of the Council of Europe and the United Nations, including specialised monitoring bodies and human rights commissioners, in the area of fundamental rights,
Amendment 11 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 12 a (new)
Citation 12 a (new)
– having regard to the reports and works by NGOs in the field of human rights,
Amendment 26 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Draws attention to its resolutions, as well as its oral questions with debates, and findings from missions and country visits in 2009 and 2010 on specificconcrete cases of fundamental rights threats, such as on privacy, personal dignity and data protection, on freedom of thought, conscience and religion, on freedom of expression and information, press freedom, on non-discrimination and, on the usetreatment of minority languagesies including Roma, on Rhoma issues,ophobia and on discrimination against same-sex marriages, and on the illegal detention of prisonerscivil partnerships and marriages, on protection of asylum seekers and migrants, on the respect of non- refoulement, on prison conditions including immigration-related detention; and on complicity in the CIA extraordinary rendition programme involving kidnapping, illegal and secret detention, torture and ill-treatment; stresses that all these resolutions reflect the spirit of the Charter, show its clear commitment to the everyday protection of fundamental rights of all individuals living in the EU, and sends political messages towards European citizens, Member States and the EU institutions;
Amendment 42 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes that extraordinary rendition, which has regrettably become a common practice in international intelligence cooperation, thoroughly undermines the EU's human rights framework; regrets that the Council and Commission have not followed up any of the recommendations contained in the European Parliament's 2007 report on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners1 nor shared with the European Parliament information on EU-US discussions on this topic; deplores the avoidance of accountability for complicity in illegal CIA rendition and secret detention in most EU Member States against whom credible allegations exist, since both complicity and lack of accountability undermines the EU's moral authority; strongly welcomes in the context the independent judge-led inquiry into complicity in torture set up by the government of the United Kingdom; 1 P6_TA(2007)0032.
Amendment 45 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Calls on all EU institutions and Member State governments and parliaments to build within the new institutional and legal framework created by the Lisbon Treaty an ambitious and comprehensive internal human rights policy for the EU and its member States that incorporates effective accountability mechanisms at both national and EU level to address human rights violations;
Amendment 46 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Calls on the Commission to follow up its recent communication on the Strategy for the effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the European Union1 by updating its 2003 communication on Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union2 and elaborating what instruments are needed and available to ensure respect for human rights; 1 COM(2010)0573. 2 COM(2003)0606.
Amendment 57 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that the incorporation of the Charter into primary EU law, while not extending the Union's competences, creates new responsibilities for the decision- making and implementing institutions, as well as for Member States when implementing EU legislation domestically, and that the Charter's provisions have thus become directly enforceable by European and national courts; calls on the EU institutions and Member States to increase coherence among their various bodies responsible for monitoring and implementation, with a view to effective application of the established comprehensive framework; and to reinforce a cross-EU monitoring mechanism, as well as an early warning system through the Fundamental Rights Agency, civil society and UN mechanisms;
Amendment 74 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to raise awareness of the benefits of accession to the ECHR and of the requirements to be fulfilled, by developing guidelines on the adequate application and the effects of this additional mechanism so that excessive expectations on the part of EU citizens can be avoido ensure that citizens can have their fundamental rights protected and that violations are sanctioned;
Amendment 89 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls for full and consistent implementation in compliance with international and European human rights law of the Stockholm Programme, which converts the obligations and principles deriving from the Treaty into practice by setting the strategic guidelines for the AFSJ;
Amendment 91 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Considers that the European institutions have often acted in parallel in the field of protection of fundamental rights and therefore calls for reflection on actions taken and for enhanced cooperation among these institutions; calls for the establishment of an interinstitutional structured procedure for the annual monitoring of the situation of human rights in the EU, involving the FRA, the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament, defining contents and a timetable for the respective reports, so that each institution can build upon other institutions' reports;
Amendment 106 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Reminds the Commission to undertake objective investigations and start infringement proceeding if there are good grounds for doing so, thus avoiding double standards, whenever a Member State, in implementing EU legislation, violates the rights enshrined in the Charter; further reminds the Commission to requo Member Statest that Member States provide reliable data and facton the basis of the principle of loyal cooperation they have a duty to provide to the Commission reliable data and facts; calls on the Commission to collect directly from NGOs, or via the FRA or human rights bodies, information to evaluate the situation, including through on the spot missions;
Amendment 127 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Highlights that also the European Parliament should strengthen its autonomous impact assessment on fundamental rights in relation to legislative proposals and amendments under examination in the legislative process to make it more systematic, notably by enlarging the possibilities currently foreseen by Rule 36 of the Parliament's Rules of Procedure on the respect for the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and to ask to the Legal Service opinions on legal issues in relation to fundamental rights issues in the EU; recalls the importance of delegation visits to collect on the spot information from authorities, NGOs and citizens and believes that such practice should be strengthened and enlarged notably in relation to possible human rights violations; calls for a more structured cooperation with the FRA and NGOs dealing with human rights issues, as well as with the Council of Europe and the Commissioner for Human Rights, that should be involved systematically when discussions take place on issues relating to human rights, for instance by inviting them to committee meetings;
Amendment 133 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls on the Council to adapt to the changes required by the Treaty and to comply with the Charter when legislating; therefore welcomes the establishment of a standing Working Party on Fundamental Rights, Citizens Rights and Free Movement of Persons and hopes that this new body will work transparently and efficiently; calls on the Council to ensure that the Working Party has a broad mandate to include any issue in relation to fundamental rights of EU and Member States' relevance, adhesion, ratification and compliance with international conventions related to fundamental rights, etc.;
Amendment 147 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Emphasises that the FRA is charged with the constitutes a guarantee of the ongoingnuous monitoring of the effective protection of fundamental rights within the Union and that it should therefore have adequate resources for its increased tasks following the implementation of the Charter; points out that its monitoring role should extend at least to the acceding countries; consequently calls on the Commission to issue a proposal in 2011 to strengthen and review the mandate and independence of the FRA so to align it as a minimum with the new Lisbon Treaty and Charter of Fundamental Rights competences, i.e. the respect of fundamental rights by the EU and by each Member State when implementing EU law and policies; reiterates its request to be fully associated in revising the multi-annual programme of the FRA;
Amendment 159 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Underlines the fact that the EU and the Member States share competenceobligations in the field of the implementation and/or enforcement of human and fundamental rights, in their respective spheres of responsibility, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, and that this shared responsibility and competence represents both an opportunity and a right, as well as an obligation on the part of the Member States and of EU institutions; highlights the enhanced role of the national parliaments provided by the Treaty of Lisbon and supports the establishment of a formal ongoing dialogue between the European Parliament and national parliaments;
Amendment 165 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Believes that EU action should not only address violations of fundamental rights after they have happened, but should also seek to prevent them; consequently calls for a reflection on mechanisms for early detection of potential violations of fundamental rights in the EU and in its Member States, temporary freezing of the measures which constitute such violations, accelerated legal procedures for determining if a measure is contrary to EU fundamental rights and for sanctions in the event that these measures are nonetheless implemented contrary to EU law;
Amendment 195 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 – indent 1
Paragraph 35 – indent 1
– protecting the four fundamental freedoms as the basic EU achievements; notes as highlighted in the Commission's EU Citizenship Report 2010 the major problems still encountered by EU citizens in securing rights and redress as consumers, tourists, workers, residents or legally-bound couples in a Member State other than their own; urges the Commission to speedily present the actions mentioned in this report with a view to improving the daily life of EU citizens,
Amendment 199 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 – indent 2
Paragraph 35 – indent 2
– protecting data and privacy, including transfer and storage of financial and personal data, and promoting the right balance between individual freedoms and collective security challenged by new forms of terrorism,by developing a comprehensive instrument which would apply to data processing in all sectors and policies of the Union, including police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters; recalls the growing practice of both the private and public sector using new technologies to accumulate information on individuals without proper tests of necessity and proportionality and often in breach of data protection laws; calls on the Commission to examine how compliance with those laws and with principles of transparency can be secured in line with the findings of its review of the current EU legal framework;
Amendment 205 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 – indent 2 a (new)
Paragraph 35 – indent 2 a (new)
– ensuring that the demands of collective security in the context of terrorism do not displace respect for justice and individual freedom which are fundamental in democratic societies; considers that the growing tendency to store large amounts of data on individuals in the cause of fighting crime and terrorism must be judged against the fundamental right to privacy,
Amendment 207 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 – indent 3
Paragraph 35 – indent 3
– combating trafficking of human beings – especially women and children – which constitutes an intolerable form of slavery; notes that despite EU and national legislation and policy commitments over many years, several hundred thousand people are estimated to be trafficked into the EU or within the EU area annually and highlights the need for greater urgency in tackling this crime, including through the new proposed EU Directive which includes the suggested appointment of national rapporteurs to monitor the implementation of anti-trafficking policy at the national level,
Amendment 212 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 – indent 4
Paragraph 35 – indent 4
– protecting the rights of victims, an area in which EU-wide legislation is required; highlights the EU public consultation on improving rights of victims of crime and violence launched in early 2010 and looks forward to the Commission's follow-up proposal of practical measures to support victims throughout the justice process; recalls the Member State initiative for a European protection order with a view to increasing the protection granted to victims who move between EU Member States but urges legal clarification of its provisions,
Amendment 215 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 – indent 5
Paragraph 35 – indent 5
– developing EU strategy on the rights of the child through practical measures to combat child abuse, sexual exploitation and child pornography, to promote safer use of the internet and to eliminate child labour and child poverty, bearing in mind the estimate that 10-20% of children in Europe will be sexually assaulted during their childhood, that research shows child victims portrayed in pornography are getting younger and that current global economic circumstances threaten to push more children into the workforce and/or poverty,
Amendment 219 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 – indent 6
Paragraph 35 – indent 6
– prohibiting and eliminating all forms of discrimination against a large number of minorities,on any of the grounds referred to in Article 21 of the Charter, such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age, sexual orientation and nationality, notably by adopting the directive on the application of the principle of equality outside of employment, by ensuring that Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States1 is applied without discriminations and by ensuring the free circulation and mutual recognition of civil status documents, 1 OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 77.
Amendment 7 #
2009/2012(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the protection of rights such as the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, the rights of the defence, the rights of victims of crime and, the ne bis in idem principle isand minimum procedural safeguards in pre-trial detention are primarily essential in criminal proceedings,
Amendment 8 #
2009/2012(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas within the boundaries of the aims and principles of European law, the mutual recognition principle implies that when a decision has been handed down by a competent judicial authority in one Member State, the decision becomes fully and directly effective throughout the territory of the Union, and the judicial authorities in the Member States in the territory of which the decision may be enforced assist in the enforcement of the decision as if it were a decision handed down by a competent authority in that Member State, unless the instrument within which it is implemented places limits on its execution,
Amendment 10 #
2009/2012(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the implementation of the mutual recognition principle, which has beenmutual recognition has yet to become the cornerstone of all judicial cooperation since the Tampere European Council, criminal matters and the possibility of its far from having been satisfactorily achievurther extension should be critically assessed,
Amendment 11 #
2009/2012(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas where it is fully implemented, as is the case with the European Arrest Warrant, the mutual recognition principle has proved to have a great added value for judicial cooperation in the European Union,
Amendment 12 #
2009/2012(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. whereas the European Arrest Warrant should not be used for questioning, and neither the European Arrest Warrant nor the European Evidence Warrant should be used for minor offences,
Amendment 14 #
2009/2012(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas, to be fully effective, the mutual recognition principle largely depends on the creation of a European judicial common culture based on mutual trust, common principles and a certain level of harmonisation -for instance, in the definition of certain crimes and in the sanctions- and by genuine protection of fundamental rights, notably with regard to procedural rights, minimum standards for detention conditions and prisoners' rightreview of detention, prisoners' rights and accessible mechanisms of redress for individuals,
Amendment 15 #
2009/2012(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas judicial training, including of judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers and others involved in the administration of justice, plays a key role in building mutual trust and developing a common European judicial culture,
Amendment 19 #
2009/2012(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Recital S a (new)
Recital S a (new)
Sa. whereas those proposals by Member State, that will continue to exist after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty should be accompanied by a public consultation and an impact assessment, preferably produced by the Commission to ensure coherence and fundamental rights mainstreaming,
Amendment 21 #
2009/2012(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Recital T a (new)
Recital T a (new)
Ta. whereas an adequate overall data protection regime is still lacking in the area of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and in its absence the rights of data subjects need to be carefully regulated in each individual legislative instrument,
Amendment 22 #
2009/2012(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Recital U
Recital U
U. whereas, in order to be effective, an EU criminal justice area must take advantage of new technologies whilst respecting fundamental rights, and use internet tools in the implementation of EU policies as well as in the dissemination and discussion of information and proposals,
Amendment 23 #
2009/2012(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Recital W a (new)
Recital W a (new)
Wa. whereas coordination for defence lawyers is lacking and should be considered in the form of a support organisation backed at EU level,
Amendment 27 #
2009/2012(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1 - point a - indent 1
Paragraph 1 - point a - indent 1
- an ambitious legal instrument on procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings, based on the principle of presumption of innocence, such as the right to a "Letter of Rights", the right to legal advice both before and during the trial, the right to evidence, the right to be informed of the nature and reasons for the charges and of the grounds for suspicion, the right of access to all relevant legal documents in a language which the suspect/defendant understands, the right to an interpreter, communication and consular assistance to detainees, protection of suspects/defendants who cannot understand or follow the proceedings, minimum standards for detention, conditions and protection of juvenile suspects/defendants, effective and accessible mechanisms of redress for individuals;
Amendment 29 #
2009/2012(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1 - point a - indent 2
Paragraph 1 - point a - indent 2
- a comprehensive legal framework offering victims of crime the widest protection, inlcluding adequate compensation and witness protection, notably in organised crime cases;
Amendment 35 #
2009/2012(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1 - point f
Paragraph 1 - point f
(f) set together with the Commission and with Parliament, in cooperation with the relevant Council of Europe Committees, such as CEPEJ, and with the existing European network operating on criminal matters, an objective, impartial, transparent, comprehensive, horizontal and continuous monitoring and evaluation system of the quality, efficiency of justice, integrity and fairness of justice and practical implementation of European Court of Human Rights case-law by the Member States, modelled on the peer evaluation system and capable of producing reliable reports at least once a year. In particular the evaluation system should:
Amendment 36 #
2009/2012(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1 - point f - indent 2
Paragraph 1 - point f - indent 2
- identify, on the basis of a review of existing evaluation systems: priorities, scope, criteria and methods, bearing in mind that the evaluations should not be theoretical but rather should assess the impact of EU policies on the ground and on the daily management of justice as well as the quality and, efficiency of justice, integrity and fairness of justice, and practical implementation of European Court of Human Rights case-law by the Member States,
Amendment 38 #
2009/2012(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1 - point g - indent 1
Paragraph 1 - point g - indent 1
- take the form of an EU Agency, modelled on the Agency for Fundamental Rights of the European Union, within which a pre- eminent role should be given to national judicial schools and judicial networks and defence rights organisations and with the association of the Commission,
Amendment 39 #
2009/2012(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1 - point g - indent 4
Paragraph 1 - point g - indent 4
- offer, on a voluntary basis, both initial and continuous training to European judges and, prosecutors and defence lawyers,
Amendment 40 #
2009/2012(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1 - point g - indent 5
Paragraph 1 - point g - indent 5
- strengthening linguist skills of judicial authorities, lawyers and other involved actors,
Amendment 43 #
2009/2012(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1 - point k
Paragraph 1 - point k
(k) call on the Member States to agree in the shortest term on the initiative of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and of the Kingdom of Sweden for a Council Framework decision on the prevention and settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings, in order to protect the rights of the suspect or defendant at all stages of the choice of the criminal jurisdiction process, including to provide for the suspect/defendant to be informed of and involved in the process, to challenge both the process itself and the outcome of the process, and for judicial oversight of the process,
Amendment 44 #
2009/2012(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1 - point l
Paragraph 1 - point l
(l) pay due attention to advantages offered by new technologies and to fully exploit the potential offered by the internet to disseminate information, to strengthen the role of the newly created "Justice Forum", to encourage the development of new learning methods (e-learning), and to gather and share data, reinforcing existing databases such as the customs' databases, which are essentials in fighting smuggling and human trafficking, but ensuring at all times respect for fundamental rights,
Amendment 7 #
2009/0104(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) With the aim of furthering the implementation of the Thessaloniki agenda, the Commission should start a visa dialogue with Kosovo so as to establish a roadmap for visa liberalisation similar to those established with other Western Balkan countries. This should be without prejudice to Member States' competence as regards the recognition of Kosovo as an independent state.
Amendment 17 #
2009/0104(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 1 – point -a (new)
Article 1 – point 1 – point -a (new)
Regulation (EC) No 539/2001
Annex I – Part 1
Annex I – Part 1
(-a) in Part 1, the reference to Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be amended as follows: "Albania * Bosnia and Herzegovina * ------------------- * The name of the country shall be deemed deleted from this Annex without delay immediately after the assessment by the Commission that the country in question meets all the benchmarks set in the roadmap for visa liberalisation and a notice about the assessment is published in the Official Journal of the European Union."
Amendment 19 #
2009/0104(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 2
Article 1 – point 2
Regulation (EC) No 539/2001
Annex II – Part 1
Annex II – Part 1
2) In Annex II, Part 1, the following references shall be inserted: "Albania * ** Bosnia and Herzegovina * ** the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ** Montenegro ** Serbia [excluding holders of Serbian passports issued by the Serbian Coordination Directorate (in Serbian: Koordinaciona uprava)] * * ------------------- * The exemption from the visa requirement shall apply without delay immediately after the assessment by the Commission that the country in question meets all the benchmarks set in the roadmap for visa liberalisation and a notice about the assessment is published in the Official Journal of the European Union. ** The exemption from the visa requirement only applies to holders of biometric passports".
Amendment 24 #
2008/2336(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Supports the continuation of the vigorous efforts on the part of the Council and the CommissionCalls on the Council and the Commission to continue their vigorous efforts to promote universal ratification of the Rome Statute and the adoption of the requisite national implementing legislation, in conformity with Council Common Position 1 2 2003/444/CFSP of 16 June 2003 on the OJ L 150, 18.6.2003, p. 67. OJ L 150, 18.6.2003, p. 67. International Criminal Court1 and the 2004 Action Plan; asks all EU Presidencies to mention the status to follow-up ofn the ICC cooperation in all summits with third countriesCommon Position; requests that such efforts be extended to include ratification and implementation of the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the ICC, which is an important operational tool for the ICC;. welcomes the fact that the ratifications of the Rome Statute by Madagascar, Cook Islands and Suriname in 2008 brought the total number of States Parties to 108 in July 2008; demands that the Czech Republic, as the only remaining EU Member State not to have ratified the Rome Statute, finally do so without further delay2; urges Romania to rescind its Bilateral Immunity Agreement with the United States;
Amendment 26 #
2008/2336(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Amendment 27 #
2008/2336(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 30 #
2008/2336(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Urges all Member States to collaborate fully in international criminal justice mechanisms, and especially in bringing fugitives to justice; in this regard, notes with satisfaction the cooperation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the arrest of Jean-Pierre Bemba in 2008 and his transfer to the ICC, as well as in the transfer of Thomas Lubanga, Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo to the ICC, the cooperation of Serbia in the arrest and transfer of Radovan Karadžić to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the cooperation of Sudan in the arrest of Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman; however, notes with concern the persistent failure of Sudan to cooperate with the ICC by arresting and transferring Ahmad Muhammad Harun; notes with concern that the ICC warrants for the arrest of four members of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda have still not been executed; also notes with concern that Ratko MlWelcomes the cooperation of Serbia in the arrest and transfer of Radovan Karadžić to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY); notes with concern that Ratko Mladić and Goran Hadžić remains at large and hasve not been brought before the ICTY; in this regard, calls on the Serbian authorities to ensure full cooperation with the ICTY, which should lead to the arrest and transfer of all remaining indictees, in order to open the way to the ratification of a Stabilisation and Association Agreement;
Amendment 32 #
2008/2336(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Amendment 33 #
2008/2336(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 b (new)
Paragraph 24 b (new)
24b. Welcomes the opening of the first ever trial at the ICC and notes that it represents the first trial in the history of international criminal law to see the active participation of victims in the proceedings; in that context, urges the ICC to intensify its outreach efforts with a view to engaging communities in countries in crisis situations in a process of constructive interaction with the ICC, designed to promote understanding and support for its mandate, to manage expectations and to enable those communities to follow and understand the international criminal justice process; welcomes the cooperation of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in the transfer of Thomas Lubanga, Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo to the ICC; however, deplores the fact that the ICC warrant for the arrest of Bosco Ntaganda has not yet been executed, and calls on the upcoming meetings of the General Affairs and External Relations Council to demand the immediate arrest and surrender of Bosco Ntaganda to the ICC; notes with concern that the already volatile situation in the DRC has recently been further destabilised by new attacks by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), which brutally massacred at least 620 civilians and abducted more than 160 children between 24 December 2008 and 13 January 2009 in northern DRC; therefore emphasises the need to arrest LRA commanders as a matter of urgency, as demanded in Parliament's resolution of 21 October 2008 on the indictment and bringing to trial of Joseph Kony at the International criminal Court1;
Amendment 34 #
2008/2336(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 c (new)
Paragraph 24 c (new)
24c. Notes with satisfaction the first promising statements on the ICC by the new US administration, acknowledging that the ICC “looks to become an important and credible instrument for trying to hold accountable the senior leadership responsible for atrocities committed in the Congo, Uganda, and Darfur”2, and calls on the USA to reinstate its signature and further engage with the ICC, especially by cooperating in situations which are the subject of an ICC investigation or preliminary analysis;
Amendment 54 #
2008/2234(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls on those Member States which have not already done so to print Article 20 of the EC Treaty inside their national passports alongside national information, as called for by the Barnier report and the Council Conclusions of 15 June 2006; calls on the Commission to provide passport- issuing offices in each of the Member States with a brochure setting out these rights and a general outline of the measures which support Article 20 of the EC Treaty; requests that the brochure be distributed to individuals who collect their new passports; calls on the Commission to set up a web page on the "Europa" site to publish practical information on consular protection and facilitate access to Member States' travel advice notices, as called for by the Commission's 2007 Action Plan;
Amendment 74 #
2008/2200(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Urges the EU to adhere to its proclaimed intention of facilitating the accession of the countries of the Western Balkans; urges the Commission to identify priority projects and to clarify the demandrequirements it places on the various national and regional institutions with regard to interstate and inter-institutional cooperation in the field of JHA; stresses the importance of developing initiatives in the field of e-justice as a part of EU support for e-governance initiatives in order to improve cooperation and increase transparency in the judicial processes and internal administrative systems;
Amendment 76 #
2008/2200(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Points out that theselegal provisions foster impunity for war crimes and trans-national organised crime, andunduly restricting extradition can foster impunity for high-level crimes including crimes against humanity, violations of the laws or customs of war, trans-national organised crime, illicit trafficking, terrorism, and corruption, and that such provisions are one of the main causes of the widely criticised yet continuing practice of holding trials in absentia; supports the efforts of national prosecutors to circumventovercome the above legal impediments by means of pragmatic cooperation arrangements, and encourages states in the region to further facilitate their work; commends the work of the Organization for Security and Co- operation in Europe in promoting increased cooperation, and encourages states in the region to further facilitate mutual legal assistance and extradition while fully respecting human rights standards and the norms of international law;
Amendment 78 #
2008/2200(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Stresses that full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), as regards both the arrest and extradition of the remaining fugitive indictees and, the transfer of evidence and full cooperation before and during the trial process, is an essential requirement throughoutof the accession process; urges the Commission to support, jointly with the ICTY, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the governments of the region, initiatives aimed at strengthening the capacity and efficiency of national judiciaries engaged in determining accountability for war crimes and other lesser crimes, and ensuring that trials are conducted in an independently of poli and impartical and ethnic considmanner, and in accordance with the standards and norms of internationsal law;
Amendment 80 #
2008/2200(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the governments of the region to strengthen their efforts aimed at ensuring that all laws in the field of minority and human rights are properly respected in practice, and that appropriate action is taken when those laws are infringed; urges that further efforts be made to ensure that initiatives aimed ato improvinge minority inclusion and the situation of disadvantaged minority groups (notably the Roma) are properly financed and implemented; notes the fundamental role of educational programming in promoting inclusiveness and reducing inter-ethnic tensions, and suggests that reform of the curriculum and textbooks, as well as targeted scholarship opportunities, are two necessary components;
Amendment 155 #
2008/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Stresses the importance of the prompt entry into force of the EU-US Extradition and Legal Assistance Agreement, and urges those Member States that have not yet ratified it to do so as soon as possible; stresses at the same time that the US needs to explicitly halt its policy of extraordinary rendition, and calls on the US to exercise restraint in issuing requests for the extradition of EU citizens;
Amendment 159 #
2008/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Welcomes the recent extension of the visa waiver programme to another six EU Member States; however, deems it inappropriate for the US to obtain access to the internal security databases of those Member States that are parties to the Schengen Agreement and calls once again on the US to lift the visa regime for the remaining six Member States and to treat all EU-citizens equally and on the basis of full reciprocity; asks the Commission to treat this as a priority matter with the new US administration;
Amendment 162 #
2008/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Is of the view that EU-US close cooperation in the area of justice and home affairs is also necessary in order to gradually build a transatlantic spacearea of freedom, security and justice;
Amendment 151 #
2008/2186(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Heading after paragraph 124
Heading after paragraph 124
Second-generation Schengen Information System
Amendment 152 #
2008/2186(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124 a (new)
Paragraph 124 a (new)
124a. Is very concerned about the delays in setting up the second-generation Schengen Information System and the implications of these delays for the EU budget and the Member States’ budgets; notes that the so-called ‘milestone 1 test’ concerning the stability, reliability and performance of the SIS II project, carried out at the end of January 2010, was not successful;
Amendment 153 #
2008/2186(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124 b (new)
Paragraph 124 b (new)
124b. Recalls the Commission’s obligation under Council Regulation (EC) No 1104/2008 of 24 October 2008 on migration from the Schengen Information System (SIS I+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II)1 and Council Decision 2008/839/JHA of 24 October 2008 on migration from the Schengen Information System (SIS I+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II)2 to submit a progress report concerning the development of SIS II and the migration from SIS I + to SIS II to the European Parliament and the Council every six months and for the first time after the first six months of 2009; notes that the first progress report, covering the period from January 2009 until June 2009 (COM(2009)0555) and published on 22 October 2009, is outdated and that the second progress report is not yet available;
Amendment 154 #
2008/2186(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124 c (new)
Paragraph 124 c (new)
Amendment 155 #
2008/2186(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124 d (new)
Paragraph 124 d (new)
124d. Stresses that the Commission should comply with its reporting obligations in a more timely and transparent manner;
Amendment 156 #
2008/2186(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124 e (new)
Paragraph 124 e (new)
124e. Invites the European Court of Auditors to carry out an in-depth audit and to present a special report evaluating the management of the SIS II project by the Commission, from the beginning of the project starting with the initial call for tenders;
Amendment 157 #
2008/2186(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124 f (new)
Paragraph 124 f (new)
124f. Reserves the right to hold in reserve the funds to be allocated for the development of SIS II in the 2011 annual budget, in order to ensure full parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the process;
Amendment 52 #
2008/2160(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1 - point i a (new)
Paragraph 1 - point i a (new)
ia) ensure that there are no laws or practices restricting or criminalising the right of journalists and the media to gather and distribute information for reporting purposes;
Amendment 66 #
2008/2160(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1 - point o
Paragraph 1 - point o
o) call on the Member States to ensure that freedom of expression is not subject to arbitrary restrictions from the public and/or private sphere and to avoid all legislative or administrative measures that could have a ´chilling effect´ on the speech of individualsall aspects of freedom of speech;
Amendment 1 #
2008/2125(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital E
Recital E
E. Whereas the objective of creating a European area of justice is to a certain extent slowed down by the small number of judicial authorities and criminal defence lawyers who can access EU judicial training, and electronic tools could contribute significantly to disseminating widely a European judicial culture which is the basis of the future European area of justice;
Amendment 2 #
2008/2125(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital G
Recital G
G. Whereas the current system of gathering criminal evidence in other Member States is still based on slow and ineffective instruments offered by mutual assistance in criminal matters, and whereas, where appropriate and only where it would not be detrimental to the legal position of the person giving testimony, the use of technological tools such as video conferencing would be a great step forward in the taking of evidence at distance;
Amendment 3 #
2008/2125(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital H
Recital H
H. Whereas the creation of a European area of justice does not in principle impinge on the fundamental rights of EU citizens and notably the protection of their personal dataalso entails enhancing the fundamental rights and procedural safeguards of EU citizens, and the implementation of the strategy should be carried out in full compliance with the highest standard of data protection,
Amendment 5 #
2008/2125(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point h
Paragraph 1 – point h
(h) ensuring the full respect of fundamental rights and the highest standards ofhancing fundamental rights, procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings and data protection whileas an integral part of drafting and implementing the Action Plan on EU justice.
Amendment 6 #
2008/2125(INI)
Draft opinion
Annex – point 5
Annex – point 5
5. (judicial training) In order to spread the European judicial culture and in view of reaching as many judicial authorities as possible from the very first moment they join the judiciary, a sort of "survivor" kit in the form of a CD or USB key containing the EU Treaty, the EC Treaty as well as the basic texts on judicial cooperation and information on the other Member States' judicial systems should be given to any newly appointed judicial authority. A similar "survivor" kit should be available to criminal defence lawyers. Thought should also be given to EU publications addressed to citizens which provide practical information on EU judicial cooperation and the criminal justice systems of other Member States. In addition, electronic training tools offered by the EJTN, which represents judicial training schools all over the EU, should receive adequate attention and support by the Commission and the Council.
Amendment 8 #
2008/2125(INI)
Draft opinion
Annex – point 8
Annex – point 8
8. (respectenhancing fundamental rights and procedural safeguards) Any technological progress is welcome insofar as it does not jeopardise fundamental rights. Bearing this in mind, in drafting and implementing the strategy and the Action Plan, strong attention must be devoted to the respect ofor fundamental rights and notably of procedural safeguards and data protection, giving EU citizens the right to access the information stored and shared by the relevant authorities and informing them onf the available remedies. A real e-justice strategy can not function without harmonisation of procedural safeguards and adequate data protection safeguards applying to criminal justice cooperation.
Amendment 7 #
2008/2020(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. Whereas data-mining and profiling blurs the boundaries between permissible targeted surveillance and problematic mass surveillance in which data is gathered because it is useful rather than for defined purposes, amounting potentially to unlawful interference with privacy;
Amendment 8 #
2008/2020(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Db. Whereas the danger exists that innocent people may be subject to arbitrary stops, interrogations, travel restrictions, surveillance or security alerts due to information added to their profile by a state agent, and that if the information is not promptly removed this could lead through the exchange of data and mutual recognition of decisions to refusals of visas, travel or border admission, placement on watchlists, inclusion on databases, bans on employment or banking, arrest or loss of liberty or other deprivation of rights, all of which may be without redress;
Amendment 12 #
2008/2020(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1 – point a
Paragraph 1 – point a
(a) all processing of personal data for law enforcement and anti-terrorist purposes must be based on published legal rules imposing limits on use, which are clear, specific and binding and subject to close and effective supervision by independent data protection authorities; 1 Opinion of the European Agency for Fundam and stringent pental Rights on the Proposal for a Council Framework Decisionties for breach onf the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data for law enforcement purposes, paragraph 4.ose rules; Or. en
Amendment 23 #
2008/2020(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1 – point j
Paragraph 1 – point j
(j) existing ECand proposed EU legislation should be examined for the scope it gives for profiling, and EU law reform should be considered if necessary to produce binding rules which avoid any infringement of fundamental rights; the Fundamental Rights Agency should be charged with undertaking such a study in conjunction with the European Data Protection Supervisoraking into account the anticipated Council of Europe recommendation on profiling;
Amendment 25 #
2008/2020(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1 – point j a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point j a (new)
(ja) there should be an examination of the extent to which Directive 2000/43/EC on equal treatment of persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin prohibits or regulates profiling measures and practices, and consideration of reform to remove the exclusion of airports and ports from its scope;
Amendment 26 #
2008/2020(INI)
Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1 – point j b (new)
Paragraph 1 – point j b (new)
(jb) the Fundamental Rights Agency should be charged, in conjunction with the European Data Protection Supervisor and in consultation with law enforcement and intelligence agencies, with a study on the actual and potential application of profiling techniques, their effectiveness in identifying suspects and their compatibility with civil liberties, human rights and privacy requirements; Member States should be asked to supply figures on stop and search plus other interventions which result from profiling techniques;
Amendment 36 #
2008/0804(CNS)
Proposal for a decision – amending act
Article 1 – point 6
Article 1 – point 6
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 8 - paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 8 - paragraph 1 a (new)
1. If the competent authorities of the Member States concerned decide not to comply with a request referred to in Articles 6(1)(a), 6(1)(g), 7(1)(a), 7(2) and 7(3), they shall inform Eurojust of their decision and of the reasons for it. 1a. Where more than one Member State has a claim to jurisdiction, they shall ensure that a decision of the competent national authority to prosecute in accordance with points (i) and (ii) of Article 6(1)(a) and points (i) and (ii) of Article 7(1)(a) may be challenged in a court having jurisdiction before the decision is communicated to Eurojust.
Amendment 44 #
2008/0803(CNS)
Proposal for a decision – amending act
Recital 6
Recital 6
Amendment 46 #
2008/0803(CNS)
Proposal for a decision – amending act
Recital 6 a (new)
Recital 6 a (new)
(6a) The recognition and execution of a decision rendered following a trial at which the defendant did not appear in person should not be refused if, on the basis the information provided by the issuing State, it can be satisfactorily established that the defendant was summoned in person, or by other means actually received official information of the scheduled date and place of the trial. In this context it is understood that the person should have received such information in good time, i. e. sufficiently in advance to allow him or her to participate in the trial and to effectively exercise his/her right of defence. All information should be provided in a language which the defendant understands.
Amendment 47 #
2008/0803(CNS)
Proposal for a decision – amending act
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a) The recognition and execution of a decision rendered following a trial at which the defendant did not appear in person should not be refused where the defendant, having been duly informed of the scheduled trial, was defended at the trial by a legal counsellor of his/her own choice, to whom he/she had given a written mandate to do so, thus ensuring that the legal assistance was practical and effective.
Amendment 48 #
2008/0803(CNS)
Proposal for a decision – amending act
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7b) At a retrial following a conviction in absentia, the defendant should be in the same position as someone standing trial for the first time. Therefore the person concerned shall have the right to be present at the retrial, the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, shall be (re)examined, the retrial could result in the original decision being quashed and the defendant may appeal against the new decision.
Amendment 55 #
2008/0803(CNS)
Proposal for a decision – amending act
Article 2 – point 2
Article 2 – point 2
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
Article 4a
Article 4a
The executing judicial authority may also refuse to execute the European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order, if the decision was rendered in absentia, unless, on the European arrest warrant states that the person: (a) was summoned in person or informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State through a competent representative and in due time, ofbasis of the information provided by the issuing judicial authority, it can be satisfactorily established that the person: (a) in due time, and in a language which he/she understood, (i) was summoned in person or by other means actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the hearingtrial which lresulted toin the decision rendered in absentia and informed about the fact that such, in such a manner that it may be unequivocally established that he/she was aware of the trial, and (ii) was personally informed, in writing and by an official authority, that a decision maycould be handed down in case the person does not appear forf he/she did not appear at the trial, or (b) having been personally summoned or by other means having actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the trial, had given a written mandate to a legal counsellor to defend him/her at the trial; , or (bc) after being personally served with the decision renderand being expressly informed, in absentia and being expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trialwriting, by an official authority and in a language which he/she understood, about the right to a retrial, in which he/she would have the right to be present, the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined, the retrial could lead to the original decision being quashed and he/she may appeal against the new decision: (i) expressly stated that he or /she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia; or (ii) did not request a retrial or appeal in the applicable timeframe which was of at least […]H days; or (ca) was not personally served with the decision rendered in absentia but: (i) will be served with it at the latest on the fifth day afterbefore the surrender and will be expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial; and (ii) will havein a language which he/she understands about the right to a retrial, in which he/she has the right to be present, the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, will be (re)examined, the retrial can lead to the original decision being quashed and he/she can appeal against the new decision and (ii) will be informed that he/she has at least […]H...]¹ days to request such a retrial.";
Amendment 58 #
2008/0803(CNS)
Proposal for a decision – amending act
Article 2 – point 4
Article 2 – point 4
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
Annex – box d
Annex – box d
(d) Indicate if the decision was rendered in absentia: 1. No, it was not 2. Yes, it was. If you have answered yes, please confirm that: or informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State through a competent representative and in due time, of the scheduled date and place of the hearing which led to the decision rendered in absentia and informed about the fact that such a decision may be handed down in case the person does not appear for the trial Time and place when and where the person was summoned or otherwise informed: …………………………………………… Describe how the person was informed: …………………………………………… OR 2.2 the person, after being served with the decision rendered in absentia, expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia Describe when and how the person expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia: …………………………………………… OR 2.3 the person was entitled to a retrial under the following conditions: with the decision rendered in absentia on ……………. (day/month/year); and – the person was expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial; and – after being informed of this right, the person had …. days to request a retrial and he or she did not request it during this period. OR 2.3.2 the person was not served with the decision rendered in absentia, and – the person will be served with the decision rendered in absentia within … days after the surrender; and – when served with the decision rendered in absentia, the person will be expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial; and – after being served with the decision rendered in absentia, the person will have … days to request a retrialperson appeared in person at the proceedings resulting in the decision: 1. Yes, the person appeared in person at the proceedings resulting in the decision. 2. No, the person did not appear in person at the proceedings resulting in the decision. 2.1 If you answered “no” to the above question, please indicate if: 2.1 the person was summoned in person 2.1.1 the person was summoned in person or by other means actually received official information, in a language which he/she understood, of the scheduled date and place of the trial which resulted in the decision, in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that the person concerned was aware of the scheduled trial and was personally informed, in writing and by an official authority, that a decision may be handed down if he/she does not appear for the trial Time and place when and where the person was summoned or personally received the official information by other means: .................................................................. Language in which the information was delivered ................................................................. Describe how the person was informed and attach documentary evidence: .................................................................. OR 2.1.2 having been personally summoned or having actually received official information by other means, in a language he/she understood, of the scheduled date and place of the trial, the defendant had given a written mandate to a legal counsellor to defend him/her at the trial, and did in fact receive practical and effective legal assistance and representation; Provide information on how this condition has been met: ..................................................................... OR 2.1.3 the person, after being personally served with the decision and being expressly informed, in writing, by an official authority and in a language which he/she understood, about the right to a retrial, in which he/she would have the right to be present, the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined, the proceedings may lead to the original decision being quashed and he/she may appeal against the new decision, expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision Describe when and how the person expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision, and attach documentary evidence: ..................................................................... OR 2.1.4 the person, after being personally served with the decision and being expressly informed, in writing, by an official authority and in a language which he/she understood, about the right to a retrial, in which he/she would have the right to be present, the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined, the retrial could lead to the original decision being quashed and he/she may appeal against the new decision, did not request a retrial within the applicable timeframe, i.e. at least […]>¹ days OR 2.3.1 the person was personally served 2.1.5 the person, was not personally served with the decision and was not expressly informed of the right to a retrial, in which he/she would have the right to be present, the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined, the retrial could lead to the original decision being quashed and he/she may appeal against the new decision, and – the person will be personally served with this decision before the surrender; and – when served with this decision, the person will be expressly informed, in writing and by an official authority, about the right to a retrial, in which he/she will have the right to be present, the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, will be (re)examined, the retrial may lead to the original decision being quashed and he/she may appeal against the new decision; and – after being served with the decision, the person will have the right to request a retrial within the applicable timeframe, which is of at least […]>¹ days. The above information will be provided to the person in a language which he/she understands, and evidence of the delivery of this information will be given by the issuing authority to the executing authority prior to the surrender. ¹ Period to be provided.
Amendment 22 #
2008/0242(COD)
Amendment 23 #
2008/0242(COD)
2a. Calls on the Commission to reaffirm the principles laid down in Article 6 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council1, which require, inter alia, that data be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a way incompatible with those purposes and that data be kept for no longer than required for processing in connection with those purposes, and that those principles will also apply to Eurodac in the future.
Amendment 25 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8 a (new)
Recital 8 a (new)
(8a) The powers granted to law enforcement authorities to access EURODAC should be without prejudice to the right of the applicants for international protection to have his or her application processed in due course according to the relevant legislation. Furthermore, obtaining a 'hit' from EURODAC and a subsequent procedure according to Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA of 18 December 2006 on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the Member States of the European Union1 should also be without prejudice to this right and should not be grounds for slowing down the process of examining the applicant's claim to asylum. ______________ 1 OJ L 386, 29.12.2006, p. 89.
Amendment 27 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data21 applies to the processing of personal data by Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies carried out in application of this Regulation. However, certain points should be clarified in respect of the responsibility for the processing of data and of the supervision of data protection, bearing in mind that data protection is a key factor in the successful operation of Eurodac and that data security, high technical quality and lawfulness of consultation are essential to ensure the smooth and proper functioning not only of Eurodac but of the whole Dublin system.
Amendment 30 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5
Article 3 – paragraph 5
5. The procedure for taking fingerprints shall be determined and applied in accordance with the national practice of the Member State concerned and in accordance with the safeguards laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and with regard to the fact that the best interests of children shall be the primary consideration of Member States in the application of this Regulation.
Amendment 31 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Even though the original purpose for the establishment of EURODAC did not require the facility of requesting comparisons of data with the database on the basis of a latent which is the dactyloscopic trace which may be found at a crime scene, such a facility is a fundamental one in the field of police cooperation. The possibility to compare a latent with the fingerprint data which is stored in EURODAC in cases where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the perpetrator or victim may fall into one of the categories covered by this Regulation will provide the designated authorities of the Member States with a very valuable tool in preventing, detecting and investigating terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences, when for example the only evidence available at a crime scene are latents.
Amendment 36 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16 a (new)
Recital 16 a (new)
(16a) A temporary or permanent impossibility to provide fingerprints on the part of the applicant for international protection ('failure to enrol') should not adversely affect the legal situation of the individual.
Amendment 41 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Requests for comparison with data stored in the EURODAC central database shall be made by the operating units within the designated authorities to the National Access Point, through the verifying authority and shall be reasoned. The operating units within the designated authorities that are authorised to request comparisons with EURODAC data shall not act as a verifying authority. The verifying authorities should be independent of the designated authorities and responsible for ensuring strict compliance with the conditions for access as established in this Regulation. The verifying authorities should then forward the request for comparison through the National Access Point to the EURODAC Central System following verification of whether all conditions for access are fulfilled. In the exceptional case of urgency where early access is necessary to respond to a specific and actual threat related to terrorist offences or serious crime, the verifying authority should process the request immediately and only do the verification afterwards.
Amendment 43 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) For the purposes of protection of personal data, and to exclude systematic comparisons which should be forbidden, the processing of EURODAC data should only take place on a case-by-case basis and when it is necessary for the purposes of preventing, detecting and investigating terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences. In addition access should only be allowed when comparisons with the national databases of the Member State and, with the Automated Fingerprint Databases of other Member States under the Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross- border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime have returned negative results. This condition requires prior implementation of the Council Decision 2008/615/JHA as it shall not be permitted to conduct a EURODAC check for law enforcement purposes where these above steps have not been first undertaken. Designated authorities should also be encouraged to consult the Visa Information System under Council Decision 2008/633/JHA of 23 June 2008 concerning access for consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) by designated authorities of Member States and by Europol for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences1 where appropriate prior to consulting EURODAC. A specific case exists in particular when the request for comparison is connected to a specific and concrete situation or to a specific and concrete danger associated with a terrorist or other serious criminal offence, or to specific persons in respect of whom there are serious grounds for believing that the persons will commit or have committed terrorist offences or other serious criminal offences. A specific case also exists when the request for comparison is connected to a person who is a victim of a terrorist or other serious criminal offence. The designated authorities and Europol should thus only request a comparison with EURODAC when they have reasonable grounds to believe that such a comparison will provide information that will substantially assist them in preventing, detecting or investigating a terrorist or other serious criminal offence. ___________________ 1 OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 129.
Amendment 45 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 4
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 4
A common leaflet, drafted in clear, simple and understandable language, containing at least the information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article and the information referred to in Article 4(1) of the Dublin Regulation shall be drawn up in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 40(2) of the Dublin Regulation.
Amendment 46 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 5
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 5
Where a person covered by this Regulation is a minor, Member States shall provide the information in an age-appropriate manner. The best interests of children shall be the primary consideration of Member States when implementing this Article.
Amendment 49 #
2008/0242(COD)
(33) Transfers of data obtained pursuant to this Decision to third countries or international organisations or private entities should be prohibited, in order to ensure the right to asylum and to safeguard applicants for international protection from having their data disclosed to any third country. This prohibition shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States to transfer such data to third countries to which Regulation (EU) No […/…] [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person] applies, in order to ensure that Member States have the possibility of cooperating with such third countries for the purposes of this Regulation. The prohibition of transfer to third countries should cover both EURODAC data obtained under this Regulation and personal data exchanged bilaterally subsequent to a EURODAC search which are stored or processed at national level.
Amendment 53 #
2008/0242(COD)
(35a) The data subject should be informed of the purpose for which his or her data will be processed within EURODAC, including a description of the aims of the Dublin Regulation and the use to which law enforcement authorities may put his or her data.
Amendment 54 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) It is appropriate to monitor and evaluate the performance of EURODAC at regular intervals, including whether law enforcement access has led to the stigmatisation of applicants for international protection as raised in the Commission's evaluation of the compliance of the proposal with the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Amendment 74 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. The Agency, shall be responsible for the operational management of EURODAC. The Agency shall ensure, in cooperation with the Member States, that at all times the best available technologyiques, subject to a cost-benefit analysis, is used for the Central System.
Amendment 78 #
2008/0242(COD)
1. For the purposes laid down in Article 1(2), Member States shall designate the authorities which are authorised to access EURODAC data pursuant to this Regulation. Designated authorities shall be authorities of the Member States which are responsible for the prevention, detection or investigation of terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences. Designated authorities shall not include agencies or units responsible for intelligence relating to national security.
Amendment 86 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Only duly empowered staff of the verifying authority shall be authorised to access EURODAC in accordance with Article 19.
Amendment 87 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The verifying authority shall perform its duties and tasks independently and shall not receive instructions as regards the exercise of the verification.
Amendment 90 #
2008/0242(COD)
2a. The verifying authority shall perform its duties and tasks independently and shall not receive instructions as regards the exercise of the verification.
Amendment 109 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Once the results of the comparison have been transmitted to the Member State of origin, the Central Unit shall immediately: (a) erase the fingerprint data and other data transmitted to it pursuant to paragraph 1; and (b) destroy the media used by the Member State of origin for transmitting the data to the Central System, unless the Member State of origin has requested their return.
Amendment 111 #
2008/0242(COD)
Amendment 114 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Article 19 – paragraph 1
1. The designated authorities referred to in Article 5(1) and Europol may submit a reasoned electronic request as provided for in Article 20(1) to the verifying authority for the transmission for comparison of fingerprint data to the EURODAC Central System via the National Access Point. Upon receipt of such a request, the verifying authority shall verify whether the conditions for requesting a comparison referred to in Article 20 or Article 21, as appropriate, are fulfilled.
Amendment 116 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 3
Article 19 – paragraph 3
3. In exceptional cases of urgency of the need to prevent an imminent danger associated with serious criminal or terrorist offences, the verifying authority may transmit the fingerprint data to the National Access Point for comparison immediately upon receipt of a request by a designated authority and only verify ex- post whether all the conditions of Article 20 or Article 21 are fulfilled, including whether an exceptional case of urgency actually existed. The ex-post verification shall take place without undue delay after the processing of the request.
Amendment 117 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. The Commission shall publish an indicative, non-binding model EURODAC request form for use under Article 19, and which correctly reflects the criteria set out in Article 20(1).
Amendment 121 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Designated authorities may submit a reasoned electronic request for the comparison of fingerprint data with those stored in the EURODAC central database within the scope of their powers only if comparisons of national fingerprint databases and of the Automated Fingerprint Databases of other Member States under Decision 2008/615/JHA return negative results and where:
Amendment 124 #
2008/0242(COD)
(c) there is an overriding public security concern which makes proportionate the querying of a database registering persons with a clean criminal record, and there are reasonable grounds to consider that such comparison with EURODAC data will substantially contribute to the prevention, detection or investigation of any of the criminal offences in question.
Amendment 126 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) there is a substantiated suspicion that the perpetrator or victim of the offence falls in a category covered by this Regulation.
Amendment 147 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 32 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The National Supervisory Authority shall ensure that every year an audit of the processing of personal data according to Article 1(2) is carried out, including an analysis of all reasoned electronic requests. The audit shall be attached to the Member State annual report referred to in Article 40(8).
Amendment 148 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 32 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Both the national and European supervisory authorities shall be provided with sufficient financial and personal resources to be able to supervise the use and access to Eurodac data adequately.
Amendment 152 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 4
Article 33 – paragraph 4
4. Personal data, as well as the record of the search, obtained by a Member State or Europol pursuant to this Regulation from EURODAC shall be erased in national and Europol files after a period of one month, if the data are not required for athe purposes of the specific ongoing criminal investigation for which the data has been requested by that Member State, or Europol.
Amendment 162 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35
Article 35
Personal data obtained by a Member State or Europol pursuant to this Regulation from the EURODAC central database shall not be transferred or made available to any third country or international organisation or a private entity established in or outside the European Union. This prohibition shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States to transfer such data to third countries to which the Dublin Regulation applies. Personal data obtained by a Member State or Europol and processed further in national databases shall not be transferred or made available to any third country or international organisation or a private entity established in or outside the European Union.
Amendment 171 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 5
Article 40 – paragraph 5
5. Three years after the start of application of this Regulation as provided for in Article 46(2) and every four years thereafter, the Commission shall produce an overall evaluation of EURODAC, examining results achieved against objectives and assessing the continuing validity of the underlying rationale, including whether law enforcement access has led to the stigmatisation of applicants for international protection, and any implications for future operations, as well as make any necessary recommendations. The Commission shall transmit the evaluation to the European Parliament and the Council.
Amendment 176 #
2008/0242(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 8
Article 40 – paragraph 8
8. Each Member State and Europol shall prepare annual reports on the effectiveness of the comparison of fingerprint data with EURODAC data for law enforcement access purposes, containing information and statistics on the exact purpose of the comparison, including the type of a terrorist offence or a serious criminal offence, grounds given for reasonable suspicion, number of requests for comparison, the number and type of cases which have ended in successful identifications and on the need and use made of the exceptional case of urgency as well as on those cases where that urgency was not accepted by the ex post verification carried out by the verifying authority. Such reports shall be transmitted to the Commission. Based on these annual reports and in addition to the overall evaluation provided for in paragraph 5, the Commission shall compile an annual report on law enforcement access to EURODAC and shall transmit the evaluation to the European Parliament, the Council and the EDPS.
Amendment 6 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Title
Title
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety field of road safety and road traffic (Text with EEA relevance)
Amendment 7 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Citation 1
Citation 1
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 71(1)(c) thereof,
Amendment 8 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
(1a) Individual Member States have introduced controls to manage traffic movements and parking to achieve greater mobility in their towns and cities, where demand to use the road infrastructure exceeds supply.
Amendment 9 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 b (new)
Recital 1 b (new)
(1b) In order to implement sustainable transport policies, as a key element in the fight against climate change, innovative schemes including traffic restrictions or the use of market-based instruments are increasingly being used to tackle specific challenges in certain areas, such as pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, congestion and traffic management.
Amendment 10 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 c (new)
Recital 1 c (new)
(1c) Such instruments may involve payment for the use of roads or to enter into green or environmental zones. In order not to restrict the flow of traffic, there are often no physical barriers at the boundaries of such areas, so enforcement is carried out by administrative means. The credibility of such schemes depends in part on their fair and equal enforcement.
Amendment 11 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) In order to improve road safety, road traffic management and encourage the development of sustainable transport policies throughout the European Union and to ensure equal treatment between resident and non-resident offenders, enforcement should be facilitated irrespective of the Member State in which the vehicle with which an offence has been committed is registered. To this end, a system of cross- border exchange of information should be put in place.
Amendment 12 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Such a system is of particular value in relation to road traffic offences detected by automated devices where the identity of the offender cannot immediately be established, such as speeding or, failing to stop at a red traffic light, driving in a bus lane or breaching a road charging or green zone. It is also useful in order to enable the follow-up of offences where verification of the vehicle registration details may be necessary, in the case where the vehicle has been stopped. This is notably the case for drink driving.
Amendment 13 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) The types of road traffic offences to be covered by this system should reflect their seriousness in terms of endangering road safety and should cover offences which are qualified as traffic offences efforts by Member States to manage traffic movements and parking the laws of all Member Stato achieve greater mobility and establish sustainable transport policies. It is accordingly appropriate to make provision in relation to speeding, drink-driving, non- use of a seat-belt, and failing to stop at a red traffic light. The Commission will continue to monitor developments across the EU in respect of other road traffic offences with serious implications for road safety, non-payment of road user charges, non-payment of charges for using, or not respecting the rules of, an environmental zone, parking contraventions, bus and tram lane offences and moving traffic offences. The Commission will continue to monitor developments across the EU in respect of other road traffic offences affecting road safety, such as driving under the influence of drugs, use of mobile phones while driving and uninsured driving, and sustainable transport policies and if appropriate will consider proposing as soon as possible a revision of the Directive in order to cover them within its scope, such as driving under the influence of drugs, use of mobile phones while driving and uninsured driving. , following a report on the implementation thereof, in order to cover them within its scope.
Amendment 14 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) In order to ensure its effectiveness, the system of enforcement should cover the phases between the detection of an offence and the sending of an offence notification, based on a standard model, to the holder of the registration certificate of the vehicle concerned. Once a final decision has been taken, the Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties applimay apply. Where Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA cannot be applied, for example because sanction decisions do not fall within the scope of criminal law, the effectiveness of the sanctions should nevertheless be ensured by other sanction enforcement measures.
Amendment 15 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) non-payment of road user charges;
Amendment 16 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d b (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d b (new)
(db) non-payment for use, or non-respect, of environmental zones;
Amendment 17 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d c (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d c (new)
(dc) parking offences;
Amendment 18 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d d (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d d (new)
(dd) moving traffic offences;
Amendment 19 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d e (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d e (new)
(de) any other major road safety offences;
Amendment 20 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point d
Article 2 – point d
(d) "competent authority" means the authority in charge of the national database on the registration documents for vehiclesa single contact point in each Member State responsible for facilitating the application of this Directive.
Amendment 21 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point d a (new)
Article 2 – point d a (new)
(da) “central authority” means the authority responsible for ensuring data protection in each Member State;
Amendment 22 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point d b (new)
Article 2 – point d b (new)
(db) “Final Administrative Decision” means any final decision requiring a financial penalty to be paid, other than a final decision falling within the definition set out in Article 1 of Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA;
Amendment 23 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point h a (new)
Article 2 – point h a (new)
(ha) “non-payment of road user charges” means the failure to pay a specified charge for using a highway. This includes charges for entering zones or using highways with environmental criteria, or failure to comply with such standards requiring the payment of a charge;
Amendment 24 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point h b (new)
Article 2 – point h b (new)
(hb) “environmental zone” means a designated area into which vehicles not meeting certain emissions standards may not enter, or may not enter unless they pay a charge;
Amendment 25 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point h c (new)
Article 2 – point h c (new)
(hc) “parking offence” means leaving a vehicle stationary in a designated parking space, in such a way that it fails to comply with the terms and conditions of use of that space or on a road in such a way that it contravenes a prohibition on leaving vehicles in that road, under the law in force in the State of offence;
Amendment 26 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. The offence notification shall contain the subject of the notification, the name of the authority responsible for enforcing the sanctions, the name of the competent authority responsible for applying this Directive and a description of the relevant details of the offence concerned and the amount of the financial penalty that the holder is required to pay, and the date by which it must be paid, the possibilities for the holder to contest the grounds for the offence notification and to appeal against a decision imposing a financial penalty, and the procedure to be followed in case of dispute or appeal.
Amendment 28 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 - paragraph 3
Article 5 - paragraph 3
3. The offence notification shall inform the holder that he must complete a reply form within a specified period if he does not intend to pay the penalty. Where payment is refused, the holder shall be informed in the same notification that the refusal may be transmitted to the competent authority of the State of residence for enforcement of the penalty decision.
Amendment 29 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Title
Title
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety and road traffic
Amendment 30 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5 a (new)
Amendment 30 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Citation 1
Citation 1
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 71(1)(c) thereof,
Amendment 31 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 b (new)
Article 5 b (new)
Amendment 32 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 c (new)
Article 5 c (new)
Article 5c Information transmitted by the State of residence The competent authority of the State of residence shall forthwith inform the competent authority of the State of offence by any means which leaves a written record: (a) confirming that a final decision requiring enforcement has been received and acted upon; (b) of any decision not to implement a decision together with the reasons justifying such a decision; (c) of the implementation of the decision as soon as it has been completed.
Amendment 33 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall be assisted by a Committee on road safety and road traffic enforcement.
Amendment 34 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 a (new)
Article 8 a (new)
Article 8a Evaluation and reports 1. Two years after the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission shall present to the European Parliament and the Council a report on the implementation of this Directive by the Member States. 2. On the basis of that report, the Commission shall study the possibility of extending the scope of this Directive to include other road traffic offences, in particular the use of mobile phones or drugs and driving without a licence. 3. The Commission shall submit, in the same report, proposals to harmonise control equipment on the basis of Community criteria and road safety control practices.
Amendment 34 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
(1a) Individual member states have introduced controls to manage traffic movements and parking to achieve greater mobility in their towns and cities, where demand to use the road infrastructure exceeds supply.
Amendment 35 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
ANNEX – page 3 (Relevant details concerning the offence) - point b - subparagraph 3
ANNEX – page 3 (Relevant details concerning the offence) - point b - subparagraph 3
speeding, drink-driving, non-use of seatbelt or child restraint system, failing to stop at a red traffic light, non-payment of road user charges, non-payment for use, or non- respect, of environmental zones, parking offences, bus and tram lane offences, moving traffic offences, major road safety offences.
Amendment 35 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 b (new)
Recital 1 b (new)
(1b) In order to implement sustainable transport policies, as a key element in the fight against climate change, innovative schemes including traffic restrictions or market-based instruments are increasingly being used to tackle specific challenges in certain areas, such as pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, congestion and traffic management.
Amendment 36 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
ANNEX – page 3 (Relevant details concerning the offence) - point c - subparagraph 1
ANNEX – page 3 (Relevant details concerning the offence) - point c - subparagraph 1
Type of device for detection of speeding, drink-driving, failing to stop at a red traffic light or non-use of seat belt, non-payment of road user charges, non-payment for use, or non-respect, of environmental zones, parking offences, bus and tram lane offences, moving traffic offences, major road safety offences:
Amendment 36 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 c (new)
Recital 1 c (new)
(1c) Such instruments may involve payment for the use of roads or for entering green or environmental zones. In order not to restrict the flow of traffic, there are often no physical barriers at the boundaries of such areas, so enforcement is carried out by administrative means. The credibility of such schemes depends in part on their fair and equal enforcement.
Amendment 38 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) In order to improve road safety, road traffic management and encourage the development of sustainable transport policies throughout the European Union and to ensure equal treatment between resident and non-resident offenders, enforcement should be facilitated irrespective of the Member State in which the vehicle with which an offence has been committed is registered. To this end, a system of cross- border exchange of information should be put in place.
Amendment 40 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Such a system is of particular value in relation to road traffic offences detected by automated devices where the identity of the offender cannot immediately be established, such as speeding or, failing to stop at a red traffic light, driving in a bus lane or breaching a road charging or green zone. It is also useful in order to enable the follow-up of offences where verification of the vehicle registration details may be necessary, in the case where the vehicle has been stopped. This is notably the case for drink driving.
Amendment 42 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) The types of road traffic offences to be covered by this system should reflect their seriousness in terms of endangering road safety and should cover offences which are qualified as traffic offences efforts by Member States to manage traffic movements and parking the laws of all Member Stato achieve greater mobility and establish sustainable transport policies. It is accordingly appropriate to make provision in relation to speeding, drink-driving, non- use of a seat-belt, and failing to stop at a red traffic light. The Commission will continue to monitor developments across the EU in respect of other road traffic offences with serious implications for road safety, non-payment of road user charges, non-payment of charges for using, or not respecting the rules of, an environmental zone, parking contraventions, bus and tram lane offences and moving traffic offences. The Commission will continue to monitor developments across the EU in respect of other road traffic offences affecting road safety, such as driving under the influence of drugs, use of mobile phones while driving and uninsured driving, and sustainable transport policies and if appropriate will consider proposing as soon as possible a revision of the Directive in order to cover them within its scope, such as driving under the influence of drugs, use of mobile phones while driving and uninsured driving, following a report on the implementation thereof, in order to cover them within its scope.
Amendment 49 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) In order to ensure its effectiveness, the system of enforcement should cover the phases between the detection of an offence and the sending of an offence notification, based on a standard model, to the holder of the registration certificate of the vehicle concerned. Once a final decision has been taken, the Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties applimay apply. Where Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA cannot be applied, for example because sanction decisions do not fall within the scope of criminal law, the effectiveness of the sanctions should nevertheless be ensured by other sanction enforcement measures.
Amendment 59 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) non-payment of road user charges;
Amendment 61 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d b (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d b (new)
(db) non-payment for use, or non-respect, of environmental zones;
Amendment 63 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d c (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d c (new)
(dc) parking offences;
Amendment 65 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d d (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d d (new)
(dd) bus and tram lane offences;
Amendment 67 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d e (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d e (new)
(de) moving traffic offences;
Amendment 69 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d f (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d f (new)
(df) any other major road safety offences.
Amendment 75 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point d
Article 2 – point d
(d) "competent authority" means the authority in charge of the national database on the registration documents for vehicles. a single contact point in each Member State responsible for facilitating the application of this Directive. Or. en Justification
Amendment 77 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point d a (new)
Article 2 – point d a (new)
Amendment 79 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point d b (new)
Article 2 – point d b (new)
Amendment 81 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point h a (new)
Article 2 – point h a (new)
(ha) “non-payment of road user charges” means the failure to pay a specified charge for using a highway. This includes charges for entering zones or using highways subject to environmental criteria, or failure to comply with such standards requiring the payment of a charge;
Amendment 83 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point h b (new)
Article 2 – point h b (new)
(hb) “environmental zone” means a designated area into which vehicles not meeting certain emissions standards may not enter, or may not enter unless they pay a charge;
Amendment 85 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point h c (new)
Article 2 – point h c (new)
(hc) “parking offence” means leaving a vehicle stationary in a designated parking space, in such a way that it fails to comply with the terms and conditions of use of that space or on a road in such a way that it contravenes a prohibition on leaving vehicles in that road, under the law in force in the State of the offence;
Amendment 104 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. The offence notification shall contain the subject of the notification, the name of the authority responsible for enforcing the sanctions, the name of the competent authority responsible for applying this Directive and a description of the relevant details of the offence concerned and the amount of the financial penalty that the holder is required to pay, and by when it must be paid, the possibilities for the holder to contest the grounds for the offence notification and to appeal against a decision imposing a financial penalty, and the procedure to be followed in case of dispute or appeal.
Amendment 109 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. The offence notification shall inform the holder that he or she must complete a reply form if within a specified period if he or she does not intend to pay the penalty. Where payment is refused, the holder shall be informed in the same notification that this refusal may be transmitted to the competent authority of the State of residence for enforcement of the penalty decision.
Amendment 116 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5a (new) Follow-up of road traffic offences 1. Where the financial penalty has not been paid and the procedures to be followed in the case of a dispute or appeal have been exhausted, Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA shall apply as regards the sanctions referred to in Article 1 of that Framework Decision. 2. In the same cases of non-response as those referred to in paragraph 1 but in respect of financial penalties which do not fall within the scope of Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA, the competent authority of the State of the offence shall transmit the final administrative decision to the competent authority of the State of residence for enforcement of the penalty.
Amendment 117 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 b (new)
Article 5 b (new)
Article 5b (new) Recognition and enforcement of sanctions 1. The competent authority of the State of residence shall recognise a final administrative decision transmitted pursuant to Article 5(a)(2), without any formality and shall without delay take all measures necessary to implement that decision, on the understanding that the implementation of that decision shall be governed by the law of the State of residence in the same way as a financial penalty in the state of residence, except if the competent authority decides to invoke one of the following reasons for non- recognition or non-implementation: (a) the law of the State of residence provides for immunity which makes implementation of the decision impossible; (b) the party concerned has not been informed of his or her right to appeal and of the deadline for lodging such an appeal. 2. The competent authority of the State of the offence shall immediately inform the competent authority of the State of residence of any decision or measure which stands in the way of implementation of the decision. The State of residence shall cease the implementation of the decision as soon as it has been informed of that decision or measure by the competent authority of the State of the offence.
Amendment 118 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 c (new)
Article 5 c (new)
Article 5c (new) Information transmitted by the State of residence The competent authority of the State of residence shall forthwith inform the competent authority of the State of the offence by any means which leaves a written record: (a ) confirming that a final decision requiring enforcement has been received and acted upon; (b) of any decision not to implement a decision together with the reasons justifying such a decision; (c) of the implementation of the decision as soon as it has been completed.
Amendment 123 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall be assisted by a Committee on road safety and road traffic enforcement.
Amendment 125 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 a (new)
Article 8 a (new)
Article 8a (new) Evaluation and Reports 1. Two years after the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission shall present to the European Parliament and the Council a report on the implementation of this Directive by Member States. 2. On the basis of this report, the Commission shall study the possibility of extending the scope of this Directive to include other road traffic offences, in particular the utilisation of mobile phones, driving under the influence of drugs and driving without a licence. 3. The Commission shall submit, in the same report, proposals to harmonise control equipment on the basis of Community criteria and road safety control practices.
Amendment 127 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex – page 3 – point b – subparagraph 3
Annex – page 3 – point b – subparagraph 3
speeding, drink-driving, non-use of seatbelt or child restraint system, failing to stop at a red traffic light, non-payment of road user charges, non-payment for use, or non- respect, of environmental zones, parking offences, bus and tram lane offences, moving traffic offences and any other major road safety offences.
Amendment 129 #
2008/0062(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex – page 3 – point c – subparagraph 1
Annex – page 3 – point c – subparagraph 1
Type of device for detection of speeding, drink-driving, failing to stop at a red traffic light or non-use of seat belt, non-payment of road user charges, non-payment for use, or non-respect, of environmental zones, parking offences, bus and tram lane offences, moving traffic offences and any other major road safety offences:
Amendment 2 #
2008/0041(COD)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 1
Article 1 – point 1
Regulation (EC) No 562/2006
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – point a a
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – point a a
(aa) if the third country national holds a visa referred to in Article 5(1)(b), the thorough checks on entry shall also comprise verification of the identity of the holder of the visa and of the authenticity of the visa, by consulting the Visa Information System (VIS) in accordance withusing only the number of the visa sticker, by way of derogation from Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No xx/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council; However, if there is any doubt as to the identity of the holder of the visa and/or the authenticity of the visa, or if the search with the number of the visa sticker has failed, the VIS shall be consulted in accordance with Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No xx/2008.
Amendment 10 #
2007/2274(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Is concerned about the fact that international cooperation in the fight against terrorism has often resulted in a lowering of the level of protection for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and believes that the EU should take stronger action at the international level to promote a strategy based on full respect for international standards and obligations in the human rights field;
Amendment 11 #
2007/2274(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Urges the Council to transform its ad hoc working group on fundamental rights and citizenship into a standing Working Party, which could work in parallel with the Working Party on Human Rights (COHOM), and urges the Commission to assign a portfolio on human rights and fundamental freedoms to a single Commissioner;
Amendment 13 #
2007/2274(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Amendment 33 #
2007/2274(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Expresses its grave concern over the situation of third-country nationals applying for refugee status on the grounds of sexual orientation, such as Mehdi Kazemi and Pegah Emambakhsh, who are at risk of being repatriated from the UK to Iran and of being executed; recalls that expulsion of persons to a third country where they would be at risk of persecution, torture or death is a violation of European and international human rights obligations; asks the EU institutions and Member States concerned to find a solution to ensure that these two persons are not repatriated to Iran, and to monitor and evaluate the application of EU asylum law in the Member States; asks the Commission to address and resolve these issues through its forthcoming amendments to Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national1 ("Dublin 2 Regulation") and Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted2("Qualification Directive"); 1 OJ L 50, 25.2.2003, p. 1. 2 OJ L 304, 30.9.2004, p. 12.
Amendment 31 #
2007/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Title between paragraph 21 and 22
Title between paragraph 21 and 22
Human rights and security, freedom, security and justice
Amendment 32 #
2007/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Emphasises the need to assess and fully respect fundamental rights and individual freedoms as the Union’s powers develop; takes the view, on that basis, that the two objectives of respecting fundamental rights and safeguarding collective security are not only compatible but interdependent, and that appropriate policies can ensure that individual freedoms are not threatened by a repressive approach;
Amendment 33 #
2007/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Amendment 38 #
2007/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
(24a) Is concerned about the fact that international cooperation in the fight against terrorism is notably leading to an erosion of the fundamental right to privacy, data protection and non- discrimination, such as EU-US PNR agreements or inadequate data protection principles, and that the risk for the EU is to introduce measures of generalized surveillance and profiling of citizens, which are not in line with EU human rights standards and lack of appropriate evaluation on their effectiveness; consequently urges the Council to adopt the Framework Decision of Data Protection in the third pillar in line with European Parliament recommendations for higher standards;
Amendment 41 #
2007/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Asks EU institutions and Member States to take a strong diplomatic initiative towards US authorities to ensure that Guantanamo is closed down, that inmates are tried according to US law and that nobody is sent back to countries where there is a risk they could be tortured or subjected to ill-treatment;
Amendment 47 #
2007/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Calls onWelcomes the Commission to continue its work with a view to submitting a proposal for a legislative package including the proposal, deferred to date, toproposal for a Directive implementing the principle of equality outside of employment, hereby extending the scope of Directive 2000/43/EC to all other forms of discrimination, thus implementing Article 21 of the Charter, which provides greater leeway than Article 13 of the Treaty establishing the European Community in that it makes reference to further forms of discrimination: colour, social origin, genetic features, language, political or other opinions, membership of a minority, property and birth; stresses once more that the effect of granting preferential treatment in legislation to particular forms of discrimination is to introduce a kind of hierarchy between them, which should not be the case;
Amendment 49 #
2007/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30a. Regrets that the proposed directive leaves substantial gaps in legal protection against discrimination, notably through a wide range of exceptions relating to public order, public security and public health, economic activities, marital and family status and reproductive rights, education and religion; is concerned that, rather than banning discrimination, these 'escape clauses' may actually serve to codify existing discriminatory practices, notably against women and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people; reminds the Commission that the directive must be in line with existing case law in the area of LGBT rights, notably the Maruko ruling;
Amendment 59 #
2007/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38 a (new)
Paragraph 38 a (new)
(38a) Underlines in this context that more and more EU citizens move from one Member State to another and that they shall fully enjoy the rights provided by the Treaties in relation to their status of EU citizens, notably those to participation in local and European elections and to free movement; calls Member States to fully comply with Directive 2004/38/EC on free movement and to EU institutions to take further action to ensure protection of European citizens' rights all over the EU;
Amendment 100 #
2007/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Calls on the Member States to disallow invoking custom, tradition or any other religious consideration to justify any form of discrimination, oppression or violence against women or the adoption of policies which might put their lives in danger;
Amendment 107 #
2007/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
Paragraph 56
56. Welcomes the publication of the first thematic report by the Agency, drawn up at Parliament’s request, on ‘homophobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the EU Member States’ and asks to Member States and EU institutions to urgently follow the Agency's recommendations;
Amendment 110 #
2007/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57
Paragraph 57
57. Reminds all Member States that, in line with European Court of Human Rights case law, freedom of assembly may be exercised even if the opinions of those making use of that right go against the majority, and that, accordingly, a discriminatory ban on marches and any failure to meet the requirement to give appropriate protection to those taking part breach the principles guaranteed by the European Court of Human Rights, by art. 6 TEU on common EU values and principles, and by the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights;
Amendment 116 #
2007/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58 a (new)
Paragraph 58 a (new)
58a. Calls those Member States who have not yet done so, and in application of the principle of equality, to take legislative action to overcome discrimination experienced by same-sex couples by recognising such relationships;
Amendment 119 #
2007/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59
Paragraph 59
59. Calls on the Commission to make sure that Member States grant asylum to persons fleeing from persecution on the basis of their sexual orientation in their country of origin, to take initiatives at the bilateral and multilateral level to stop persecutions of persons on the basis of sexual orientation, and to launch a study on the situation of transsexual people in the Member States and candidate countries, with regard inter alia to the risk of harassment and violence;
Amendment 176 #
2007/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 92
Paragraph 92
92. Champions freedom of expression as a fundamental value of the European Union; considers that it must be exercised within the constraints of legislation, co-exist with personal responsibility and be based on respect for others’ rights and sensibilities; acknowledges that balancing those demands must be democratically debated on a permanent basis;
Amendment 178 #
2007/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 94
Paragraph 94
94. Calls on the Member States which over the last few years have used their judicial institutions, or are planning to change their legislation in this sense, to violate the right of reporters to confidentiality of sources as well as of journalists and of editors to publish information, to improve their legislation and their practices in keeping with the European Court of Human Rights judgment of 27 March 1996 and the Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the right of journalists not to disclose their sources of information1, since violation of that right is nowadays the greatest threat to reporters’ freedom of expression in the EU and there has been no significant 1 Recommendation R (2000)7. improvement in this situation over the last few years;
Amendment 24 #
2007/0821(CNS)
Article 3 a (new)
Germany Article 3a Requests regarding innocent persons In accordance with Chapters 3 and 4 of this Decision when there is a matching report with the DNA profile or dactyloscopic data of innocent persons Member States shall indicate that there is no match (hit).
Amendment 23 #
2007/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 2
Article 1 – point 2
Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004
Article 1 – paragraph 2 a
Article 1 – paragraph 2 a
(2) the followingIn Article 1, paragraph 2a ishall be inserted after paragraph 2: "2a. The following persons shall be exempt from the requirement to give fingerprints: (a) children under the age of 612; the age from which children are required to provide fingerprints shall be considered to be provisional and shall be reviewed after three years in accordance with Article 5a; (b) persons, where fingerprinting is physically impossible."
Amendment 27 #
2007/0216(COD)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 2 k (new)
Article 1 – point 2 k (new)
Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5 a (new)
(2k) Article 5a shall be inserted: "Article 5a Within three years of the entry into force of the amending Regulation, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report on the application of this Regulation. The report shall include: (i) a large scale and in-depth study carried out by an independent authority, which shall examine the reliability and technical feasibility of using the fingerprints of children under the age of 12 for identification and verification purpose; (ii) an analysis of the need for common rules regarding the way in which documents that need to be presented in order to obtain a passport or travel document (the so-called "breeder" documents) are produced and which of them are required for a passport or travel document; (iii) a study comparing the false rejection rates occurring in each Member State and - based on the results of that study - an analysis of the need for common rules regarding the matching process. If necessary, the report shall be accompanied by proposals to adapt this Regulation."