21 Amendments of Cornelia ERNST related to 2018/2061(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
Citation 8 a (new)
- having regard to the agreement reached by the EU Parliament and the Council on the adoption of a Regulation on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC, and in particular to its Chapter on the processing of operational personal data which applies to Union bodies, offices or agencies when carrying out activities which fall within the scope of Chapter 4 and 5 of the Title V of Part Three of the TFEU;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 10 a (new)
Citation 10 a (new)
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
C a. Whereas in the last years several violations of human rights in the Republic of Turkey have been exposed. In particular, dissent has been ruthlessly suppressed, with journalists, political activists and human rights defenders among those targeted; instances of torture continued to be reported also after the coup attempt of July 2016; any effective investigation of human rights violations by state officials was prevented by pervasive impunity, and abuses by armed groups continued;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas Europol has already set up multiple agreements on data exchange with third countries in the past, such as Albania, Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Colombia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Ukraine, United States of America;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
D a. whereas Europol has set up multiple operational agreements with third organisations including with the then called European Operational Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) – now European Border Guard and Coast Guard Agency -in December 2015 providing for in its Article 9 for the transfer of personal data by Frontex to Europol in the case of persons suspected, on reasonable grounds, by the competent authorities of the Member States of involvement in cross-border crime activities as referred to in Article 3(1) of the agreement;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
D b. whereas the European Border Guard and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) is prohibited to transmit any personal data to third countries pursuant to article 45(4) of Regulation 2016/1624 without prejudice to Article 48 of this Regulation;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the necessity of the cooperation with the Republic of Turkey in the field of law enforcement may be necessary for the European Union’s security interests but, as well as its proportionality, need to be properly assessed; in this regard, calls on the Commission to conduct a thorough impact assessment; highlights that due caution is needed while defining the negotiating mandate for an agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Turkey on the exchange of personal data between the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and the Turkish competent authorities for fighting serious crime and terrorism;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that full consistency with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, as well as other fundamental rights and freedoms protected by the Charter, should be ensured in the receiving third countries; calls, in this regard, on the Council to complete the negotiating guidelines proposed by the Commission with the conditions set out in this resolution;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Considers that there are major concerns as to the respect of fundamental rights in the Republic of Turkey, in particular as regards the freedom of expression, the freedom of religion, and the right not to be subject to torture or inhumane treatment, as enshrined in the Charter and in the European Convention on Human Rights.
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Insists that the level of protection resulting from the agreement should be essentially equivalent to the level of protection in EU law both in law and in practice;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that the categorieslist of offences for which personal data will be exchanged need to be clearly defined and listincluded in the international agreement itself; this list should includedefine in a clear and precise manner the activities covered by such crimes, and the persons, groups and organisations likely to be affected by the transfer;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Urges the Council and the Commission to define, pursuant to Court of Justice (CJEU) case-law and within the meaning of Article 8(3) of the Charter, with the Government of the Republic of Turkey, which independent supervisory authority is to be in charge of supervising the implementation of the international agreement; is of the opinionurges that such an authority ishould be agreed and established before the international agreement can enter into force; insists that the name of this authority and the contact details be expressly included in the agreement;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Considers of utmost importance that the independent supervisory body ishould also be competent to decide to suspend or terminate the agreement in the event of a breach of the agreement; considers that any personal data falling within the scope of the agreement transferred prior to its suspension or termination may continue to be processed in accordance with the agreement;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13 a. Is of the opinion that a clear definition of the concept of reasonable grounds is needed as this concept is needed to assess the necessity and proportionality of data transfers; highlights that this definition should only refer to actual criminal investigations and not to criminal intelligence operations targeting specific individuals considered as suspects;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Insists on the need to expressly indicate that onward transfers of information from the competent authorities of the Republic of Turkey to other authorities in the Republic of Turkey can only be allowed to fulfil the original purpose of the transfer by Europol and should always be communicated tosubject to prior authorization by the independent authority, the EDPS and Europol;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Considers that the international agreement with the Republic of Turkey should include data subjects’ right to information, rectification and erasure as provided for in other Union legislation on data protection;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Points out that the transfer of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade-union membership, genetic data or data concerning a person’s health and sex life is extremely sensitive and gives rise to profound concerns given the different legal framework, societal characteristics and cultural background of the Republic of Turkey compared with the European Union; highlights the fact that criminal acts are defined differently in the Union from in the Republic of Turkey; is of the opinion that such a transfer of data should therefore only take place in very exceptional cases, and only if there is a precise and particularly solid justification based on grounds other than the protection of public security against terrorism, and with clear safeguards for the data subject and persons linked to the data subject; Considers it necessary to impose safeguards on the Republic of Turkey as regards respect for freedom of expression, freedom of religion, human dignity and so forth;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. Calls the Council and the Commission to refrain from starting any negotiations with the Republic of Turkey until the impact assessment referred to in points 1 and 3 demonstrates: (a) the necessity and proportionality of an international agreement with that country, (b) that the level of data protection resulting from these agreements is essentially equivalent to the level of protection provided by EU law, in particular with regard to the purpose limitation principle, the right of access, the right to rectification and the control by an independent authority, (c) that the Republic of Turkey provides for adequate safeguards as regards the protection of fundamental rights and freedom protected by the Charter, particularly the freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and human dignity;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18 b. Stresses that the European Parliament will give its consent to the conclusion of the agreement only if such an agreement does not pose risks for the rights to privacy and data protection, nor for other fundamental rights and freedoms protected by the Charter; in this regard, pursuant to Article 218 Paragraph 11 TFEU, the European Parliament will request an opinion of the Court of Justice as to whether the envisaged agreement is compatible with the Treaties;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 c (new)
Paragraph 18 c (new)
18 c. Requests that, in order to be fully in line with the above-mentioned Regulation 2016/794, and in particular pursuant to article 51(1) of the said Regulation, no negotiation is undertaken before the Rules of Procedures of the Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny group (JPSG) are approved and in effect;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 d (new)
Paragraph 18 d (new)
18 d. Insists that the Agreement shall provide for an effective dispute settlement mechanism with respect to its interpretation and the full, effective and non-discriminatory implementation of the provisions of the Agreement towards all MS, so as to ensure that the parties apply mutually agreed rules. The Agreement should provide the possibility of unilateral partial or full suspension of the Agreement in the event of infringement of its provisions, including the suspension of the Agreement, in case of violation of the provision of full and effective implementation of the Agreement to all Member States.