Activities of Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2

2. European Disability Cards issued by Member States shall be mutually recognised in all Member States. Where a holder of a European Disability Card takes up residence in another Member State, that Member States may, unilaterally or based on bilateral agreements, decide to recognise the European Disability Card issued by another Member State, and automatically issue a new European Disability Card in accordance with national procedures, without further investigation. Annex (x) lists the Member States that mutually or unilaterally adopt each other's disability card without further investigation.

2023/11/23
Committee: EMPL

2022/2188(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls the importance of effective, close and mutually beneficial law enforcement and judicial cooperation between the EU and the UK in view of their geographical proximity and shared challenges; recalls that the application of Part Three of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement1 (TCA) on law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters is contingent on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and the commitment to high-level protection of personal data; _________________ 1 Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part (OJ L 149, 30.4.2021, p. 10).

2023/06/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/2188(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes with satisfaction that the implementation of the Protocol on Social Security Coordination under the TCA has been unproblematic thus far and that no structural problems were identified in 2021 or 2022; stresses however the importance of having a dynamic Protocol, which periodically aligns with the ongoing revision of the Social Security Coordination regulations;

2023/06/07
Committee: EMPL

2022/2188(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. IExpresses concern~~ed by a number of developments in the labour and social sphere, which represent a risk of non- compliance with~~s regarding recent developments that may undermine the level playing field provisions of the TCA; in the labour and social sphere, notes in this regard the need to address the July 2022 repeal of the prohibition of employment agencies from providing temporary staff to replace workers taking part in industrial action; invites the UK government to take necessary measures to uphold the level playing field principles outlined in the articles of the TCA;

2023/06/07
Committee: EMPL

2022/2188(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Stresse~~Reminds that Part Three of the TCA allows for extended data flows between the EU and the UK, such as the exchange of DNA data, passenger name record data and criminal record information; underlines, therefore, that it is of the utmost importance that the UK ensures adequate data protection standards, so as not to put EU standards at risk when sharing data with the UK;

2023/06/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/2188(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10 a. Calls on the European Union and the UK to explore avenues for further cooperation and exchange of best practices in the areas of employment and social protection; recognizes the potential for mutual collaboration to improve the implementation and enforcement of EU employment policies, ensuring fair competition and growth for companies and workers in both the EU and the UK.

2023/06/07
Committee: EMPL

2022/2188(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Underlines the risks in the l~~iberal~~enient onward transfer of personal data to non-EU countries that do not provide for an adequate level of protection; recalls that a primary data recipient may only transfer personal data onwards if the recipient is also subject to rules affording an adequate level of protection; stresses, therefore, that the UK must ensure that its data transfers to non-EU countries are based on ~~regulations,~~ appropriate safeguards ~~and derogations~~;

2023/06/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/2188(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Condemns the UK’s general and broad exemption from the data protection principles and data subject rights for the processing of personal data, set out in its Data Protection Act, for immigration purposes; believes that the exemption in cases in which giving effect to data subjects’ rights would jeopardise effective immigration control or in the investigation or detection of activities that would undermine the maintenance of effective immigration control does not comply with the principle of legal certainty and therefore, is not sufficient to prevent arbitrary decision-making; calls on the European Commission to closely scrutinize the persisting problems relating to the judicial review process impacting the immigration exemption;

2023/06/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/2188(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Expresses its concern over the proposed UK Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, which would allow for automated decision-making; stresses that this bill wcould deprive individuals of their right, protected in the EU under the EU General Data Protection Regulation2 and internationally under the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing (including profiling) that has either a legal or similarly significant effect on them; _________________ 2 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).

2023/06/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/2188(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Deplore~~Strongly regrets the provisions in the new UK Data Protection and Digital Information Bill that weaken the obligations for data controllers and processors, including the new provisions that only require a senior responsible individual to be appointed when carrying out processing, which is likely to result in a high risk to individuals; ~~deplores, equally,~~Equally regrets the provisions removing the requirement to designate a non-UK based representative for data controllers and processors that is subject to UK data protection rules, and those eliminating the obligation to consult with the UK data protection supervisory authority prior to processing when the controller’s assessment indicates that the processing is likely to result in a high risk;

2023/06/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/2188(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Urges the UK to fulfil the data protection requirements for the processing of passenger name record data, in line with Article 552 of the TCA; ~~deplores the long transition period of three years, which is delaying the implementation of the requirement to delete passengers’ personal data after their departure from the country;~~

2023/06/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/2188(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Points out that, with regard to the necessary revision of the adequacy decision for the transfer of personal data to the UK in two years, it is of the utmost importance that guaranteeing the rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights be non-negotiable and that Parliament closely monitors any non- compliance; calls on the European Commission to closely scrutinize the impact the DPDI2 has on the data protection rights of EU citizens.

2023/06/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/2188(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Strongly regrets the substantial increase in the number of EU citizens who were denied entry into the United Kingdom and subsequently returned after the end of the end of the transition period; deplores the fact that certain EU nationals seeking to enter the country were subject to higher levels of scrutiny by Border Force, without sufficient justification as substantiated in the 2022 report by the United Kingdom's Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration; stresses that such practices go against the principles of reciprocity and non-discrimination set out in the TCA and calls on the Commission to closely monitor such developemnts;

2023/06/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/2188(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 b (new)

11b. Welcomes the agreement on the so-called Windsor Framework meant to remedy the tensions that have arisen in Northern Ireland stemming from the implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol;

2023/06/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/2188(INI)

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 c (new)

11c. Strongly regrets the UK’s discriminatory treatment of citizens of five EU Member States in 2021 in terms of long-term work visa fees and the subsequent removal of work-related visa fee reductions for all EU citizens as of February 2022; calls on the Commission to continue to raise this issue through the Partnership Council;

2023/06/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/2124(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Highlights the importance of a strong, effective and well-functioning European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex or the Agency), able to assist Member States to manage the common external borders of the European Union and to ensure an integrated border management with a view to managing those borders efficiently and in full compliance with fundamental rights, and to increasing the efficiency of the Union return policy; stresses that effective management of the external borders is of crucial importance for the protection of the Schengen as an area of freedom, security and justice; stresses that close cooperation and agreements with third countries in aspects like readmission agreements, technical assistance, training, and return activities, together with development aid are important to guarantee an efficient EU border management;1a _________________ 1a FRONTEX Strategic Risk Analysis 2022

2023/01/18
Committee: LIBE

2022/2124(DEC)

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the ~~fact that the Court 1. of Auditors (the ‘Court’) has declared the transactions underlying the annual~~outcome of the European Court of Auditors 2021 Annual Report on EU Agencies for the Financial Year 20212a, which states that Frontex’ accounts ofor the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (‘Frontex’ or the ‘Agency’) for the financial year 2021 to be legal and regular in all material aspects; notes that the budget of the Agency increased from EUR 495 million in 2020 to EUR 741 million (+ 50 %) in 2021 and that the Agency's staff was increased from 1 234 to 1 554 (+ 26 %); year ended 31 December 2021 present fairly, in all material respects, Frontex’ financial position at 31 December 2021, the results of its operations, its cash flows, and the changes in net assets for the year then ended, in accordance with its financial regulation and with accounting rules adopted by the Commission’s accounting officer; notes that the budget of the Agency increased from EUR 495 million in 2020 to EUR 741 million (+ 50 %) in 2021 and that the Agency's staff was increased from 1 234 to 1 554 (+ 26 %) in the same period, in line with the new mandate and responsibilities provided for in the new 2019 regulation;2b _________________ 2a https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADoc uments/AGENCIES_2021/AGENCIES_2 021_EN.pdf 2b https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:3201 9R1896

2023/01/18
Committee: LIBE

2022/2124(DEC)

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that Frontex is by large the EU Agency that received more significant budget increases in the last years~~; recalls that the Agency budget has skyrocketed from €118 million in 2011 to €741 million in 2021, and to an annual average of €900 million for the 2021-2027 period~~, in line with its new responsibilities; recalls that Frontex started with a budget of €6 million in 2005, and it is receiving now €741 million in 2021; recalls that the European Border and Coast Guard Agency has been strengthened in terms of staff and technical equipment with its new mandate in 2019; notes that in view of the complex geopolitical situation, the importance of Frontex in supporting Member States increased significantly and efforts must continue in terms of human and material resources;

2023/01/18
Committee: LIBE

2022/2124(DEC)

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes the Court’s observation concerning weaknesses in recruitment procedures, which undermine the principles of transparency and equal treatment of the candidates; ~~notes the serious internal control weaknesses in the Agency’ delegation process, ex-ante controls and procurement procedures; deplores the many payment delays;~~ takes also note of Frontex' reply stating that Frontex acknowledged a room for improvement in the implementation of the defined rules on selection procedures and that in January 2022 adopted more clear instructions to the selection committee members ensuring more consistent assessment and harmonised procedures; notes the serious internal control weaknesses in the Agency’ delegation process, ex-ante controls and procurement procedures; deplores the many payment delays but likewise takes note that there were various reasons for these delays that were not always under the Agency’s control, for example, several late payments, with high amounts that stem from delays of the Member States in introducing their claims for grants; welcomes the Agency's commitment to continuously improving in the field of late payments, as stated in its reply to the Court;3a _________________ 3a https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADoc uments/AGENCIES_2021/AGENCIES_2 021_EN.pdf

2023/01/18
Committee: LIBE

2022/2124(DEC)

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Notes that the Court, in two audited recruitment procedures, found that the selection committees applied the arithmetical average of their members’ individual assessments, instead of the consensual method prescribed by the Agency internal guidelines; further notes the lack of clear standards or instructions to selection committee members on how to assess the individual selection criteria; acknowledges that these weaknesses undermine the principles of transparency and equal treatment of the candidates in recruitment procedures and may expose Frontex to reputational and legal risks;

2023/01/18
Committee: LIBE

2022/2124(DEC)

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Notes that the current occupancy rate in the Agency is 79%, the highest occupancy rate since the new European Border and Coast Guard Regulation in 2019 (2019/1896); acknowledges that timely recruitment and achieving geographical balance remain challenging mainly due to a low coefficient rate for Poland; further notes that the low coefficient rate for Poland is a long standing challenge for the Agency, which has been exacerbated in recent months by record high inflation in the country, reaching 16,6% in December 2022;

2023/01/18
Committee: LIBE

2022/2124(DEC)

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Not~~Welcomes the drawing up of a fundamental rights strategy and action plan; ~~regret~~notes that the obligation included in Article 110(6) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 to deploy at least 40 fundamental rights monitors has been met with significant delay; ~~notes that~~welcomes however that since mid-October 2022, the number of fundamental rights monitors ~~now~~ stands at 46; ~~deeply deplores that despite the significant overall staff~~recalls that, according to the same provision, the executive director shall assess on an annual basis whether the number of fundamental rights monitors needs to be increased in consultation with the fundamental rights officer; following that assessment, the executive director shall, where necessary, propose an increase ~~for~~in the ~~Agency, the F~~number of fundamental Rrights ~~Officer still lacks adequate human resources~~monitors to the management board for the following year depending on operational needs; notes that out of the 46 staff members, 31 are Administrators and 15 are at Assistant level; fur~~ges the Agency to provide its f~~ther notes that in addition to Fundamental Rights monitors, the Fundamental rRights oOffice~~r with adequate resources and staff~~ has also almost 20 staff members; welcomes the Agency commitment to further appoint staff at Administrative level should the Agency Establishment Plan allow it;

2023/01/18
Committee: LIBE

2022/2124(DEC)

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Takes the position that the Management Board ~~should play a proactive role in identifying and preventing serious risk of f~~and the Executive Director must work closely with the Fundamental Rights Officer and play a proactive role in ensuring that Frontex activities are always in compliance with Fundamental rRights ~~violations; reiterates the importance to implement the standard operating procedures to withdraw the financing of, or suspend or termina~~; welcomes the positive progress made by the Agency, particularly the decision of 25 January 2022 detailing standard operating procedures for the implementation of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 drafted in accordance with the comments and observations of the Member States and Schengen Associated Countries, Frontex Fundamental Rights Officer, and the Frontex Consultative Forum on Fundamental Rights; takes note,s o~~r not launch Frontex activities in cases where such risks ar~~f the opinion of the Fundamental Rights Officer arguing for more Frontex involvement to monitor and support Member States in their obligations set out in the EU acquise;

2023/01/18
Committee: LIBE

2022/2124(DEC)

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Expresses its utmost concerns with regard to allegations of push backs in the context of Frontex operations in Lithuania, Latvia, Croatia, Bulgaria and Greece; ~~reiterates its call on the Agency to susp~~takes note of the findings of the Fundamental Rights Officer Annual report 2021 which states that there was no evidence of Frontex staff’s involvemendt i~~ts ope~~n unlawful practions supporting return- related operations from Hungary as long as, and as concluded by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the return decisions issued by the Hungarian authorities are incompatible with Directive 2008/115/EC and the Charter of Fces in Lithuania, Latvia and Bulgaria, and the admissible complaints concerned Frontex operational areas in Albania, Croatia, Greece, and Spain; demands the Agency to monitor the correct implementation of return procedures by the Hungarian authorities and to ensure the respect of fundamental rights in returns carried out with Frontex assistance, in line with the Fundamental Rights Officer’s recommendations; takes note that since 2020, there have been no operational reports, either by staff deployed in returns from Hungary or by the independent monitors, no complaints, no serious incident reports, and no communication of any other type to the Agency on alleged violations of fundamental rights in cases of Frontex assisted returns from Hungary; also notes that there is no evidence of violations of fundamental Rrights ~~of the European Union;~~ in case of returns carried out with Frontex assistance in Hungary;6a _________________ 6a https://frontex.europa.eu/assets/Images_N ews/2022/Fact_Sheet_on_Frontex_discha rge.pdf

2023/01/18
Committee: LIBE

2022/2124(DEC)

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Welcomes the finding that the Agency had never been involved in returns relating to the Hungarian laws Act LXXXIX of 2009 and Act LVIII of 2020 which were deemed not in line with the European acquis by the Court of Justice of the European Union; notes the confirmation by the Hungarian authorities that they had not requested nor would request Frontex support of cases of migrants to be returned in application of national act LXXXIX of 2007 and Act LVIII of 2020; notes that Frontex increased monitoring activities in Hungarian returns and strengthened consultation and cooperation with the Fundamental Rights Officer on Hungary, among others, in terms of monitoring activities, to further ensure the respect of fundamental rights in returns carried out with Frontex assistance; welcomes that following the opinions and recommendations of the Fundamental Rights Officer regarding his assessment of the situation in Greece, the former Executive Director ad interim and the Fundamental Rights Officer engaged with the Hellenic authorities to establish safeguards for the implementation of the fundamental rights framework in operational activities carried out in Greece; endorses that further to these discussions, the Hellenic authorities drew up an Implementation Plan for the implementation of the safeguards, which was recognized as a good achievement by the Agency’s Fundamental Rights Officer and the Management Board;

2023/01/18
Committee: LIBE

2022/2124(DEC)

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Reiterates its profound concerns about the findings of the OLAF report of 15 February 2022 on investigations ~~into Frontex~~on the misconductof several individuals employed by the Agency in, and expresses its utter dismay in the behaviour and actions described in the findings and the lack of accountability; ~~considers~~takes note that in October 2022 some media organisations have released the report; while acknowledging that the findings of the OLAF report arcan be a matter of public interest ~~and should be made public without further delay~~, deplores the fact the publication of a confidential report is in clear breach violation of the requirements laid down in Articles 10(3) and 17(4a) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, to respect the confidentiality of the investigation conducted by OLAF as well as the legitimate rights of the persons concerned, including their data protection rights;

2023/01/18
Committee: LIBE

2022/2124(DEC)

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Welcomes the follow-up by the Agency on the publication of the OLAF report, in particular the identification of, aside from findings on serious misbehaviour of individual former employees, three key issues, namely the fact that the Fundamental Rights Officer was prevented from accessing operational information, the fact that the Fundamental Rights Officer was not assigned as case handler for reports on serious incidents with alleged violations of fundamental rights, and the fact that staff members who reported serious incidents to the hierarchy were ignored by the individuals investigated by OLAF; welcomes the work done by the Agency to improve the management culture and promote staff well-being, including the decentralization of decision-making to distribute responsibility and ownership of decisions, encouragement of open dialogue through Agency’s Management meetings, the development of a comprehensive internal communication strategy, strengthening of internal communications team, the enlargement of the network of Confidential Counsellors, whose aim is to foster a safe and inclusive working culture where there is zero tolerance for harassment, discrimination or inappropriate behaviour; further welcomes the decision of the Management Board of July 2022 on the obligations of the Management Board and Executive Director to inform the Consultative Forum on the follow-up of its recommendations and to ensure that action is taken with regard to the recommendations of the Fundamental Rights Officer; notes that the first Internal Audit Capacity internal audit is foreseen for Q-4 2022 - Q-1 2023 focusing on Frontex codes of conduct;

2023/01/18
Committee: LIBE

2022/2124(DEC)

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Expresses its deep concerns in relation to media revelations that in the context of the expansion of a mass surveillance programme at Europe’s external borders (PeDRA, or ‘Processing of P~~Notes that PeDRA (Processing of Personal Data for Risk Analysis) was a project implemented between 2015 and 2017 to fight against cross-border crime and that it allowed the Agency to develop capabilities required for processing personal data, as one of the measures undertaken to combat criminal smuggling networks; notes that Frontex has been processing only operational personal Ddata ~~for Risk Analysis’), Frontex and the European Commission side-lined their own d~~of suspects of cross-border crime and terrorism; notes that after receiving the EDPS opinions on Frontex data processing rules, the Agency’s Data pProtection ~~oversight bodies and pursued an intrusive collection of personal data from migrants and refugees to feed into Europol’s criminal databases~~Officer prepared an Action Plan to implement the EDPS recommendations; asks the Management Board to inform the European Parliament about the implementation of these recommendations and the measures taken to ensure full compliance with the EU data protection rules; further notes that the PeDRA team has not implemented any processing activities that have not been approved by the EDPS;

2023/01/18
Committee: LIBE

2022/2124(DEC)

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Notes that ~~Frontex’ structural problems regarding fundamental rights protection of asylum seekers and migrants, transparency, data protection, and alleged sexual harassment within the Agency~~the conclusions presented in the OLAF report on the investigation conducted with respect to the activities of the Agency under the former executive leadership, together with other observations led the European Parliament to refuse discharge of the Agency’s 2020 budget; notes however that those circumstances were not present in 2021;

2023/01/18
Committee: LIBE

2022/2124(DEC)

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Jeroen LENAERS, Tomas TOBÉ, Lena DÜPONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. Reminds that the Agency is accountable to the European Parliament, and that the Parliament is resolved to ensure that the Agency contributes to the continuous and uniform application of Union law, including the Union acquis on fundamental rights, in particular the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; highlights that, in order to achieve this goal, an enhanced cooperation with the Frontex Management Board by strengthening the transparency, accountability and democratic oversight of the Agency is needed;

2023/01/18
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14

(14) As regards intra-EU flights, in line with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in order to avoid unduly interfering with the relevant fundamental rights protected under the Charter and to ensure compliance with the requirements of Union law on the free movement of persons and the abolition of internal border controls, a selective approach should be provided for. In view of the importance of ensuring that API data can be processed together with PNR data, that approach should be aligned with that of Directive (EU) 2016/681. For those reasons, API data on those flights should only be transmitted from the router to the relevant PIUs, where the Member States have selected the flights concerned in application of Article 2 of Directive (EU) 2016/681. As recalled by the CJEU, the selection entails Member States targeting the obligations in question only at, inter alia, certain routes, travel patterns or airports, subject to the regular review of that selection. As recalled by the CJEU, a Member State may select all intra-EU flights under this approach when duly justified.

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 19 to supplement this Regulation by laying down the necessary detailed rules on the connections to and integration with the router referred to in paragraph 1, including on data security requirements.

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0425(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2

2. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 19 to supplement this Regulation by laying down the necessary detailed rules on the connections to and integration with the router referred to in paragraph 1, including on data security requirements.

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0425(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

During the time period between those notifications, Article 4(6) shall not apply, insofar as the technical impossibility prevents the transfer of API data to the router. ~~Insofar as that is the case, Article 4(1) shall not apply either to~~Air carriers shall store the API data until the technical impossibility has been successfully addressed and at that point transfer the ~~API~~ data ~~in question during that time period~~to the router in accordance with Article 4(1).

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0425(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

During the time period between those notifications, Article 4(6) shall not apply, insofar as the technical impossibility prevents the transfer of API data to the router. ~~Insofar a~~Air carriers tsha~~t is the case, Article 4(1) shall not apply either to the API data in question during that time period~~ll store the API data until the technical impossibility has been successfully addressed and at that point transfer the data to the router in accordance with Article 4(1).

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0425(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

During the time period between those notifications, Article 4(6) shall not apply, insofar as the technical impossibility prevents the transfer of API data to the router. ~~Insofar a~~Air carriers tsha~~t is the case, Article 4(1) shall not apply either to the API data in question during that time period.~~ ll store the API data until the technical impossibility has been successfully addressed and at that point transfer the data to the router in accordance with Article 4(1).

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11

(11) The Commission should be empowered to adopt technical requirements and procedural rules that air carriers are to comply with in connection to the use of automated means for the collection of machine-readable API data under this Regulation, so as to increase clarity and legal certainty and contribute to ensuring data quality and the responsible use of the automated means. These requirements and rules may change over time due to technological advancements.

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14

(14) To provide clarity on the technical requirements that are applicable to air carriers and that are needed to ensure the API data that they collected under this Regulation are transferred to the router in a secure, effective and swift manner, the Commission should be empowered to lay down specifications on the common protocols and supported data formats to be used for those transfers. The requirements set out by this Regulation and by the corresponding delegated and implementing acts should lead to a uniform implementation by the airlines, thereby minimizing the cost of the interconnection of their respective systems. To facilitate a harmonized implementation of these requirements by the airlines, notably as regards the data structure, format and transmission protocol, the Commission, based on its cooperation with the competent border authorities, other Member States authorities, air carriers, and relevant Union agencies, should ensure that the practical handbook provides all the necessary guidance and clarifications.

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18

(18) The router should transmit the API data, in an automated manner, to the relevant competent border authorities, which should be determined on the basis of the border crossing point of entry into the territory of the Member State included in the API data in question. In order to facilitate the distribution process, each Member State should indicate which border authorities are competent to receive the API data transmitted from the router. Member States may establish a single data entry point that receives the API data from the router and that immediately and in an automated manner forwards it to the competent border authorities of the Member State concerned. To ensure the proper functioning of this Regulation and in the interest of transparency, that information should be made public. Member States may designate the same single data entry point for the purposes of this Regulation and of Regulation [API law enforcement].

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18 a (new)

(18a) Where air carriers are required to transfer the same API data both under this Regulation and under Regulation Regulation [API law enforcement], air carriers might send this API data to the router only once. In this case, by fulfilling the obligations for the transfer of such API data under this Regulation, air carriers also fulfil the obligations for the transfer of that API data under Regulation [API law enforcement].

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34 a (new)

(34a) To support an effective implementation of the obligations set out in this Regulation by the national supervisory authorities, rules on the collection and use of statistics on API data should be provided for this purpose. Moreover, to allow for evidence-based policy making on border management, illegal immigration and internal security based on statistical information derived from API data and data from EU large- scale IT systems, this Regulation should also set out rules for cross-system statistics to be provided by the Common Repository for Reporting and Statistics, thereby amending Regulation (EU) 2019/817 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)

(aa) the collection by air carriers of API data on flights within the Union for the purpose of combating illegal immigration;

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) the transmission from the router to the competent border and the competent immigration authorities of the API data.

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1

This Regulation applies to air carriers conducting scheduled or non-scheduled flights into the Union and within the Union.

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(ba) ‘intra-EU flights’ means flights departing from the territory of a Member State participating in this Regulation and planned to land on the territory of one or more of the other Member States participating in this Regulation;

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)

(ga) ‘competent immigration authority’ means a competent authority as defined in Article 3, point 4, of Regulation (EU) 2017/2226

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Air carriers shall collect the API data referred to Article 4(2), points (a) to (d), using automated means to collect the machine-readable data of the travel document of the traveller concerned. They shall do so in accordance with the detailed technical requirements and operational rules referred to in paragraph 4, where such rules have been adopted and are applicable. In particular, air carriers shall do so by using the most reliable automated means available to collect the machine-readable data of the respective travel document.

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4

4. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 37 to supplement this Regulation by laying down detailed technical requirements and operational rules for the collection of the API data referred to in Article 4(2), points (a) to (d), using automated means in accordance with paragraph 2 and 3 of this Article, including on requirements for data security.

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3

3. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 37 to supplement this Regulation by laying down the necessary detailed rules on the common protocols and supported data formats to be used for the transfers of API data to the router referred to in paragraph 1, including on requirements for data security. Such detailed rules shall ensure that airlines transmit API data using the same structure and content.

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. eu-LISA shall ensure that API data is encrypted during transfer to the router.

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1

The competent border authorities and the competent immigration authorities shall process API data, transferred to them in accordance with this Regulation, solely for the purposes referred to in Article 1.

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1

1. Air carriers shall store, for a time period of 4872 hours from the moment of departure of the flight, the API data relating to that passenger that they collected pursuant to Article 4. They shall immediately and permanently delete that API data after the expiry of that time period.

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2

2. The competent border authorities and the competent immigration authorities shall store, for a time period of 4872 hours from the moment of departure of the flight, the API data relating to that passenger that they received through the router pursuant to Article 11. They shall immediately and permanently delete that API data after the expiry of that time period.

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1

The router shall only be used by air carriers to transfer API data and by competent border authorities and PIUs to receive API data, in accordance with this Regulation and Regulation (EU) [API law enforcement], respectively. The router may also be used by Member States to require air carriers to transfer PNR data to their PIUs in accordance with Article 5a of Regulation (EU) [API law enforcement] and Directive (EU) 2016/681.

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 a (new)

Article10a Data format and transfer verifications 1. The router shall, in an automated manner and based on real-time flight traffic data, verify whether the air carrier transferred the API data in accordance with Article 6(1). 2. The router shall, immediately and in an automated manner, verify whether the API data transferred to it in accordance with Article 6(1) complies with the detailed rules on the supported data formats, referred to in Article 6(3). 3. Where the router has verified in accordance with paragraph 1 that the data was not transferred by the air carrier or where the data in question is not compliant with the detailed rules referred to in paragraph 2, the router shall, immediately and in an automated manner, notify the air carrier concerned and the competent border authorities of the Member States to which the data were to be transmitted pursuant to Article 11(1). In this case, the air carrier shall immediately transfer the API data in accordance with Article 6. 4. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts specifying the necessary detailed technical and procedural rules for the verifications and notifications referred to in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 36(2).

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

TUpon the verifications referred to in Article 10a, the router shall, immediately and in an automated manner, transmit the API data, transferred to it pursuant to Article 6, to the competent border authorities of the Member State referred to in Article 4(3), point (c). It shall do so in accordance with the detailed rules referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article, where such rules have been adopted and are applicable.

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

For the purpose of such transmission, eu- LISA shall establish and keep up-to-date a table of correspondence between the different airports of origin and destination and the countries to which they belong. eu- LISA shall ensure that the data is encrypted during transmission from the router to the the competent authorities of the Member States.

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)

Member States that require air carriers to collect API data on intra-EU flights for the purpose of combating illegal immigration shall establish a list of the intra-EU flights concerned and shall, by the date of application of this Regulation referred to in Article 27, second subparagraph, provide eu-LISA with that list. Those Member States shall regularly review and where necessary update those lists and shall immediately provide eu- LISA with any such updated lists. The information contained on those lists shall be treated confidentially.

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 4

4. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 37 to supplement this Regulation by laying down the necessary detailed technical and procedural rules for the transmissions of API data from the router referred to in paragraph 1, including on requirements for data security.

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)

(aa) where the API data relates to other intra-EU flights than those included in the lists referred to in Article 11(2a);

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. The national supervisory authorities referred to in Article 29 and competent authorities shall have access to the relevant logs referred to in paragraph 1 where necessary for the purposes referred to in paragraph 3.

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

During the time period between those notifications, Article 6(1) shall not apply, insofar as the technical impossibility prevents the transfer of API data to the router. ~~Insofar as that is the case, Article 4(1) and Article 8(1) shall not apply either to the API data in question during that time period~~Air carriers shall store the API data until the technical impossibility has been successfully addressed and at that point transfer the data to the router in accordance with Article 6(1).

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

During the time period between those notifications, Article 6(1) shall not apply, insofar as the technical impossibility prevents the transfer of API data to the router. ~~Insofar a~~Air carriers tsha~~t is the case, Article 4(1) and Article 8(1) shall not apply either to the API data in question during that time period~~ll store the API data until the technical impossibility has been successfully addressed and at that point transfer the data to the router in accordance with Article 6(1).

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

During the time period between those notifications, Article 6(1) shall not apply, insofar as the technical impossibility prevents the transfer of API data to the router. ~~Insofar as that is the case, Article 4(1) and Article 8(1) shall not apply either to the API data in question during that time period~~Air carriers shall store the API data until the technical impossibility has been successfully addressed and at that point transfer the data to the router in accordance with Article 6(1).

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2

2. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 37 to supplement this Regulation by laying down the necessary detailed rules on the connections to and integration with the router referred to in paragraph 1, including on requirements for data security.

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2

2. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 37 to supplement this Regulation by laying down the necessary detailed rules on the connections to and integration with the router referred to in paragraph 1, including on requirements for data security.

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0424(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1

1. Every quarter, eu-LISA shall publish statistics on the functioning of the router, showing in particular the number, the nationality and the country of departure of the travellers, and specifically of the travellers who boarded the aircraft with inaccurate, incomplete or no longer up-to- date API data, with ~~a non-~~travel document considered as non recogniszed ~~travel document,~~for crossing external borders without a valid visa, without a valid travel authorization, or reported as overstay, ~~the number and nationality of travellers.~~ subject to a return decision, to a refusal of entry and stay, to restrictive measures to prevent entry into or transit through the territory of Member States taken in accordance with legal acts adopted by the Council.

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

2022/0140(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 10

10. Natural persons shall have the right to ~~obtain~~receive an automatic notification with information on the healthcare providers and health professionals that have accessed their electronic health data in the context of healthcare, and on the substance of the accessed data. The information shall be provided immediately and free of charge through electronic health data access services.

2023/03/30
Committee: ENVI LIBE

2022/0140(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 2

2. The health data access bodies shall always provide the electronic health data in an anonymised format, where the purpose of processing by the data user can be achieved with such data, taking into account the information provided by the data user.

2023/03/30
Committee: ENVI LIBE

2022/0140(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 3

3. WOnly in the exceptional cases where the purpose of the data user’s processing cannot be achieved with anonymised data, taking into account the information provided by the data user, the health data access bodies shall provide access to electronic health data in pseudonymised format. The information necessary to reverse the pseudonymisation shall be available only to the health data access body. Data users shall not re- identify the electronic health data provided to them in pseudonymised format. The data user’s failure to respect the health data access body’s measures ensuring pseudonymisation shall be subject to appropriate penalties.

2023/03/30
Committee: ENVI LIBE

2022/0140(COD)

Javier ZARZALEJOS, Jeroen LENAERS, Dolors MONTSERRAT, Pilar del CASTILLO VERA, Gabriel MATO, Juan Ignacio ZOIDO ÁLVAREZ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. The anonymisation or pseudonymisation required for sharing data sets for secondary use shall be subject to minimum quality requirements, to ensure its robustness and avoid data to be exposed for abusive purposes.

2023/03/30
Committee: ENVI LIBE

2022/0135(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6 a (new)

(6 a) Ecuador has made substantial progress in preparing for the visa-free status, notably with the introduction of the biometric passport and the Regulation to the Organic Law on Human Mobility. In addition, reasons of regional coherence, being a trading partner of the Union through the Multi-Party Treaty, support the opportunity to include Ecuador on the list of visa-free countries, without prejudice to the Commission carrying out the necessary technical assessment prior to the negotiation of the relevant bilateral agreement.

2022/10/18
Committee: LIBE

2022/0135(COD)

Javier ZARZALEJOS, Jeroen LENAERS, Dolors MONTSERRAT, Pilar del CASTILLO VERA, Gabriel MATO, Juan Ignacio ZOIDO ÁLVAREZ

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6 b (new)

(6 b) The Commission should further assess within 3 months of the final adoption of this Regulation the situation of Ecuador with regard to the criteria set out in this Regulation before the opening of negotiations on bilateral agreement on visa waiver between the Union and that country

2022/10/18
Committee: LIBE

2022/0135(COD)

Javier ZARZALEJOS, Jeroen LENAERS, Dolors MONTSERRAT, Pilar del CASTILLO VERA, Gabriel MATO, Juan Ignacio ZOIDO ÁLVAREZ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)

(a a) in point 1 of Annex I, (“STATES”) the reference to Ecuador is deleted.

2022/10/18
Committee: LIBE

2022/0135(COD)

Javier ZARZALEJOS, Jeroen LENAERS, Dolors MONTSERRAT, Pilar del CASTILLO VERA, Gabriel MATO, Juan Ignacio ZOIDO ÁLVAREZ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(b a) in Annex II, Point 1 (“STATES”), is amended as follows: i) between the references to … and to …., the following reference is inserted : “Ecuador (*)(**)” (*)The exemption from the visa requirement shall apply from the date of entry intoforce of an agreement on visa exemption to be concluded with the EuropeanUnion. (**)The exemption from the visa requirement shall only apply to holders ofbiometric passports issued in line with the standards of the InternationalCivil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).’

2022/10/18
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5

(5) The prospect of obtaining EU long- term resident status in a Member State after a certain time is an imopport~~ant element~~unity for the full integration of beneficiaries of international protection in the Member State of residence. Beneficiaries of international protection should therefore be able to obtain EU long-term resident status in the Member State which granted them international protection, subject to the same conditions as other third-country nationals.

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20

(20) Professional qualifications acquired by a third-country national in another Member State should be recognised in the same way as those of Union citizens. QProfessional qualifications acquired in a third country should be taken into account in accordance with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council35 . This Directive should be without prejudice to the conditions set out under national law for the exercise of regulated professions. _________________ 35 Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 22).

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)

(fa) have a residence permit granted on the basis of any type of investment in a Member State.

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point f b (new)

(fb) have a residence permit because of impediments to the enforcement of a return decision, unless the impediments is beyond the applicant's control.

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall establish appropriate control mechanisms to ensure that the requirement of legal and continuous residence is duly monitored~~, with particular regard to applications submitted by third-country nationals holding and/or having held a residence permit granted on the basis of any kind of investment in a Member State~~.

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3

3. Member States shall allow third- country nationals to cumulate periods of legal residence in different Member States in order to fulfil the requirement concerning the duration of residence, provided that they have accumulated ~~two~~at least three years of legal and continuous residence within the territory of the Member State where the application for EU long-term resident status is submitted immediately prior to the submission of the application. For the purpose of cumulating periods of residence in different Member States, Member States shall not take into account periods of residence as a holder of a residence permit granted on the basis of any kind of investment in another Member State. Periods for which an application is being processed shall only be considered by the Member State that assessed the application.

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1

Any period of residence spent as a holder of a long-stay visa or residence permit issued under Union ~~or national~~ law, including the cases covered in Article 3(2), points (a), (b), (c) and (e), shall be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the period referred to in paragraph 1, where the third- country national concerned has acquired a title of residence which will enable him/her to be granted EU long-term resident status. Any period of residence as a holder of a long-stay visa or residence permit issued under national law shall only be considered by the Member State that granted the long-stay visa or residence permit according to its national law.

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) stable and regular resources ~~, also made available by a third party~~, which are sufficient to maintain himself/herself and the members of his/her family, without recourse to the social assistance system of the Member State concerned. Member States shall evaluate these resources by reference to their nature and regularity and may take into account the level of minimum wages and pensions prior to the application for long-term resident status;

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 4

4. Where Member States issue national residence permits in accordance with Article 14, they shall ~~not~~ require ~~EU long-term resident permit~~the applicants to comply with ~~stricter~~the same resources and integration conditions ~~than~~as those imposed on applicants for ~~such national~~EU long- term residencet permits.

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – title

6 Public policy and ~~public~~internal security

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Member States may refuse to grant EU long-term resident status ~~on grounds of~~where the person concerned constitutes a threat to public policy or ~~public~~internal security.

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

~~When taking the relevant decision, the Member State shall consid~~Member States shall refuse to grant the long-term resident status in cases where the ~~severity or type of offence against~~applicant or his/her family members constitutes a threat to public policy or ~~public~~internal security, ~~or the danger that emanates from~~in consideration of the pser~~son concerned, while also having proper regard to the duration of residence and to the existence of links with the country of residence~~iousness of the offences committed or the danger that emanates from the persons concerned.

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1

1. To acquire EU long-term resident status, the third-country national concerned shall lodge an application with the competent authorities of the Member State in which he/she resides. The application shall be accompanied by documentary evidence to be determined by national law that he/she meets the conditions set out in Articles 4 and 5 as well as~~, if required, by~~ be in possession of a valid travel document ~~or its certified copy~~that confirm his/her identity. .

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Where the documents presented or information provided in support of the application are inadequate or incomplete, the competent authorities shall notify the applicant of the additional documents or information that are required and shall set a rdea~~sonable deadline~~dline of not more than 2 months for presenting or providing them. The period referred to in the first subparagraph shall be suspended until the authorities have received the additional documents or information required. If the additional documents or information required have not been provided within that deadline, the application ~~may~~shall be rejected.

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. The period referred to in Article 7(2) shall be suspended until the authorities have received the reply pursuant to paragraph 5 and 6 of this Article.

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) detection of fraudulent acquisition of EU long-term resident status or through bribery;

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) in the event of absence from the territory of the Union for a period of 124 consecutive months or a total of 18 months within a 24-month period.

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

(ca) in the event of repeated criminal activity in one or more Member States, other than that Member State granting the status of long term residency.

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2

2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, point (c), Member States may provide that absences for specific or exceptional reasons exceeding 124 consecutive months or a total of 18 months within a 24-month period, shall not entail withdrawal or loss of status.

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 3

3. Member States may provide that the EU long-term resident shall no longer be entitled to maintain his/her EU long- term resident status in cases where he/she constitutes a threat to public policy, in consideration of the seriousness of the offences he/she committed~~, but such threat is not a reason for ending his/her legal stay within the meaning of Article 13~~.

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2

In any case after ~~six~~five years of absence from the territory of the Member State that granted EU long-term resident status the person concerned shall no longer be entitled to maintain his/her EU long term resident status in the said Member State.

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 3

By way of derogation from the second subparagraph, the Member State concerned may provide that for specific reasons the EU long-term resident shall maintain his/her status in the said Member State in case of absences for a period exceeding ~~six~~five years.

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 3

~~Member States shall not require third- country nationals who apply for the re- acquisition of the EU long-term resident status to comply with integration conditions.~~deleted

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 2

Where Member States issue national residence permits in accordance with Article 14, they shall ~~not~~ require EU long- term resident applicants to pay ~~higher~~the same fees than those imposed on applicants for national residence permits.

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1

1. Member States may take a decision ending the legal stay of an EU long-term resident solely where he/she constitutes an actual and sufficiently serious threat to public policy or ~~public~~internal security or when he/she has committed a crime where prison is within the range of punishment.

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point a

(a) the duration of residence in their territory and the periods of absence as provided in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 9;

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point d a (new)

(da) where applicable, the seriousness and type of criminal activity or the danger for repetitive criminal activity

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 4

4. ~~By way of derogation from~~In compliance with Article 14(2) of Directive 2003/86/EC, Member States ~~shall not~~may examine the situation of their labour market when they find it relevant.

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point a

(a) stable and regular resources ~~, also made available by a third party~~, which are sufficient to maintain themselves and the members of their families, without recourse to the social assistance of the Member State concerned. For each of the categories referred to in Article 16(2), Member States shall evaluate these resources by reference to their nature and regularity and may take into account the level of minimum wages and pensions;

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – title

19 Public policy and ~~public~~internal security

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

~~When taking the relevant decision, the~~ Member States shall ~~consid~~refuse applications for residence where the ~~severity or type of offence against~~applicant or his/her family members constitutes a threat to public policy or ~~public~~internal security ~~committed by the long- term resident or his/her family member(s),~~, in consideration of the seriousness of the offences committed or the danger that emanates from the persons concerned.

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

~~Member States may provide that the~~ EU long-term residents and their family members who exercise an economic activity in an employed or self-employed capacity shall be obliged to communicate to the competent authorities any change of employer or economic activity. Such requirement shall not affect the right of the persons concerned to take up and carry out the new activity.

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. The obligation to take back shall also apply for such criminal activities as set out in Article 9 c.

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0134(COD)

Lena DÜPONT, Tomas TOBÉ, Sara SKYTTEDAL, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 1

1. Upon application, the second Member State ~~shall~~may grant EU long-term residents the status provided for by Article 7, subject to the provisions of Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6. The second Member State shall notify its decision to the first Member State.

2022/12/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0131(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 33

(33) Member States should ~~also put in place effective mechanisms through which~~ensure in their national legal system that third- country workers may seek legal redress and lodge complaints directly or through third parties having, in accordance with the criteria laid down by the national law, a legitimate interest in ensuring compliance with this Directive~~, such as trade unions or other associations, or competent authorities~~. That is considered necessary to address situations where third- country workers are unaware of the existence of enforcement mechanisms or hesitant to use them in their own name, for example out of fear of possible consequences.

2022/12/09
Committee: LIBE

2022/0131(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Member States shall make easily accessible, and provide upon request, in English:

2022/12/09
Committee: LIBE

2022/0131(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

The right of the single permit holder to pursue such a change of employer may be suspended for a maximum of 30 days while the Member State concerned checks the labour market situation and verifies that the requirements laid down by Union or national law are fulfilled. The time limit may be extended in exceptional circumstances linked to the complexity of the check. The Member State concerned may oppose the change of employment within those 30 days.

2022/12/09
Committee: LIBE

2022/0131(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4

4. Within the period of validity referred to in paragraph 1, the single permit shall not be withdrawn during a period of at least t~~hree~~wo months in the event of unemployment of its holder. Member States shall allow the third-country national to stay in their territory until the competent authorities have taken a decision in accordance with paragraph 3, point (b), as relevant, even if that period of at least three months expired.

2022/12/09
Committee: LIBE

2022/0031(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2

(2) According to Regulation (EU) 2021/953, test certificates are to be issued based on two types of tests for SARS-CoV- 2 infection, namely molecular nucleic acid amplification tests (‘NAAT’), including those using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (‘RT-PCR’), and rapid antigen tests, which rely on detection of viral proteins (antigens) using a lateral flow immunoassay that gives results in less than 30 minutes, provided they are carried out by health professionals or by skilled testing personnel. However, Regulation (EU) 2021/953 does not cover antigenic assays, such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays or automated immunoassays, which test for antigens in a laboratory setting. As of July 2021, the technical working group on COVID-19 diagnostic tests2 , responsible for preparing updates to the common list of COVID-19 rapid antigen tests3 agreed by the Health Security Committee established by Article 17 of Decision No 1082/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council4 , also reviews proposals put forward by Member States and manufacturers for COVID-19 laboratory-based antigenic assays. Those proposals are assessed against the same criteria as those used for rapid antigen tests, and the Health Security Committee has established a list of the laboratory-based antigenic assays that meet those criteria. As a result, and in an effort to enlarge the scope of the different types of diagnostic tests that may be used as the basis for the issuance of an EU Digital COVID Certificate, the definition for rapid antigen tests should be adapted to include laboratory-based antigenic assays. It should thus be possible for Member States to issue test certificates on the basis of the antigen tests included in the EU common list agreed, and regularly updated, by the Health Security Committee as meeting the established quality criteria. The use of antigen tests for the issuance of recovery certificates pursuant to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2564a entails an increased risk for the issuance of recovery certificates for false positive tests. The possibility for Member States to use antigen tests for the issuance of recovery certificates should hence be understood as a possibility when the availability of NAAT tests is scarce due to a high number of infections in the area concerned or another reason. _________________ 2 https://ec.europa.eu/health/health- security-and-infectious-diseases/crisis- management/covid-19-diagnostic-tests_en 3 https://ec.europa.eu/health/system/files/202 2-01/covid-19_rat_common-list_en.pdf 4 Decision No 1082/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on serious cross-border threats to health and repealing Decision No 2119/98/EC (OJ L 293, 5.11.2013, p. 1). 4a Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/256 of 22 February 2022 amending Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the issuance of certificates of recovery based on rapid antigen tests (OJ L 42, 23.2.2022, p. 4).

2022/04/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0031(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7

(7) After a peak in Omicron cases, a high proportion of the population is expected to enjoy, at least for a certain period, protection from COVID-19 either due to vaccination or prior infection, or both. However, it is not possible to predict the impact of a possible increase in infections in the second half of 2022. In addition, the possibility of a worsening of the pandemic situation because of the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern cannot be ruled out. As also noted by ECDC, ~~significant uncertainties remain at this stage of the COVID-19 pandemic~~the European Data Protection Board and the European Data Protection Supervisor, significant uncertainties remain at this stage of the COVID-19 pandemic justifying the extension of the period of application of Regulation (EU) 2021/953.

2022/04/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0031(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12

(12) Given the urgency of the situation related to the COVID-19 pandemic, this Regulation should enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.deleted

2022/04/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0031(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13

(13) The European Data Protection Supervisor and the European Data Protection Board were consulted in accordance with Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 and delivered a joint opinion on ~~XXXX~~14 March 202211, _________________ 11 ~~Reference to be added~~OJ ....

2022/04/08
Committee: LIBE

2022/0031(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a

Regulation (E) No 2016/399
Article 2 – point 12

12. ‘border surveillance’ means the surveillance of borders between crossing points and of border crossing points outside fixed opening hours, including preventative measures to detect and prevent unauthorised border crossings or the circumvention of border checks, as well as actions to provide situational awareness.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

2021/0428(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b

Regulation EU No 216/399
Article 2 – point 27

27. ‘instrumentalisation of migrants’ refers to a situation where a third country or non state actor instigates irregular migratory flows into the Union by actively encouraging or facilitating the movement of third country nationals or stateless persons to the external borders, onto or from within its territory and then onwards to those external borders, where such actions are indicative of an intention of a third country to destabilise the Union or a Member State, where the nature of such actions is liable to put at risk essential State functions, including its territorial integrity, the maintenance of law and order or the safeguard of its national security;

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

5. In a situation of instrumentalisation of migrants, or similar extreme situations, the Member State concerned shall intensify border surveillance as necessary in order to address the increased threat. In particular, the Member State concerned shall enhance, as appropriate, the resources and technical means to prevent an unauthorised crossing of ~~the~~ borders.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

2021/0428(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Regulation (EU) No 2016/399
Article 13 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2

Those technical means may include modern technologies including drones and motion sensors, physical infrastructure as well as mobile units to prevent unauthorised border crossings into the Union.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

2021/0428(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Regulation (EU) 2016/399
Article 5– paragraph 6

6. Without prejudice to the support that the European Border and Coast Guard Agency may provide to the Member States, in the event of a situation of instrumentalisation of migrants or other similar extreme situations, the Agency may carry out a vulnerability assessment as provided for in Articles 10(1), point (c), and Article 32 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and Council57 , with a view to providing the necessary support to the Member State concerned. On the basis of the results of that assessment or any other relevant vulnerability assessment or the attribution of a critical impact level to the border section concerned within the meaning of Article 35(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, the Executive Director of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency shall make recommendations, in accordance with Article 41(1) of that Regulation to any Member State concerned. _________________ 57 Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624, OJ L 295, 14.11.2019.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Tomas TOBÉ, Jörgen WARBORN, Lena DÜPONT, Elissavet VOZEMBERG-VRIONIDI, Juan Ignacio ZOIDO ÁLVAREZ, Karlo RESSLER, Jeroen LENAERS, Gabriel MATO, Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Anna-Michelle ASIMAKOPOULOU, Liudas MAŽYLIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15

Regulation (EU) 2016/399
Article 33 – paragraph 6

6. The Commission shall present to the European Parliament and to the Council, at least annually, a report on the functioning of the area without internal border control entitled (‘State of Schengen report’). The report shall include a list of all decisions to reintroduce border control at internal borders taken during the relevant year. It shall also include information on the trends within the Schengen area as regards the unauthorised movements of third country nationals, taking into account available information from ~~the relevant Union agencies~~competent national authorities of the Member States, the relevant Union agencies, information provided within the framework of the Schengen evaluation and monitoring mechanism, data analysis from relevant information systems and an assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the reintroductions of border controls in the period covered by that report.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

2021/0297(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26

(26) Orderly international migration can bring important benefits to the countries of origin, transit and destination of migrants and contribute to their sustainable development and economic growth needs. Increasing coherence between trade, development and migration policies is key to ensure that the benefits of migration accrue mutually to ~~both~~ the origin, transit and destination countries. In this respect, it is essential for ~~both~~ origin, transit and destination countries to address common challenges, such as, stepping up cooperation on readmission of own nationals and their sustainable reintegration in the country of origin, in particular in order to avoid a constant drain in active population in the countries of origin, with the ensuing long- term consequences on development, and to ensure that migrants are treated with dignity.

2022/02/07
Committee: INTA

2021/0297(COD)

Tomas TOBÉ, Jörgen WARBORN, Lena DÜPONT, Elissavet VOZEMBERG-VRIONIDI, Juan Ignacio ZOIDO ÁLVAREZ, Karlo RESSLER, Jeroen LENAERS, Gabriel MATO, Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Anna-Michelle ASIMAKOPOULOU, Liudas MAŽYLIS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26 a (new)

(26 a) The Union should favour a constructive engagement on all aspects of migration, forced displacement and mobility, working to ensure that migration takes place in a safe and well-regulated manner. It is essential to further step up cooperation on migration with partner countries, built on the more for more principle and using the full application of the NDICI-Global Europe instrument.

2022/02/07
Committee: INTA

2021/0297(COD)

Tomas TOBÉ, Jörgen WARBORN, Lena DÜPONT, Elissavet VOZEMBERG-VRIONIDI, Juan Ignacio ZOIDO ÁLVAREZ, Karlo RESSLER, Jeroen LENAERS, Gabriel MATO, Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Angelika WINZIG, Anna-Michelle ASIMAKOPOULOU, Liudas MAŽYLIS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27

(27) Return, readmission and reintegration are a common challenge for the Union and its partners. ~~In particular~~According to the Court of Auditors less than 1 in 5 actually return to their own countries outside of Europe.1a The effective return of third country nationals who do not have the right to stay is an essential component of a well-functioning Common European Asylum System and for the Schengen Agreement. This requires the Union to cooperate closer with countries of origin and transit to ensure return. In this regard, every State has the obligation to readmit its own nationals under international customary law, and multilateral international conventions such as the Convention on International Civil Aviation signed in Chicago on 7 December 1944. Improving sustainable reintegration and capacity building would significantly strengthen the local development in the partner countries. Shortcomings in third countries related to the readmission of its own nationals need to be prevented to ensure the effective and dignified return of third country nationals who do not have the right to stay in Union. _________________ 1a European Court of Auditors Special Report 17/2021, https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADoc uments/SR21_17/SR_Readmission- cooperation_EN.pdf

2022/02/07
Committee: INTA

2021/0297(COD)

Tomas TOBÉ, Jörgen WARBORN, Lena DÜPONT, Elissavet VOZEMBERG-VRIONIDI, Juan Ignacio ZOIDO ÁLVAREZ, Karlo RESSLER, Jeroen LENAERS, Gabriel MATO, Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Anna-Michelle ASIMAKOPOULOU, Liudas MAŽYLIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) serious shortcomings in customs controls on the export or transit of drugs (illicit substances or precursors)~~, or related to the obligation to readmit the beneficiary country’s own nationals~~ or serious failure to comply with international conventions on antiterrorism or anti-money laundering;

2022/02/07
Committee: INTA

2021/0297(COD)

Tomas TOBÉ, Jörgen WARBORN, Lena DÜPONT, Elissavet VOZEMBERG-VRIONIDI, Juan Ignacio ZOIDO ÁLVAREZ, Karlo RESSLER, Jeroen LENAERS, Gabriel MATO, Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Anna-Michelle ASIMAKOPOULOU, Liudas MAŽYLIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

(c a) shortcomings related to the obligation to readmit the beneficiary country’s own nationals;

2022/02/07
Committee: INTA

2021/0250(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 5 – introductory part

5. Member States shall require that the beneficial ownership information held in the central registers is adequate, accurate ~~and~~, up-to-date, and is at least made available in English. For that purpose, Member State shall apply at least the following requirements:

2022/06/27
Committee: ECON LIBE

2021/0250(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 3

3. Member States shall ensure that, when taking customer due diligence measures in accordance with Chapter III of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation], obliged entities have timely, unrestricted and free of charge access to the information held in the interconnected central registers referred to in Article 10.

2022/06/27
Committee: ECON LIBE

2021/0250(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

2. Member States shall ensure that FIUs provide obliged entities with feedback on the reports of suspected money laundering or terrorist financing. ~~Such~~The FIU will provide feedback on a tactical and as well as on a strategic level. Such tactical feedback shall cover at least the quality of the information provided, the timeliness of reporting, the description of the suspicion and the documentation provided at submission stage.

2022/06/27
Committee: ECON LIBE

2021/0250(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

The FIU shall provide such feedback at least ~~once~~four times per year, whether provided to the individual obliged entity or to groups of obliged entities, taking into consideration the overall number of suspicious transactions reported by the obliged entities.

2022/06/27
Committee: ECON LIBE

2021/0250(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3

FIUs shall provide, at least annually, to all obliged entities within their jurisdiction, strategic feedback about financial intelligence priorities and actual trends in money laundering and terrorist finance. The obligation to provide feedback shall not jeopardise any ongoing analytical work carried out by the FIU or any investigation or administrative action subsequent to the dissemination by the FIU, and shall not affect the applicability of data protection and confidentiality requirements.

2022/06/27
Committee: ECON LIBE

2021/0239(COD)

Caroline NAGTEGAAL, Esther DE LANGE, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14

(14) Directive (EU) 2015/849 set out to mitigate the money laundering and terrorist financing risks posed by large cash payments by including persons trading in goods among obliged entities when they make or receive payments in cash above EUR 10 000, whilst allowing Member States to introduce stricter measures. Such approach has shown to be ineffective in light of the poor understanding and application of AML/CFT requirements, lack of supervision and limited number of suspicious transactions reported to the FIU. In order to adequately mitigate risks deriving from the misuse of large cash sums, a Union-wide limit to large cash transactions above EUR 103 000 should be laid down. As a consequence, persons trading in goods should no longer be subject to AML/CFT obligations.

2022/07/04
Committee: ECON LIBE

2021/0239(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33 a (new)

(33a) The use of electronic money products is increasingly considered to be a substitute for bank accounts which, in addition to the measures laid down in Directive 2009/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council1a, justifies subjecting those products to anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) obligations. However, in certain proven low-risk circumstances and under strict risk- mitigating conditions, Member States should be allowed to exempt electronic money products from certain customer due diligence measures, such as the identification and verification of the customer and of the beneficial owner, but not from the monitoring of transactions or of business relationships. The risk- mitigating conditions should include a requirement that exempt electronic money products be used exclusively for purchasing goods or services and that the amount stored electronically be low enough to preclude circumvention of the AML/CFT rules. Such an exemption should be without prejudice to the discretion given to Member States to allow obliged entities to apply simplified customer due diligence measures to other electronic money products posing lower risks. _________________ 1a Directive 2009/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions amending Directives 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 2000/46/EC (OJ L 267, 10.10.2009, p. 7).

2022/07/04
Committee: ECON LIBE

2021/0239(COD)

Caroline NAGTEGAAL, Esther DE LANGE, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 94

(94) The use of large cash payments is highly vulnerable to money laundering and terrorist financing; this has not been sufficiently mitigated by the requirement for traders in goods to be subject to anti- money laundering rules when making or receiving cash payments of EUR 10 000 or more. At the same time, differences in approaches among Member States have undermined the level playing field within the internal market to the detriment of businesses located in Member States with stricter controls. It is therefore necessary to introduce a Union-wide limit to large cash payments of EUR 103 000. Member States should be able to adopt lower thresholds and further stricter provisions.

2022/07/04
Committee: ECON LIBE

2021/0239(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 a (new)

Article 15a Exemption from the application of customer due diligence 1. By way of derogation from Article 16(1), first subparagraph, points (a), (b) and (c), and Article 19, and based on an appropriate risk assessment which demonstrates a low risk, obliged entities may decide not to apply certain customer due diligence measures with respect to electronic money where all of the following risk-mitigating conditions are met: (a) the payment instrument used to store the electronic money is not reloadable or has a maximum monthly payment transaction limit of EUR 150 which can be used only in that Member State; (b) the maximum amount stored electronically on the payment instrument does not exceed EUR 150; (c) the payment instrument is used exclusively to purchase goods or services; (d) the payment instrument cannot be funded with anonymous electronic money; (e) the issuer carries out sufficient monitoring of the transactions or business relationship to enable the detection of unusual or suspicious transactions. 2. The derogation provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply in the case of redemption in cash or cash withdrawal of the monetary value of the electronic money where the amount redeemed exceeds EUR 50 or, in the case of remote payment transactions as defined in Article 4, point (6), of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a, where the amount paid exceeds EUR 50 per transaction. 3. Credit institutions and financial institutions acting as acquirers shall only accept payments carried out with anonymous prepaid cards issued in third countries where such cards meet requirements equivalent to those set out in paragraphs 1 and 2. 4. Member States may decide not to accept on their territory payments carried out by using anonymous prepaid cards. _________________ 1a Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (OJ L 337, 23.12.2015, p. 35).

2022/07/05
Committee: ECON LIBE

2021/0239(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 4 – point a

(a) the submission of the identity document, passport or equivalent and the acquisition of information from reliable and independent sources, whether accessed directly or provided by the customer. In case of verification of the identity of a private individual, the submission of the identity document, passport or equivalent is sufficient and further acquisition of information is required only in case the submission of the identity document, passport or equivalent is not available;

2022/07/05
Committee: ECON LIBE

2021/0239(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

For the purposes of verifying the information on the beneficial owner(s), obliged entities shall also consult the central registers referred to in Article 10 of Directive [please insert reference – proposal for 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive - COM/2021/423 final] irrespective of the Member State of the central register in which the beneficial ownership information is held, as well as additional information. Obliged entities shall determine the extent of the additional information to be consulted, having regard to the risks posed by the transaction or the business relationship and the beneficial owner.

2022/07/05
Committee: ECON LIBE

2021/0239(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 2 – point a

(a) the approval of the obliged entity’s risk assessment according to Article 8 and of its policies, controls and procedures according to Article 7 of this Regulation;

2022/07/05
Committee: ECON LIBE

2021/0239(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) the ~~internal controls in place pursuant to Article 7;~~responsibility to be in compliance with this regulation

2022/07/05
Committee: ECON LIBE

2021/0239(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 2 – point c

~~(c) the drawing up and approval of the obliged entity’s policies, controls and procedures to comply with the requirements of this Regulation;~~deleted

2022/07/05
Committee: ECON LIBE

2021/0239(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 2 – point d

~~(d) the attribution of a risk profile to a prospective client and the entering into a business relationship with that client;~~deleted

2022/07/05
Committee: ECON LIBE

2021/0239(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 2 – point e

~~(e) the identification of criteria for the detection of suspicious or unusual transactions and activities;~~deleted

2022/07/05
Committee: ECON LIBE

2021/0239(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 2 – point f

~~(f) the reporting of suspicious activities or threshold-based declarations to the FIU pursuant to Article 50.~~deleted

2022/07/05
Committee: ECON LIBE

2021/0239(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 3

3. Where an obliged entity outsources a task pursuant to paragraph 1, it shall ensure that the agent or external service provider applies the measures and procedures adopted by the obliged entity. The conditions for the performance of such tasks shall be laid down in a written agreement between the obliged entity and the outsourced entity. The obliged entity shall perform regular controls to ascertain the effective implementation of such measures and procedures by the outsourced entity. The frequency of such controls shall be determined on the basis of the critical nature of the tasks outsourced. Any subsequent outsourcing of tasks by the agent or external service provider to other agents or external service providers is not allowed.

2022/07/05
Committee: ECON LIBE

2021/0239(COD)

Esther DE LANGE, Luis GARICANO, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

For the purpose of this Article, ‘control through an ownership interest’ shall mean an direct or an indirect ownership of 25% plus one of the shares or voting rights or other ownership interest in the corporate entity, including through bearer shareholdings~~, on every level of ownership~~.

2022/07/05
Committee: ECON LIBE

2021/0239(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 5

5. For obliged entities referred to in Article 3, points (1), (2), (3)(a) and (b), ~~in cases relating to the same customer and the same transaction involving two or more obliged entities, and~~ by way of derogation from paragraph 1, disclosure may take place between thwo or more relevant obliged entities provided that they are located in the Union, or with entities in a third country which imposes requirements equivalent to those laid down in this Regulation, and that they are from the same category of obliged entities and are subject to professional secrecy and personal data protection requirements, in the following cases: a) in cases related to the same customer or ultimate beneficial owner of the customer; b) in cases related to the same transaction, or series of transactions that are related; c) on the same (alleged) network of natural persons related to the same customers, ultimate beneficial owner or transactions.

2022/07/05
Committee: ECON LIBE

2021/0239(COD)

Esther DE LANGE, Luis GARICANO, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 1

1. To the extent that it is strictly necessary for the purposes of preventing money laundering and terrorist financing, obliged entities may process personal data, including special categories of personal data referred to in Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences referred to in Article 10 of that Regulation subject to the safeguards provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3. On the basis of this Regulation only to the extent that it is necessary and proportionate for the purposes of the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing obliged entities may share this data with other obliged entities.

2022/07/05
Committee: ECON LIBE

2021/0239(COD)

Esther DE LANGE, Luis GARICANO, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. For the purpose of transaction monitoring referred to in Article 16, paragraph 1, point d of this Regulation, the processing of personal data referred to in Article 55, paragraph 1 can also be conducted by (legal) entities (“utilities”) consisting of or created by two or more obliged entities.

2022/07/05
Committee: ECON LIBE

2021/0239(COD)

Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Lukas MANDL, Emil RADEV, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 1

1. Persons trading in goods or providing services may accept or make a payment in cash only up to an amount of EUR 103 000 or equivalent amount in national or foreign currency, whether the transaction is carried out in a single operation or in several operations which appear to be linked.

2022/07/05
Committee: ECON LIBE

2021/0136(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6

(6) Regulation (EU) No 2016/67919 applies to the processing of personal data in the implementation of this Regulation. Therefore, this Regulation should lay down specific safeguards to prevent providers of electronic identification means and electronic attestation of attributes from combining personal data from other services with the personal data relating to the services falling within the scope of this Regulation. Data protection by design and by default, as well as data minimisation, as foreseen in Regulation (EU) 2016/679, should be leading principles in the set-up of this European Digital Identity Wallet. _________________ 19 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1

2022/06/13
Committee: LIBE

2021/0136(COD)

Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Lukas MANDL, Emil RADEV, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8

(8) In order to ensure compliance within Union law or national law compliant with Union law, service providers should communicate their intent to rely on the European Digital Identity Wallets to Member States. That will allow Member States to protect users from fraud and prevent the unlawful use of identity data and electronic attestations of attributes as well as to ensure that the processing of sensitive data, like health data, can be verified by relying parties in accordance with Union law or national law. Member States should prevent the unlawful use of identity, and ensure that the relying parties only require data that is strictly necessary for the provision of the service.

2022/06/13
Committee: LIBE

2021/0136(COD)

Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Lukas MANDL, Emil RADEV, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 a (new)

(9 a) The European Digital Identity Wallet should be developed in a manner that ensures a high level of security, including the encryption of content. The Wallet should also allow the user to consult the history of the transactions, export the wallet’s data, restore the access on a different device and block access to the wallet in case of a security breach, allowing for the data suspension, revocation or withdrawal, and offer the possibility to contact support services of the wallet’s issuer.

2022/06/13
Committee: LIBE

2021/0136(COD)

Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Lukas MANDL, Emil RADEV, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 b (new)

(9 b) One of the objectives of the European Digital Identity Wallet should be to improve the possibilities of citizens to make their own choices about what data they share, to minimise the amount of shared data for the service they want to use and to better manage and control the shared data.

2022/06/13
Committee: LIBE

2021/0136(COD)

Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Lukas MANDL, Emil RADEV, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10

(10) In order to achieve a high level of security and trustworthiness, this Regulation establishes the requirements for European Digital Identity Wallets. The conformity of European Digital Identity Wallets with those requirements should be certified by accredited public or private sector bodies designated by Member States. Relying on a certification scheme based on the availability of commonly agreed standards with Member States should ensure a high level of trust ~~and~~, interoperability and data protection. Certification should in particular rely on the relevant European cybersecurity certifications schemes established pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/88120 . Such certification should be without prejudice to certification as regards personal data processing pursuant to Regulation (EC) 2016/679 _________________ 20 Regulation (EU) 2019/881 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on ENISA (the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity) and on information and communications technology cybersecurity certification and repealing Regulation (EU) No 526/2013 (Cybersecurity Act), OJ L 151, 7.6.2019, p. 15

2022/06/13
Committee: LIBE

2021/0136(COD)

Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Lukas MANDL, Emil RADEV, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11

(11) European Digital Identity Wallets should ensure the highest level of security for the personal data used for authentication irrespective of whether such data is stored locally or, on cloud-based solutions or on a combination of both, taking into account the different levels of risk. Using biometrics to authenticate is one of the identifications methods providing a high level of confidence, in particular when used in combination with other elements of authentication. Nevertheless, it should not be a precondition for using the European Digital Identity Wallet. Since biometrics represents a unique characteristic of a person, the use of biometrics requires organisational and security measures, commensurate to the risk that such processing may entail to the rights and freedoms of natural persons and in accordance with Regulation 2016/679. Storing information from the European Digital Identity Wallet in the cloud, including biometric data, has to be an optional feature only active after the user has given explicit consent and should be revocable at all times. Personal data used for authentication should always be encrypted, regardless of whether they are stored locally or on cloud-based solutions.

2022/06/13
Committee: LIBE

2021/0136(COD)

Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Lukas MANDL, Emil RADEV, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17

(17) Service providers use the identity data provided by the set of person identification data available from electronic identification schemes pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 in order to match users from another Member State with the legal identity of that user. However, despite the use of the eIDAS data set, in many cases ensuring an accurate match requires additional information about the user and specific unique identification procedures at national level. To further support the usability of electronic identification means, this Regulation should require Member States to take specific measures to ensure a correct and targeted identity match in the process of electronic identification. For the same purpose, this Regulation should also extend the mandatory minimum data set and require the use of a unique and persistent electronic identifier in conformity with Union law in those cases where it is necessary to legally identify the user upon his/her request in a unique and persistent way. Such process should be driven by the data minimisation principle.

2022/06/13
Committee: LIBE

2021/0136(COD)

Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Lukas MANDL, Emil RADEV, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25

(25) In the European single market, citizens need to have the opportunity to exchange information about their identity across borders. However, in most cases, citizens and other residents cannot digitally exchange, across borders, information related to their identity, such as addresses, age and professional qualifications, driving licenses and other permits and payment data, securely and with a high level of data protection. This may result in the fact that they are transferring this data in a less secure and disorganised manner.

2022/06/13
Committee: LIBE

2021/0136(COD)

Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Lukas MANDL, Emil RADEV, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28 a (new)

(28 a) Unless specific rules of Union law or national law require users to identify themselves for legal purposes, the use of services anonymously or under a pseudonym should be allowed and should not be restricted by Member States, for example by imposing a general obligation on service providers to limit the pseudonymous or anonymous use of their services.

2022/06/13
Committee: LIBE

2021/0136(COD)

Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Lukas MANDL, Emil RADEV, Jeroen LENAERS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29

(29) The possibility for users to disclose their data in a selective way, so that the user can decide to share only the minimum amount of data really needed to make use of the service, must become one of the key features and advantages of the European Digital Identity Wallet. The European Digital Identity Wallet should, therefore, technically enable the selective disclosure of attributes to relying parties in a secure and user-friendly manner. This feature should become a basic design feature thereby reinforcing convenience and personal data protection including minimisation of processing of personal data. The European Digital Wallet should prevent the tracking of the user and respect the principle of purpose limitation, which implies a right to pseudonymity to ensure the user cannot be linked across several relying parties.

2022/06/13
Committee: LIBE