274 Amendments of Michèle STRIFFLER
Amendment 49 #
2014/2004(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Underlines that humanitarian aid operations usually involve quick or even upfront payment of bills and that therefore differences between commitment and payment appropriations in the budget should be minimal for humanitarian aid budget lines; expresses concern that the high levels of RALs and continued gaps between commitment and payment appropriations may undermine the EU's capacity to respond reliably to humanitarian crises and seriously jeopardize the work of emergency aid organisations, ultimately affecting people in need of quick and effective aid;
Amendment 52 #
2014/2004(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Insists on the use of all means available under the MFF Regulation, including recourse to the contingency margin and/or revision of the payment ceiling, in order to meet the Union’s legal obligations and so as not to jeopardise or delay payments to all stakeholders, such as researchers, universities, humanitarian aid organisations etc., and at the same time to decrease the amount of the outstanding year-end payments;
Amendment 4 #
2013/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7
Citation 7
having regard to the Commission Green Paper of 10 November 2010 on ‘EU development policy in support of inclusive growth and sustainable development: Communication of 13 October 2011 entitled ‘Increasing the impact of EU dDevelopment pPolicy’: An agenda for change' (COM(20101)062937 final),
Amendment 5 #
2013/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)
Citation 7 a (new)
– having regard to the Commission communication of 27 February 2013 entitled ‘A decent life for all: Ending poverty and giving the world a sustainable future’ (COM(2013)92 final),
Amendment 6 #
2013/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 b (new)
Citation 7 b (new)
– having regard to the Declaration on ‘Urbanisation Challenges and Poverty Reduction in ACP States’ adopted in Nairobi, Kenya, in 2009,
Amendment 7 #
2013/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
Citation 8 a (new)
– having regard to the Declaration ‘Making Slums History: a worldwide challenge for 2020’ adopted at the international conference held in Rabat, Morocco, from 26 to 28 November 2012,
Amendment 8 #
2013/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 b (new)
Citation 8 b (new)
– having regard to the Declaration on ‘Sustainable Urbanisation as Response to Urban Poverty Eradication’ adopted at the 2nd Tripartite ACP/European Commission/UN-Habitat Conference held in Kigali, Rwanda, from 3 to 6 September 2013,
Amendment 13 #
2013/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas property rights can be defined as the rules that regulate the terms by which individual stakeholders, communities, public and private actors acquire and maintain access to tangible and intangible assetsuse and dispose of property collectively or individually through formalcommon law or customary provisions;
Amendment 18 #
2013/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas efforts to achieve MDG7 (Target 11), which is aimed aTarget 7D of the Millennium Development Goals, namely ‘to achieve by 2020 a significant improvement ing the lives of 100 million slum inhabitants by 2020, is drastically behat least one hundred million slum dwellers’ – and indeed more than twice this target – has already been attained schedule;and whereas the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) estimates that as many as one billion peopleproportion of people in the developing world liveing in slums, and it is thought that an estimated three billion people will reside in slums by 2050 fell from 39% in 2000 to 33% in 2010; whereas nonetheless, despite the progress made, the number of slum-dwellers continues to grow in most developing countries;
Amendment 23 #
2013/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas land governance issues are correlated with the key challenges of the 21st century -, namely food security, energy scarcity, water shortages, urban and population growth, environmental degradation, climate change, natural disasters and state fragility – can all be correlated with land governance issuesconflict resolution, reinforcing the need to prioritise comprehensive land reform;
Amendment 34 #
2013/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1
Subheading 1
Property rights and wealth creationto eradicate poverty and promote sustainable development
Amendment 36 #
2013/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers recognised and registered property rights to be a catalyst for economic growth, enhancing productivity and investment through access to capital and low-cost credit by using land as collateral, and boosting commercial values through adequate registration of land holdings and SMEsbut can also promote social cohesion and peace;
Amendment 46 #
2013/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Strongly condemns the practice of land grabbing, which, in particular, illegally dispossesses the rural poor of land without adequate compensation; highlights the fact that 203 million hectares worldwide have been part of large-scale land deals of this kind between 2000 and 20103; __________________ 3 http://www.landmatrix.org/get-the- idea/global-map-investments.
Amendment 57 #
2013/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2
Subheading 2
Steps to formalsecured property rights and sustainable land governance in the developing world
Amendment 67 #
2013/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Emphasises that land tenure reform should begin with accurate land data collection and with systematic titling by means of cadastral mapping using low-cost technologies; congratulates Rwanda on the progress it has made with regard to land data, which has made it possible to register all land in the country within a remarkably short period;
Amendment 74 #
2013/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls for the EU to promotehelp developing countries to implement their land reforms in developing countries, withorder, in particular, to promote the participation of all stakeholders, and in concert with awareness programs, so that the rights of all parties involved, especially the poor and vulnerable, are fully respected;
Amendment 90 #
2013/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 30 #
2013/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Member States should have the possibility to impose a short term of imprisonment or to refrain from imprisonment in cases where the total potential or nominal value of the counterfeited notes and coins is not significant or does not involve particularly serious circumstances. That value should be below EUR 5 000, that is to say ten times the highest denomination of the euro, for cases calling for a penalty other than imprisonment, and below EUR 10 000 for cases calling for imprisonment for a shorter term than six months.
Amendment 43 #
2013/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. For offences referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 3(1) involving notes and coins of a total nominal value of less than EUR 5 000 and not involving particularly serious circumstances, Member States may provide for a penalty other than imprisonment.
Amendment 44 #
2013/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Amendment 49 #
2013/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. Offences referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 3(1) involving notes and coins of a total nominal value of at least EUR 10 000 or involving particularly serious circumstances shall be punishable by
Amendment 51 #
2013/0023(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. In enforcing and executing sentences for the criminal offences provided for in this Directive, Member States shall apply the general rules and principles of national criminal law in accordance with the specific circumstances of each case.
Amendment 5 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4
Citation 4
Amendment 6 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6
Citation 6
Amendment 10 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph A
Paragraph A
A. whereas certain petitions have been deposited requesting that the establishment of the European Parliament in more than one place be discontinued; either that the European Parliament should no longer have its seat in Strasbourg or that Parliament’s seat should continue to be located in Strasbourg in accordance with Protocol No 6 annexed to the Treaty on European Union;
Amendment 11 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 10
Citation 10
Amendment 12 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph A – point 1 (new)
Paragraph A – point 1 (new)
(1) whereas, on the basis of Article 341 TFEU, the Protocol on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union forms an integral part of the Treaties and thus of EU primary law, having been ratified, as part of the Treaty of Amsterdam, by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional rules;
Amendment 13 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph A – point 2 (new)
Paragraph A – point 2 (new)
(2) having regard to the ruling handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union on 13 December 2012 in joined Cases C-237/11 and C-238/11 opposing France and Parliament, which annuls Parliament’s decision of 9 March 2011;
Amendment 14 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph A a (new)
Paragraph A a (new)
Aa. whereas the European Parliament has had its seat in Strasbourg since 1952, a situation confirmed by the Edinburgh European Council in 1992 and by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997, and not altered by the Lisbon Treaty;
Amendment 15 #
Amendment 16 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph A b (new)
Paragraph A b (new)
Ab. whereas the real annual cost of retaining the Strasbourg seat in 2010 was EUR 51.5 million, i.e. 0.04 % of the annual budget of the European Union or 10 cents per citizen per year;
Amendment 17 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph A b (new)
Paragraph A b (new)
Ab. having regard to the requirements set out in the Treaty, which, following the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997, has formally laid down for Parliament an arrangement involving a seat in Strasbourg and two other sites in Brussels and Luxembourg;
Amendment 18 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph A c (new)
Paragraph A c (new)
Ac. whereas the gross cost of holding plenary sessions in Strasbourg is EUR 7 445 000 per part-session, and whereas 80 % of these costs are fixed and would be incurred irrespective of where a given part-session is held (equipment, publications, translation, etc.);
Amendment 19 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph A c (new)
Paragraph A c (new)
Ac. whereas the seats of some European institutions were chosen on account of their symbolic significance, one such example being Strasbourg, the city which symbolises the process of Franco-German reconciliation which is at the root of the European peace project;
Amendment 20 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph A d (new)
Paragraph A d (new)
Ad. whereas mobility is an intrinsic aspect of the work of an MEP, requiring at least a large number of journeys between the European Parliament, the MEP’s Member State of origin and the constituency in which the MEP was elected;
Amendment 21 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph A d (new)
Paragraph A d (new)
Ad. whereas, in accordance with the sole article of Protocol No 6 annexed to the TFEU, the European Parliament has its seat in Strasbourg, the Council has its seat in Brussels, the Commission has its seat in Brussels, the Court of Justice of the European Union has its seat in Luxembourg, the Court of Auditors has its seat in Luxembourg, the Economic and Social Committee has its seat in Brussels, the Committee of the Regions has its seat in Brussels, the European Investment Bank has its seat in Luxembourg, the European Central Bank has its seat in Frankfurt and the European Police Office (Europol) has its seat in The Hague;
Amendment 22 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph A e (new)
Paragraph A e (new)
Ae. having regard to Parliament’s Environmental Statement for 2010, issued in May 2011, and in particular pages 68 to 70;
Amendment 23 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the protocols on the seats of the institutions are governed by mutual respect for the respective powers of the Member States and of Parliament;
Amendment 24 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph A g (new)
Paragraph A g (new)
Ag. having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 13 December 2012 in Cases C-237/11 and C-238/11;
Amendment 26 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph B
Paragraph B
B. whereas one of these petitions (0630/2006) does not bears the signatures of more than one million citizens of the EU; one million signatures required for compliance with Rule 201(2) (Rule 191(2) when the petition was deposited) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, and whereas, moreover, its originators are MEPs seeking to circumvent the Treaties;
Amendment 30 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas Article 232 TFEU allowrequires Parliament to adopt its own rules of procedure and to determine the length of plenary sessionby a majority of its Members;
Amendment 32 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph B c (new)
Paragraph B c (new)
Bc. whereas the city of Strasbourg is associated in people’s minds with the European Parliament, and whereas the seating capacity for visitors is much greater in the Strasbourg than in the Brussels Chamber, which represents an asset for the seat of European democracy;
Amendment 34 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the ECJ has stated that the location of the seat is not to hinder the well-functioning of Parliament; whereas it has further stated that there are disadvantages and costs engendered by the plurality of working locations, but also that any improvement of the current situation requires a Treaty change and, thus, the consent ofresponsibility for remedying this lies neither with Parliament nor with the Court, but, rather, by exercising their exclusive power to determine the seats of the institutions, with the Member States;
Amendment 36 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas on two occasions, in 1997 and 2012, the Court of Justice of the European Union pointed out that the fact that Parliament’s seat is in Strasbourg is determined by the TFEU; whereas it has also confirmed Protocol No 6 in clarifying the conditions for the application thereof; whereas it has fully acknowledged the power of Parliament to determine its own internal organisational arrangements, since Parliament may adopt appropriate measures to ensure its proper functioning and proper conduct of its proceedings, but the question of determining its seat does not come within that remit;
Amendment 37 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas Parliament has undergone a complete transformation, from a consultative body with 78 seconded members that – mostly for practical reasons – shared its facilities with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, into a fully fledged, directly elected Parliament with 754 members thatcomprises 754 Members elected by direct universal suffrage and is today co-legislator on equal terms with the Council;
Amendment 38 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas Strasbourg has been the meeting place of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe since 1949 and then, from 1952, played host to the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community;
Amendment 39 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)
Recital E b (new)
Eb. whereas the seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg was confirmed by the Edinburgh European Council in 1992 and the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 and then incorporated in the Lisbon Treaty in 2009;
Amendment 40 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas this is most clearly illustrated by the growth of its legislative capacity, as reflec is illustrated inby the increase in the number of co-decision procedures (now ordinary legislative procedures) from 165 in 1993- 1999 to 454 in 2004-2009, to an even greater number in the current legislature;
Amendment 42 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the increase in legislative activity and responsibility is reflected in the fact that the number of statutory staff in Brussels increased by 377 % (from 1 180 to 5 635 staff members) from 1993 to 2013, by far exceeding the 48 % increase in the number of MEPs in the same periodincrease in staff at Parliament’s three places of work;
Amendment 42 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph C
Paragraph C
C. whereas since 2006 attempts by the Petitions Committee to consider this issue on a parliamentary level have repeatedly been obstructnot yet succeeded despite the widespread interest in the issue amongst MEPs;
Amendment 43 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the structure of Parliament’s calendar (fixed during the Edinburgh Summit in 1992) predates all changes to its rolehas not been called into question, since it was confirmed in Protocol No 6 annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon, and the increase in Parliament’s powers arising from the adoption of the Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon has therefore been taken into account;
Amendment 43 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph C – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph C – subparagraph 1 (new)
whereas it appreciates that some Members of the European Parliament have difficulties of access to certain institutions or agencies because of certain problems in road, rail or air services, but does not consider that this should be the subject of a report or petition, in view of the difficulties encountered in everyday life by many fellow citizens, which would give the impression that Members of the European Parliament are out of touch with the realities facing the people of Europe;
Amendment 46 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. whereas all the countries which have joined the European Union have ratified Protocol No 6;
Amendment 47 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
Amendment 49 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas the fact of geographical distance between the official seats of the co- legislative bodies – 435 km – isolates Parliament not only fromreflects the multi- centre principle with regard to the seats of the European institutions and, during part-sessions, the attention of the Council and the Commission, but also ofrom other stakeholders, such as NGOs, civil society organisations and Member State representations, and ofrom one of the world’s largest international journalistic communities, is fully focused on the work of Parliament;
Amendment 49 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph C a (new)
Paragraph C a (new)
Ca. whereas petitions are not an instrument for evading the Treaties but an instrument for use by European citizens to improve EU legislation which creates obstacles in their everyday life or to provide them with assistance so as to support them if their rights as citizens are disregarded;
Amendment 51 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
Amendment 53 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph C b (new)
Paragraph C b (new)
Cb. whereas the concept of mobility is inherent in the work of Members of the European Parliament to enable them to come closer to European citizens, whereas the Committee on Petitions regularly invites petitioners to comment on their petitions by inviting them to the European Parliament in Brussels and whereas this work of contact with citizens should not be confined to one direction;
Amendment 56 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph C c (new)
Paragraph C c (new)
Cc. whereas, if a debate is initiated concerning the seat of the European Parliament, it will inevitably lead to discussion of the distribution of the seats of the European Institutions, which is laid down in the Treaty, and whereas the budgetary discharges of the European agencies could be affected by it;
Amendment 59 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M – footnote 5
Recital M – footnote 5
Amendment 64 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
Amendment 66 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the decision by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to draw up a report on the location of the seats of the European Union’s institutions, bearing in mind that the adoption of such a report lies outside the remit of the European Parliament, as the Treaties do not provide for it;
Amendment 68 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
Amendment 69 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Considers that the only possible way of amending the ‘Protocol on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies and departments of the European Communities and of Europol’ is by means of a Treaty revision pursuant to Article 48 TEU, which requires an initiative by a Member State or the European Commission;
Amendment 70 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recalls that only the Member States have the power to amend the Treaties, the substance of which is binding on the Institutions and their members, and that a vote on this subject can only be carried unanimously;
Amendment 71 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Considers, however, that it is time to stop the polemics concerning the cost of the Strasbourg seat; calls therefore for the figures provided by official sources within the European Parliament to be quoted clearly in the annexes to the own- initiative report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, including pages 68-70 of the Environmental Declaration of the European Parliament of May 2011 concerning the ‘environmental impact of the Strasbourg seat’ and page 40 of the document of the European Parliament’s Secretariat entitled ‘REPLIES AND FOLLOW-UP TO THE DISCHARGE FOR 2010’ on the annual cost of the Strasbourg seat;
Amendment 72 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas Parliament, since its suggestion in 1958 to be sited in proximity to the Council and the Commission, has via numerous reports, declarations and statements alwaysoften expressed its wish for a more practical and efficient working arrangement;
Amendment 72 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Recalls that, on this basis, twelve monthly plenary part-sessions, including the budgetary part-session, must be held at the Strasbourg seat, while additional part-sessions are held in Brussels;
Amendment 73 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Does not considers that a majority exists within the Council in favour of altering the seat of any European Institution, bearing in mind that this would send an undesirable message to citizens, which would be interpreted as expressing a desire on the part of the Member States to make the European Union’s decision-making bodies more remote from the European citizen;
Amendment 74 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Recital Q
Amendment 74 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Stresses that the additional part- sessions entail a substantial additional cost, which could be reduced by extending ordinary part-sessions in Strasbourg;
Amendment 75 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Notes the intention of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to draw up a report which will make it possible to recall that the European Parliament has its seat in Strasbourg;
Amendment 76 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Recalls that European Citizens’ Initiatives (ECIs) have the purpose of securing the adoption of a legal act of the Union which does not amend primary law, whereas any call for amendment of the ‘Protocol on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies and departments of the European Union’ would entail amendment of a primary legal act, which is not compatible with the regulation;
Amendment 79 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 86 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 89 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Agrees with the principle that the European Parliament would be more effective, cost-efficient andConsiders efficiency, cost-effectiveness and the principle of respectful of for the environment if it were located in a single place; and notes that the continuation of the monthly migration between Brussels andnot to be connected with the place in which Parliament sits, but with its needs; points out that according to figures from the European Parliament’s services, the annual cost of Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg hwas become a symbolic negative issue amongst most EU citizens which is detrimental to Parliament’s reputationEUR 51.5 million in 2010, or 0.04% of the annual EU budget, which represents a cost of 10 cents per EU citizen per year, and hence considers the arguments on Parliament’s cost to be exaggerated;
Amendment 90 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
emphasises that the gross cost of holding part-sessions in Strasbourg is EUR 7 445 000 per part-session, and that 80% of these costs are fixed and would be incurred irrespective of where the part-session is held, be they for equipment, publications or translation, etc.;
Amendment 92 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Emphasises the environmental example set by the European Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg, which reduced its CO2 emissions by 57% between 2006 and 2010 by taking special measures, meaning that these now represent 3.6% of all Parliament’s CO2 emissions;
Amendment 94 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Respects the historical reasons for the location of its plenary sessions in Strasbourg and the Treaty requirements that necessitate the system of a single seat and three places of work;
Amendment 94 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Considers it inappropriate in the European Year of Citizens to show these selfsame European citizens that the idea is to distance them from EU institution decision-making centres, and also believes that prevailing Euroscepticism would use this is a reason to criticise an over-concentration of decision-making bodies in one set place;
Amendment 95 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Emphasises that European integration necessarily entails mobility and that this applies to all national and European political representatives and officials, and that mobility is an intrinsic aspect of the work of MEPs, as representatives of the citizens of the European Union;
Amendment 95 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Considers that deciding the seats of EU institutions lies outside the remit of the European Parliament; points out that the ECB in Frankfurt is building new premises for itself, that the Council in Brussels will soon have new buildings, and that investments have been made in the European Parliament in Strasbourg in recent years to make it a parliament worthy of the centre of European democracy;
Amendment 96 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Considers that decentralisation of the legislative authority away from Brussels strengthens its independence;
Amendment 96 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Points to the economic and social importance of the European Parliament for the Strasbourg region;
Amendment 97 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Considers that the choice of the EU institutions’ seats has always been guided by a desire to bring the Union as close to ordinary people as possible and not to concentrate it in one place;
Amendment 97 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Points to the tradition of geographical diversity in the siting of EU institutions;
Amendment 98 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Emphasises that almost 95% of the EU budget is intended for investment and hence for the public, adding that the European Union, with such a small and deficit-less operating budget for 500 million inhabitants, stands as an example in these times of crisis;
Amendment 99 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2d. Stresses that concentrating EU powers in the city of Brussels would adversely effect the way the European public views the EU;
Amendment 100 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2d. Points to the environmental example set by the European Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg, which reduced its own CO2 emissions by 57% between 2006 and 2010, meaning that these now represent 3.6% of all Parliament’s CO2 emissions;
Amendment 101 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 101 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 e (new)
Paragraph 2 e (new)
2e. Emphasises that Strasbourg has come to be viewed by the public as the European capital of democracy and human rights owing to the institutions that are based there, among them the European Parliament;
Amendment 102 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 e (new)
Paragraph 2 e (new)
2e. Adds that the carbon footprint for travel for committee, political group and delegation meetings, which increased by 23.8% between 2006 and 2010, is significantly larger (6 350 tonnes of CO2 in 2010) than that for Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg (4 199 tonnes of CO2 en 2010);
Amendment 103 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 f (new)
Paragraph 2 f (new)
2f. Emphasises that the public associates the city of Brussels with the European Commission, while the city of Strasbourg continues to be associated with the European Parliament;
Amendment 104 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 f (new)
Paragraph 2 f (new)
2f. Considers that the success of the open days held every year at the European Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg, the 100 000 visitors each year outside part-sessions and the 10 000 students from the Euroscola Programme indicate that the European public have in no way rejected the seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg;
Amendment 105 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 g (new)
Paragraph 2 g (new)
2g. Expresses concern at the steady increase (+23.8% between 2006 and 2010) in the number of committee, political group and delegation meetings held outside the European Parliament’s places of work;
Amendment 106 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Emphasises that the Committee’s report was prepared under the ordinary own-initiative procedure and there is thus no obligation to implement the proposals, and further that the matter of the EU institutions’ seats is governed directly by the Treaties and is therefore subject to the political will of the Member States acting unanimously;
Amendment 106 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 g (new)
Paragraph 2 g (new)
2g. Points out that holding part-sessions in Brussels rather than Strasbourg would result in a saving of EUR 1.5 million, as is specified in paragraph 28 - ‘Costs of using Strasbourg as the seat of the EP’ of the document drawn up by Parliament’s Secretariat entitled ‘Replies and Follow-up to the Discharge for 2010’;
Amendment 107 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Recalls that the Court of Justice of the EU has held that Parliament, during the proceedings before the Court, did not adduce reasons based on the exercise of its power of internal organisation sufficient to show – despite the continuous increase in its powers – that it had the power to alter the timetable of part-sessions; stresses, therefore, that the European Parliament likewise does not now have the power to decide where its seat should be;
Amendment 107 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 h (new)
Paragraph 2 h (new)
2h. Notes that the carbon footprint for travel in connection with these meetings was 6 350 tonnes of CO2 en 2010, while for the seat in Strasbourg it was 4 199 tonnes that year;
Amendment 108 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 i (new)
Paragraph 2 i (new)
2i. Notes that economic and environmental costs could be rationalised by limiting the number of meetings held outside the European Parliament’s official places of work;
Amendment 118 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Points out that this own-initiative report must not be used as a means of disregarding the EU Treaties, which provide that the seat of the European Parliament shall be in Strasbourg and that 12 part-sessions per year shall be held there;
Amendment 120 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Observes that, if a debate were initiated concerning the seat of the European Parliament, it would inevitably lead to discussion of the distribution of all the seats of the European Institutions, which is laid down in the Treaty;
Amendment 120 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Respects the historic reasons for the location of its plenary sessions in Strasbourg and the Treaty requirements that necessitate the two-seat system; nevertheless insists that such an arrangement cannot continue in perpetuity and that Parliament itself must be able to state a preference for its future;
Amendment 122 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Respects the historic and symbolic reasons for the location of its plenary sessions in Strasbourg and the Treaty requirements that necessitateestablish the two-seat system; nevertheless insists that such of the European Parrangement cannot continue in perpetuity and that Parliament itself must be able to state a preference for its futureliament as being in Strasbourg and stipulate that the European Parliament must hold its twelve monthly plenary sessions there, as the ECJ confirmed in its judgment of 13 December 2012;
Amendment 124 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 3 – point 1 (new)
(1) Adds that all new European agencies and institutions should be created in the new Member States;
Amendment 126 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Points out that Croatia, as the 28th Member State of the Union as of 1 July 2013, is bound to seek the siting of a future EU agency or institution on its territory;
Amendment 130 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Underscores the symbolic and historical importance of the European Parliament’s location in Strasbourg as part of the process of European reconciliation;
Amendment 132 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Points out that Parliament’s initiatives on determining for itself the matter of its seat – which is in Strasbourg – were set aside by the Court of Justice in its ruling of 13 December 2012 and that, therefore, any action on Parliament’s part to establish the seats of the EU institutions is in breach of the very Treaties which it sees itself as defending in its capacity as the democratic voice of Europe’s citizens;
Amendment 134 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Recognises the educational and civic value of Parliament’s Strasbourg seat, which attracts 100 000 visitors a year outside part-session periods, as well as 10 000 students on the Euroscola programme;
Amendment 137 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Points out that the European Union has developed in a polycentric way, with the EU institutions and agencies located, insofar as possible, throughout all the Member States, so as to bring decision making closer to the people and avoid an unwelcome concentration of power;
Amendment 138 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Recognises that efforts are needed to improve working conditions during ordinary part-sessions in Strasbourg;
Amendment 140 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Points out that it is fundamentally important to Europe’s citizens that decisions are taken in more than one place;
Amendment 145 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 146 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 154 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 4 – point 1 (new)
(1) Considers that the so-called petition No 0630/2006 is not in fact a petition because it does not meet the criteria for admissibility of petitions to Parliament under Rule 201 of its Rules of Procedure (formerly Rule 191(2)) inasmuch as it does not show the nationality and permanent address of each petitioner, and that, by implication, electronic signatures on a petition are not admissible and there can be no guarantee as to the real or virtual level of support for this initiative;
Amendment 158 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Considers, in the light of the foregoing, that the first-named petitioner in petition No 0630-2006 is the only one to meet the admissibility criteria and that this means the so-called petition has received just one signature;
Amendment 160 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Finds it regrettable that this debate should focus on a matter which concerns 0.04% of the EU budget at a time when people want to see an overall Union budget capable of responding adequately to the financial difficulties that Member States are experiencing;
Amendment 161 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Asks Parliament’s Legal Service to specify whether such a report on the location of the seats of the EU institutions is lawful;
Amendment 162 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 d (new)
Paragraph 4 d (new)
4d. Considers that petitions about the seats of the EU institutions should be forwarded to the Member States, which alone are empowered to take decisions in the matter;
Amendment 163 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 e (new)
Paragraph 4 e (new)
4e. Considers that the own-initiative report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs can have no legal impact;
Amendment 164 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 f (new)
Paragraph 4 f (new)
4f. Points out that Parliament may be consulted on the question of the seats of the European institutions only prior to the convening by the Council of an intergovernmental conference and that there are no plans for such a conference.
Amendment 3 #
2012/2222(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)
Citation 7 a (new)
- having regard to the European Consensus on humanitarian aid of 18 December 2007,
Amendment 24 #
2012/2222(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Stresses that where countries are affected by a crisis, special attention should be paid to coordination between emergency action, rehabilitation and development, in order to promote the transition from an emergency situation to a development phase; requests that the EDF provide for a budget of unallocated and flexible funds for use during and after a disaster in order to establish a link between humanitarian aid and development;
Amendment 25 #
2012/2222(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Stresses the need, given that some ACP countries are at great risk from disasters, for a substantial investment in disaster risk reduction in development programmes financed by the EDF; stresses that this investment is essential to reduce needs following an emergency situation and to increase the resilience of ACP countries;
Amendment 4 #
2012/2059(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. In this context, calls on the Commission to establish a dedicated trust fund to address the problem of malnutrition in developing countries through a set of basic interventions which could prevent the vast majority of cases of malnutrition, especially in the critical 1000-day window between conception and age 2; such a trust fund would enable the leveraging and pooling of resources from Commission and Member states, and possibly other donors, and would enable better visibility of EU action in saving lives;
Amendment 7 #
2012/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the JPA regional meeting held in Cameroon in 2011 was a considerable success and resulted in the adoption of the above-mentioned Yaoundé Communiqué, which pointed up, in particular, Members’ indignation about the proliferation of sexual violence, the risks of trivialisation, and widespread impunity;
Amendment 10 #
2012/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Expresses concern over budget cuts in EU Member States affecting development policy spending; calls on the JPA to maintain its pressure on EU Member States to meet their 0.7 % GNI target by 2015; calls on the Members of the JPA to give more thought to targeting resources where they are most needed, so as to reduce poverty, and to a more discriminating approach to aid modalities;
Amendment 11 #
2012/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the European Union and the ACP countries to encourage citizens, and particularlywith equality between men and women, to participate in development issues, since the involvement of society is vital if progress is to be made; acknowledges the problem-solving and conflict-resolution skills of women, and urges the Commission and the JPA to include more women in task forces and working groups, and highlights the valuable contribution of the Women’s Forum in this regard;
Amendment 14 #
2012/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Is concerned at the increase in violence and discrimination against homosexuals in some countries, and calls on the JPA to put this on the agenda for its debates;
Amendment 18 #
2012/2048(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Calls on the JPA to continue its discussions on the organisational costs of its meetings;
Amendment 40 #
2012/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the 2011 Council of Europe 1 ‘Inside Romania’s secret CIA prison’, The Independent, 9.12.2011. report states that the data obtained from the Polish agencies in 2009 and 2010 ‘provide definite proof’ that seven CIA-associated aircraft landed in Poland; whereas a ‘black site’ was identified in Romania by journalists on the basis of information provided by former CIA employees in the Romanian national registry office for classified information1investigative journalists have sought to demonstrate the existence of a ‘black site’ in Romania; whereas former Libyan dissidents have started legal proceedings against the UK for the direct involvement of MI6 in their own and their family members’ rendition, secret detention and torture;
Amendment 54 #
2012/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Reiterates that effective counter- terrorism measures and respect for human rights are not contradictory but are complementary and mutually reinforcing aims; points out that respect for fundamental rights is an essential element in successful counter-terrorism policies;
Amendment 58 #
2012/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that Member States have so far not properly fulfilledstated their willingness to abide by their positive obligation under international law to investigate serious human rights violations connected with the CIA programme and to afford full redress to victims;
Amendment 66 #
2012/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that the failure of Member States to assume their responsibility todifficulties encountered by Member States in conducting inquiries that are fully compatible with their international obligations underminesmay damage mutual trust in fundamental rights protection, and thuis becomes the responsibility of the EU as a whole;
Amendment 73 #
2012/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Stresses the need to provide guarantees in order to avoid, in the future, any infringement of fundamental rights when anti-terrorism policies are implemented;
Amendment 75 #
2012/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Stresses that special procedures ought not to be applied to persons suspected of terrorism; points out that everyone must be able to benefit from all the guarantees included in the principle of a fair trial as laid down by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights;
Amendment 76 #
2012/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Highlights the extremely sensitive nature of anti-terrorism policies in so far as State security is at stake; considers, however, that definitions of classified information and State secrecy should not be overly broad; believes that only genuine national security grounds can justify secrecy, which under no circumstances takes priority over inalienable fundamental rights;
Amendment 89 #
2012/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Urges Romania to meet its legal obligation to launch an independent and effective inquiry into secret CIA detenNotes that the parliamentary inquiry carried out in Romania concluded that no evidence could be found demonstrating the existence of a secret CIA detention site on its territory; calls on the judicial authorities to open an independent inquiry into CIA operations on its territory;
Amendment 99 #
2012/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Welcomes the parliamentary and judicial inquiries that took place in Lithuania between 2009 and 2011;
Amendment 100 #
2012/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Notes that these inquiries were not able to demonstrate that detainees were secretly held in Lithuania;
Amendment 101 #
2012/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8c. Stresses that the US administration has confirmed to the Lithuanian Government that it never violated Lithuanian sovereignty;
Amendment 114 #
2012/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Expects the Council to finally issue a declaration acknowledging and apologising forthe difficulties encountered by Member States within the context of inquiries into Member States’ involvement in the CIA programme;
Amendment 107 #
2012/2031(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that the Commission Report does not contain a full evaluation of all the economic, social and environmental costs of animal transport, limiting itself to taking into account the costs of hauliers, and therefore calls on the Commission to present a full evaluation of all the economic, environmental and social costs incurred by the transport of animals, including a comparison between the transport of animals for reproduction and the transport of semen and embryos and a comparison between the transport of animals for slaughter and the transport of carcasses and food products;
Amendment 155 #
2012/2031(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Regrets that the Commission report ignores the recommendation of the EFSA, which believes that, in order to reduce the risk of illness appearing during transport, the transport of animals for reproduction can be replaced by the transport of semen and embryos and the transport of animals for slaughter can be replaced by the transport of carcasses and food products; agrees with the EFSA, which believes that journey times could be reduced by slaughtering animals as close as possible to production sites;
Amendment 223 #
2012/2031(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Considers, in the light of the studies carried out by the EFSA, that the Commission report should be accompanied by legislative proposals concerning the space the animals are allowed, the height of the compartments, the temperature standards for poultry, the standards relating to unweaned animals, goats, rabbits and dogs;
Amendment 232 #
2012/2031(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13b. Considers that good practice guides are useful tools and need to be encouraged but, because they have no legal status and are not directly applicable, they are not the most appropriate approach to reduce the difference between legislative requirements and the scientific evidence cited in the Commission report;
Amendment 234 #
2012/2031(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 c (new)
Paragraph 13 c (new)
13c. Considers that the need to improve the application of the existing regulation should not be seen as an obstacle to a comprehensive review of this regulation;
Amendment 881 #
2012/0366(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. A unit packet of cigarettes shall have a cuboid shape. A unit packet of roll-your- own tobacco shall have the form of a pouch, i.e. or of a rigid box. Pouches shall have the form of a rectangular pocket with a flap that covers the opening. The flap of the pouch shall cover at least 70% of the front of the packet. The rigid box shall comprise a body, a lid and a base. A unit packet of cigarettes shall include at least 20 cigarettes. A unit packet of roll-your-own tobacco shall contain tobacco weighing at least 40 g.
Amendment 250 #
2012/0179(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – title
Article 9 – title
Amendment 259 #
2012/0179(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9
Article 9
Fishing authorisations referred to in Article 4(1) for vessels using bottom trawls or bottom-set gillnets below 400 metres shall expire at the latest two years after the entry into force of this Regulation. After that date, fishing authorisations targeting deep-sea specieallowing fishing operations below 400 meters with those gears shall neither be issued nor renewed.
Amendment 388 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) The principles of protection should apply to any information concerning an identified or identifiable person. To determine whether a natural person is identifiable, even after his or her death, account should be taken of all the means likely reasonably to be used either by the controller or by any other person to identify the individual. The principles of data protection should not apply to data rendered anonymous in such a way that the data subject is no longer identifiable.
Amendment 1182 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the identity and the contact details of the controller and, if any, of the controller's representative and the contact details of the data protection officer;
Amendment 1335 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller communication of the personal data undergoing processing. Where the data subject makes the request in electronic form, the information shall be provided in electronic form, unless otherwise requestwith the exception of data prejudicial to business confidentiality, which shall be provided byin the data subject. form of a hard copy.
Amendment 1406 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The heirs of a deceased person shall have the right to obtain from the controller acknowledgement of the death of the data subject and an undertaking to cease disseminating his or her data.
Amendment 1512 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2
2. Where the data subject has provided the personal data and the processing is based on consent or on a contract, the data subject shall have the right to transmit those personal data and any other information provided by the data subject and retained by an automated processing system, into another one, in an electronic format which is commonly used, with the exception of data prejudicial to business confidentiality which are provided in the form of hard copies, without hindrance from the controller from whom the personal data are withdrawn.
Amendment 5 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that EU citizenship is the fundamental status of Member States’ nationals; underlines the close link between the rights inherent to EU citizenship and those enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights applicable to all persons on EU territory; calls on the EU institutions and Member States to align the rights of third-country nationals permanently residing in EU with the rights of EU citizens;
Amendment 25 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Is concerned about the situation of stateless persons permanently resident in Member States; calls in this regard on the Member States to systematically bring about just solutions based on the recommendations of international organisations; believes that such persons should have the right to vote in local elections;
Amendment 51 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes the view that, given the low number of EU citizens resident in a Member State other than their own who exercise their right to vote or stand as candidate in European or local elections in their place of residence, the Commission and Member States should promote such participation by various means, in particular by setting up an online single point of contact for matters concerning the rights of citizens in the EU; calls on the Commission to ensure that these rights are applied uniformly throughout the Union;
Amendment 62 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 49 #
2011/2174(REG)
Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Annex I (new) – Article 5 (new)
Annex I (new) – Article 5 (new)
Article 5 Gifts or similar benefits Members shall surrender to the President, upon their return, any gifts worth more than EUR 150 which they have received during an official mission outside the Union.
Amendment 4 #
2011/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the situation in Haiti continued to be a cause for concernis still very serious 20 months after the earthquake that devastated the island, and welcoming the conclusions of the JPA mission to the country and the resolution adopted in Tenerife,
Amendment 16 #
2011/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Deplores strongly the fact that virtually no mention was made during the JPA in Kinshasa of the increase in acts of mass sexual violence and of general impunity, particularly in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo;
Amendment 19 #
2011/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Asks the European Commission to provide the members of the JPA with information on the Community financing granted to host countries in the form of budgetary support; stressed that some States benefiting from budgetary support have a controversial political system and that Members of the European Parliament should be informed of the Commission’s assessment of the eligibility criteria for budgetary support and of the monitoring thereof;
Amendment 24 #
2011/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the JPA to continue to monitor the situation in Haiti and Madagascar; draws attention to the need to cooperate closely with the new Haitian authorities and to support them as they structure their institutions, move towards a fully operational democracy and throughout the whole of the reconstruction process;
Amendment 27 #
2011/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Stresses the importance of the on-site visits organised during the JPA, which complement the part-session discussion; regrets that the visits arranged in Kinshasa lacked relevance;
Amendment 2 #
2011/2073(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses the fact that the European Union must strengthen its reaction capacity, given the growing number of major natural disasters; with this in mind, recalls that the European Parliament has for many years been calling for a more realistic humanitarian budget in the interests of remedying the chronic underfunding of the relevant budget lines and making it possible to provide a margin of financial manoeuvre throughout the financial year; welcomes the recent Commission Communication on the 2014- 2020 Multiannual Financial Framework, which provides for an increase in the humanitarian aid instrument budget of EUR 6.4 billion over this period (i.e. an annual average of EUR 915 million, as against EUR 813 million in 2007-2013); also notes with satisfaction the increase in the emergency aid reserve for the same period, bringing it to EUR 2.5 billion, as well as the proposal for unspent funds in the reserve to be carried over to the following year, and asks the Commission to ensure that these funds continue to be earmarked primarily for urgent humanitarian needs;
Amendment 4 #
2011/2073(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Asks for the EU budget to support actions designed to anticipate disasters, prepare for them, avert them and react more quickly to them, as well as those enabling greater flexibility in launching development measures as a means of emerging from crisis situations; finds it regrettable that concrete progress on the link between emergency aid, rehabilitation and development remains limited despite the many political commitments made in recent years; calls therefore for more resources to be deployed to guarantee continuity of aid in the transition phase between emergency and development, and for thought to be given to achieving greater flexibility and complementarity of the existing financial mechanisms, includparticularly ing the resources of the Europecontext of EDF and Development Fund (EDF)CI country/regional strategy papers;
Amendment 8 #
2011/2073(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recognises the potential benefits of the consortium-based organisation advocated by DG ECHOseeking new arrangements for financing by DG ECHO, together with its partners; calls at the same time for the diversity of the actors involved in financing and implementing the European humanitarian programmes – the United Nations, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, NGOs – to be borne in mind; encourages the work of strengthening the capacities of local stakeholders;
Amendment 11 #
2011/2073(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises the high-quality ofwork carried out by DG ECHO’s partners, achieved by means of an effective selection method – such as the Framework Partnership Agreement – and the development of standards and practices applicable in the humanitarian field; stresses also that effective monitoring of the use of funds in the form of audits of the partners carried out by private audit firms is essential and helps to legitimise the humanitarian sector; notes, however, in the interests of safeguarding the diversity of the partners and guaranteeing access for small and medium-sized NGOs, the complexity of the administrative access procedures and the difficulties experienced with undergoing audits, given the lack of human resourceexcessive administrative charges, which are very costly for NGOs, and calls for the tools used to be appropriate to the specific requirements of the humanitarian sector;
Amendment 20 #
2011/2030(INI)
Draft opinion
New subtitle, after paragraph i) (new)
New subtitle, after paragraph i) (new)
Amendment 6 #
2011/2023(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)
Citation 1 a (new)
- having regard to the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid signed on 18 December 2007 by the Presidents of the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Commission,
Amendment 22 #
2011/2023(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Amendment 67 #
2011/2023(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Affirms that EU-funded assets managed by Member States should further supplement the Member States’ assets available for the relief operations; notes that these should build on models developed through pilotreparatory actions which were successfully tested in recent emergencies both inside and outside Europe; , such as the multinational flood response unit for the Baltic countries and the supplementary tactical reserve for aerial fire-fighting;
Amendment 73 #
2011/2023(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls for an effective merging of the ECHO crisis room and the Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) also from the financial point of view, whilst ensuring adequate funding;
Amendment 79 #
2011/2023(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls for political coordination in view of the respective institutional roles ofcooperation and coordination between the European Commission and, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European External Action Service (EEAS) responsible for political aspects of Common Foreign and Security Policy, without hindering or slowing down relief operations; calls therefore on the Commission and the EEAS to develop working arrangements and transparent rules with regard to the coordination of issues pertaining to the EU disaster response; emphasises that EU humanitarian aid is not a crisis- management tool and should be provided irrespective of all political considerations;
Amendment 12 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that the emerging economies - India, China and Brazil - should no longer be reliant on official development assistance, given that poverty in those countries can be combated with own resources generated by high-growth economies; considers that the Commission could redefine the aims of its cooperation policy in order to support national programmes, in particular as regards action in support of women’s rights, against domestic violence and in support of gay rights;
Amendment 18 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Rejects any attempt to merge the development cooperation and humanitarian aid budgets; considers that humanitarian aid and civil protection in non-EU countries are underfunded, especially in view of the growing number of humanitarian crises and natural disasters; calls, therefore, for all or some of the amount in the emergency reserve to be directly transferred to DG ECHO’s initial budget; takes the view that the ratio between the budget for humanitarian aid and the budget for development assistance should be about 10%;
Amendment 27 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the Commission to provide Parliament with exhaustive information, in a timely manner, on utilisation of the European Development Fund, on the Commission’s assessment of the eligibility criteria for budget support and on monitoring measures;
Amendment 430 #
2011/0406(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – Chapter A – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Annex V – Chapter A – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(d a) recognizing the decisive role of agriculture and livestock-keeping in climate change policies by promoting smallholder agriculture and livestock farming as autonomous adaptation and mitigation strategies in the South due to their sustainable use of natural resources such as water and pasture
Amendment 470 #
2011/0406(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – Chapter A – paragraph 4 – introductory part
Annex V – Chapter A – paragraph 4 – introductory part
The programme will strengthen cooperation, exchange of knowledge and experience and partner countries' capacities on the four pillars of food security: food availability (production), access (including markets, safety nets and gender awareness), utilisation (nutrition interventions in socially aware ways) and stability, while prioritising four dimensions: smallholder agriculture and livestock-keeping, governance, regional integration and assistance mechanisms for vulnerable populations.
Amendment 472 #
2011/0406(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – Chapter A – paragraph 4 – point a
Annex V – Chapter A – paragraph 4 – point a
(a) Promoting the development of sustainable smallholder agriculture and livestock-keeping through ecosystem- based, low carbon and climate- resilient secure access to technology (including information and communication technologies), through the recognition, promotion and reinforcement of local and autonomous adaptation strategies with regard to climate change, and through extension and technical services, rural development schemes, productive investment measures, land and natural resource management, protection of genetic diversity, in an enabling economic environment;
Amendment 483 #
2011/0406(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex VI – paragraph 1 – point a
Annex VI – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) provide support for the objectives, initiatives and activities agreed in the Joint Africa-EU Strategy and its successive action plans, which cover inter alia the areas of: peace and security, democratic governance and human rights, trade, regional integration and infrastructure (including transport), MDGs, energy, climate change and environment, migration, land tenure security, mobility and employment, science, information society and space, as well as its cross- cutting issues.
Amendment 78 #
2011/0344(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
Amendment 115 #
2011/0344(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) to promote and mainstream equality for all and the effective implementation of the principles of non discrimination on theany grounds ofincluding sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, including equality between women and men and the rights of persons with disabilities and of the elderlanguage, nationality or membership of a national minority, religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation equally;
Amendment 121 #
2011/0344(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) to prevent and combat violence and hatred against any minority groups, in particular on the basis of their sex, racial or ethnic origin, language, nationality or membership of a national minority, religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation, and to promote tolerance and respect towards them;
Amendment 4 #
2011/0261(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The recent financial crisis has led to debates at all levels about a possible additional tax on the financial sector and in particular a financial transactions tax (FTT). This debate stems from the desire to ensure the financial sector contribute to covering the costs of the crisis and that it is taxed in a fair way vis-à-vis other sectors for the future; to curb speculation, in particular on commodity markets, thus limiting food price volatility and its impacts on food security; to dis-incentivise excessively risky activities by financial institutions; to complement regulatory measures aimed at avoiding future crises and to generate additional revenue for general budgets or specific policy purposes such as the financing of public goods and Union development policies especially towards the achievement of MDGs.
Amendment 7 #
2011/0261(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
(1a) The revenue of the FTT, the objective of which is a more social and fair redistribution of wealth, should be additional to the national development aid commitments of 0,7% of GNI and allocated towards the financing of public goods such as Union development policies, poverty reduction and the fight against climate change in developing countries. These targets should remain an essential part of this new revenue.
Amendment 17 #
2011/0261(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 a (new)
Article 17 a (new)
Article 17a Use of revenue as own resource for EU budget Part of the revenue arising from the FTT in the Union should be used as own resources for the EU Budget, of which a significant percentage should be invested in financing Union development cooperation policies and the fight against climate change in developing countries.
Amendment 23 #
2011/0117(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The Commission shall establish a clear system of benchmarks with a view to monitoring the progress made in terms of sustainable development, including respect for animal welfare, and good governance, including good tax governance, and shall carry out a human rights impact assessment for the GSP+ beneficiary countries;
Amendment 31 #
2011/0117(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point ea (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point ea (new)
ea) serious and systematic violation of European Union legislation on the protection of animals during transport or slaughter.
Amendment 43 #
2011/0117(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13 a (new)
Recital 13 a (new)
(13a) The generalised preferences scheme should contribute to ensuring a greater coherence between internal and external policies of the Union. Given the Union’s internal provisions on the protection of animals, the special incentive arrangements for sustainable development and good governance should be granted to those States that take particular account of Union legislation on animal welfare.
Amendment 26 #
2011/0059(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) The scope of this Regulation should extend to all civil matters in relation to matrimonial property regimes, both the daily management of marital property, movables or immovables, and the liquidation of the regime, in particular as a result of the couple's separation or the death of one of the spouses.
Amendment 28 #
2011/0059(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) Where matters of matrimonial property regimes are not linked to a divorce, separation or marriage annulment or to the death of a spouse, the spouses may decide to submit questions related to their matrimonial regime to the courts of the Member State of the law they chose as the law applicable to their matrimonial property regime. Such a decision is expressed by an agreement between the spouses which, provided it is set out in writing and signed by both parties, may be concluded at any moment, even during the proceedings.
Amendment 31 #
2011/0059(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 3 – point d
Article 1 – paragraph 3 – point d
(d) the succession rights of a surviving spouse who has not remarried,
Amendment 33 #
2011/0059(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15
Article 15
The law applicable to a matrimonial property regime under Article 16, 17 and 18 shall apply to all the couple's propertymovable or immovable property, irrespective of its location.
Amendment 34 #
2011/0059(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 36 #
2011/0059(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2
Article 19 – paragraph 2
2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the choice must at least be made expressly in a document dated and signed by both spouses and expressing their common wish.
Amendment 37 #
2011/0059(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2
Article 20 – paragraph 2
2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the marriage contract must at least be set out in a document dated and signed by both spouses and expressing their common wish.
Amendment 38 #
2011/0059(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1
Article 26 – paragraph 1
1. A decision given in a Member State shall in keeping with the principle of mutual recognition be recognised in the other Member States without any special procedure being required.
Amendment 1951 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1
Article 31 – paragraph 1
1. In the case of a major personal data breach, the controller shall without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 24 hours after having become aware of it, notify the personal data breach to the supervisory authority. The notification to the supervisory authority shall be accompanied by a reasoned justification in cases where it is not made within 24 hours.
Amendment 1961 #
2011/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 31 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The controller shall keep a list of minor breaches and make that list available to the supervisory authority.
Amendment 86 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Is aware that activities connected with organised crime are worth several billion euros and that the turnover from organised crime is constantly rising;
Amendment 87 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Notes that the methods, structures and impact on society of organised crime are becoming increasingly diverse, and that there is a need, therefore, to adapt to the new forms of organised criminal activity;
Amendment 90 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls for account to be taken of the fact that the new communications technologies facilitate the diversification and expansion of illegal activities linked to organised crime;
Amendment 94 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is aware that organised crime cannot proliferate without the aid, the complicity, or even the mere indifference of the political world, and; expresses deep concern about the evidently increasing interpenetration of organised crime and politics, involving the creation of a so- called grey area which is seriously jeopardising the credibility and true democratic nature of the institutions; expresses equal concern over the proven ability of organised crime to infiltrate the nerve centres of general government and the economic and financial fabric;
Amendment 148 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Amendment 206 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Is convinced of the intrinsic link between organised crime and corruption and emphatically reiterates the request it expressed when adopting Written Declaration 02/10, both with reference to the creation of a mechanism to assess and monitor the policies of the 27 Member States in combating corruption and with regard to the framing of a comprehensive anti-corruption policy by the EU institutions; stresses the need for a proactive approach to combating corruption and calls on the Commission to place emphasis on measures to counter political corruption, that of the civil service, the courts, the police and customs officers, in addition to private sector corruption; considers it, moreover, a priority to develop effective measures to combat corruption in the neighbourhood policy and in the use of development aid funds; calls on the Commission to inform Parliament about the eligibility conditions for budget support and to promote mainly sectoral support, while introducing effective control of the measures taken and results achieved; welcomes the emphasis placed on good governance in the context of European development cooperation policy;
Amendment 221 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Calls on the European institutions to send out a clear message at EU level and to assert their political influence internationally with a view to curbing forms of money laundering through the use of the financial markets, in particular by: drawing up better capital control rules; encouraging a reduction of the pervasiveness of the financial markets (using tools such as the taxation of investment income and the introduction of a tax on international financial transactions); imposing increased transparency on the use of public funds, first and foremost on those to support private sector development, imposing increased transparency on the use of public funds, and carrying out a serious and effective offensive against tax havens by imposing country- by-country financial reporting on all multinational economic operators; promoting a multilateral agreement on the exchange of tax-related information whilst revising the definition of ‘tax haven’ and the list of these secret jurisdictions;
Amendment 42 #
2010/2276(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the EU has developed a range of useful tools to foster the inclusion of Roma, but these are scattered across policy areas, their coordination needs to be improved and their effect is hard to measure,
Amendment 229 #
2010/2276(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the importance of endorsing and controlling the Strategy in a transparent manner, with the primary responsibility falling on democratically accountable ministers within the Council, and emphasises that the Strategy should in no way be divisive for the EU, creating splits among Member States but that, on the contrary, the Strategy contributes to strengthening the EU integration process;
Amendment 230 #
2010/2276(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Highlights that respect for human dignity requires a determined fight against the various forms of organised crime and against human trafficking, of which the weakest Roma communities are the main victims, and that, without this crime-fighting aspect, any strategy aiming to enforce their rights would be doomed to failure;
Amendment 231 #
2010/2276(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Considers that the war against organised crime, which the Roma community is a victim of, can only be waged in close cooperation with the countries of origin and that it should be a priority for Europol, Eurojust, the Frontex agency and the Agency for Fundamental Rights;
Amendment 302 #
2010/2276(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Calls on the Commission to monitor the application of Directive 2000/43/EC, in particular by means of a report on the schooling conditions of children in marginalised communities;
Amendment 1 #
2010/2110(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Stresses that the volatility of prices has aggravated malnutrition problems worldwide, as the FAO observes, and that greater liberalisation of world trade in agricultural products, which has been encouraged by WTO agreements, has not so far made it possible to curb the threat of hunger in the world; stresses that the European Union also has a duty to contribute to world food security;
Amendment 4 #
2010/2110(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the reduction of export subsidies and calls for further reforms of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) including the complete elimination of these subsidies, which were reintroduced in 2009 for dairy products. Pbut recognises the need to retain the legal possibility of granting export refunds in the event of a very serious crisis, such as that which arose in 2009 for dairy products, in order to temporarily assuage the problems of the sector affected; points out that export subsidies have, in the past, allowed the dumping of cheap EU products in developing countries, distorting competition with local producers and undermined their productive capacity;
Amendment 12 #
2010/2110(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Encourages a radical reduction of tariffs on agricultural imports from all developing countries and the limitation of non-tariff barriers in order to provide real market- access opportunities for developing countries;
Amendment 11 #
2010/2105(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the fundamental objective of IFMs, such as an international tax on financial transactions, is the allocation of additional financial resources, on top of public development aid, to meet the major global challenges in the areas of climate change and development policy, thereby possibly helping to achieve the Millennium Development Objectives (MDOs);
Amendment 4 #
2010/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas, in the common vision of humanitarian aid enshrined in the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid, particular emphasis is placed on the Union’s will to cooperate closely in this field in order to optimise its effectiveness, to defend and promote the basic humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence and actively to advocate the observance of international humanitarian law,
Amendment 5 #
2010/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the commitments derived from the Consensus apply both to the Member States and to the Commission, and whereas the actions listed in the action plan must, in most cases, be implemented by the Commission and Member States acting in concert,
Amendment 9 #
2010/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the provision of aid is becoming increasingly difficult and dangerous, whereas the insecurity of humanitarian aid staff is increasing and whereas, in 2008, 122 humanitarian aid workers were killed,
Amendment 10 #
2010/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas more specific attention ought to be directed at the most vulnerable groups of people, such as women, children and forcibly displaced persons, and whereas the worsening incidence of gender-related violence and sexual violence is a major problem in humanitarian contexts, with systematic rape being used in some cases as a weapon of war,
Amendment 16 #
2010/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the recent tragedies in Haiti and Pakistan demonstrated once again that the tools available to the EU for responding to disasters (humanitarian aid and the Community Civil Protection Mechanism) need to be improved in terms of effectiveness, speed, coordination and visibility and whereas these disasters have highlighted once again the need to create a European rapid reaction capacity,
Amendment 22 #
2010/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers it regrettable that the Member States are not more involved in implementing the cConsensus and considers that the role of the Council’s Working Party on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid (COHAFA) should be reinforced with a view to better monitoring of how the cConsensus is implemented – for example by organising specific sessions on integrating the Consensus into national humanitarian strategies or submitting an annual activity report – and more active pursuit of the remit to argue the case for humanitarian aid with other Council wWorking gGroups and with the Political and Security Committee (PSC);
Amendment 32 #
2010/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Supports the essential role played by NOHA (the first network of universities offering humanitarian aid training at European level) in promoting greater awareness of the world humanitarian context and particularly European policy in response to the needs of the most vulnerable groups by means of education and training of young Europeans;
Amendment 33 #
2010/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Takes the view that the external action of the European Union, provided for in the Lisbon Treaty, must respect the principles espoused and commitments given in the Consensus on Humanitarian Aid, and considers that the EU should, in the light of its political weight and its influence as the main international donor, promote humanitarian principles unstintingly;
Amendment 35 #
2010/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the December 2009 review of the EU Guidelines on promoting compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL) and considers that the Commission and the Member States have a major political role to play in their implementation; hopes, also, that specific training in international humanitarian law will be provided at the EEAS;
Amendment 37 #
2010/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Recalls that the principles and good practices in the field of humanitarian aid adopted in June 2003 emphasise the need to encourage the rendering of accounts and the regular assessment of international responses to humanitarian crises, including examinations of the performance of donors, and stresses that these assessments must be the subject of wider consultation, particularly with humanitarian actors;
Amendment 79 #
2010/2101(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Considers that the European civil protection force could comprise a commitment by certain Member States to voluntarily make available predetermined essential civil protection modules, which would be ready to intervene immediately for EU operations coordinated by the MIC, and also considers that most of these modules, which are already available at national level, would remain under their control and that the deployment of these modules on a standby basis would form the nucleus of the EU’s civil protection to respond to disasters outside and inside the EU;
Amendment 15 #
2010/2100(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas food prices have risen steadily since August 2010over the last ten years; whereas the volatility of commodity prices is impacting greatly on low income countries and on the most vulnerable populations,
Amendment 30 #
2010/2100(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the EU has responded quickly to the 2008 food crisis through the creation of the Food Facility; whereas the impact of such measures on the structural causes of hunger and food insecurity and on small and medium-sized family farms, particularly those run by women, has been difficult to measure,
Amendment 45 #
2010/2100(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Stresses the importance of strengthening the link between relief, rehabilitation and development; calls for more resources to be deployed in order to ensure the continuity of aid and for the debate to focus on the flexibility and complementarity of existing financial instruments; advocates enhanced dialogue and coordination between humanitarian organisations and development agencies;
Amendment 64 #
2010/2100(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Agrees that EU assistance programmes should focus on sustainable small-scale food production and that priority should be given to ‘ecologically-efficient’ approaches that strengthen biodiversity, prevent the degradation of fertile land, and promote agro- ecological and low-external-input (LEI) practices, and excludes GMOs;
Amendment 83 #
2010/2100(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recalls that access to adequate food is a universal human right; urges partner countries to implement the FAO voluntary guidelines on the right to food; calls on the EU and partner countries to establish monitoring mechanisms that ensure the effective implementation of right to food policies;
Amendment 85 #
2010/2100(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 97 #
2010/2100(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Amendment 142 #
2010/2100(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Recalls that the right to food has to take absolute precedence over energy security objectives; calls for the freezing of EU energy strategy targets until further impact assessments have been undertakenfood security should not be jeopardised by energy security objectives;
Amendment 153 #
2010/2100(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls for the complete phasing-out of export subsidies as well as for the removal of all other incentives in the CAP which result in trade-distorting measures;
Amendment 160 #
2010/2100(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
Amendment 163 #
2010/2100(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Recalls that food security requires coherence and coordination of the various sectoral policies at EU level, namely development policy, the CAP, the common trade policy, energy policy and research programmes;
Amendment 11 #
2010/2096(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas lessons learned from recent crises continue to demonstrate the need to improve the EU’s disaster response in terms of efficiency, coordination and visibility, and whereas these disasters have once again highlighted the need for an EU rapid response capability (European civil protection force),
Amendment 18 #
2010/2096(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1(c)
Paragraph 1(c)
(c) reiterates that the use of civil protection resources, where deployed in any humanitarian crisis, should be needs driven and complementary to, and coherent with, humanitarian aid, in accordance with the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid and the United Nations guidelines (Oslo guidelines), with a view to ensuring compliance with the humanitarian principles of neutrality, humanity, impartiality and independence;
Amendment 34 #
2010/2096(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1(g)
Paragraph 1(g)
(g) considers that the EU civil protection force should build on the EU Civil Protection mechanism, should thus optimise the tools available, which would gain in efficiency and visibility, and should enable the Union to bring together the resources necessary for providing emergency assistance within 24 hours of the occurrence of a disaster;
Amendment 36 #
2010/2096(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1(h)
Paragraph 1(h)
(h) recommends that the EU civil protection force be based on the principles that it should: - be based on an assessment of needs, with the participation of all humanitarian actors, - be civilian - operate under the banner of the EU - observe international humanitarian law - respect the voluntary nature of the Member States’ participation in the intended arrangements - be based on the principle of burden- sharing - be open to contributions from non-EU countries - recognise the UN’s overall role in coordinating international relief outside the territory of the European Union; - be organised on a preventive basis, according to specific scenarios;
Amendment 38 #
2010/2096(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph h b (new)
Paragraph h b (new)
(hb) considers that the European civil protection force could be based on a commitment by some Member States to voluntarily make available pre-determined civil protection modules that are ready to intervene immediately in EU operations coordinated by the MIC, that most of these modules, which are already available nationally and thus would not entail significant additional costs, would remain under their control, and that the deployment of these modules placed on standby would form the nucleus of the EU’s civil protection system for responding to disasters inside and outside the EU;
Amendment 39 #
2010/2096(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph h c (new)
Paragraph h c (new)
(hc) considers that additional civil protection modules could be financed by the EU for certain specific requirements where gaps have been identified and where the European level would add value, and stresses the importance of increasing funding for transport and developing standby transport modules;
Amendment 41 #
2010/2096(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1(i)
Paragraph 1(i)
(i) reminds the Council that the use of military assets and capabilities in disaster response, particularly for logistics, transport and infrastructure support for humanitarian aid operations, should be exceptional, used as a ‘last resort’ and always in compliance with existing agreements such as the European Consensus on humanitarian aid and the Oslo guidelines on the use of military and civil defence assets in international disaster relief;
Amendment 4 #
2010/2002(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Welcomes the recognition under the Treaty of Lisbon of humanitarian aid as a European policy in its own right; underlines the increasingly serious consequences of natural or man-made disasters, particularly those linked to climate change, to the changing nature of conflicts and to violations of international humanitarian law; calls, therefore, for an increase in humanitarian aid funding, incorporating disaster risk reduction;
Amendment 141 #
2010/2002(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52 a new
Paragraph 52 a new
52a. Welcomes the recognition under the Treaty of Lisbon of humanitarian aid as a European policy in its own right; underlines the increasingly serious consequences of natural or man-made disasters, particularly those linked to climate change, to the changing nature of conflicts and to violations of international humanitarian law; calls therefore for an increase in humanitarian aid funding, incorporating disaster risk reduction;
Amendment 146 #
2010/2002(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53 a new
Paragraph 53 a new
53a. Is surprised at the reduction in appropriations, over 2010, proposed in the 2011 draft budget for Article 23 03 06 on civil protection in third countries when the recent disaster in Haiti clearly demonstrated the need to bolster the Community civil protection mechanism; calls in addition on the Commission to provide details of the specific measures it proposes to put in hand in setting up a preparatory action for a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps;
Amendment 147 #
2010/2002(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53 b new
Paragraph 53 b new
53b. Welcomes the proposed 30% increase in the contribution to the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria but considers that supporting basic health services is ultimately more effective than such than vertical health funds when it comes to improving health standards in developing countries;
Amendment 148 #
2010/2002(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53 c new
Paragraph 53 c new
53c. Notes the vital contribution played by improved access to financial services, such as microfinance schemes, in helping smallholder farmers, particularly women, achieve food self-sufficiency and food security; welcomes the success of financing in the 2009 and 2010 budgets to support such schemes and stresses the need for this to be continued and extended;
Amendment 149 #
2010/2002(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53 d new
Paragraph 53 d new
53d. Calls on the Commission to extend and increase funding for existing preparatory actions that target developing countries' specific needs, such as improving water management and combating the economic and financial crisis in non-ACP developing countries; asks the Commission, where necessary, to change the legal basis of these initiatives in order to give them permanent status;
Amendment 150 #
2010/2002(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53 e new
Paragraph 53 e new
53e. Points out to the Council the increasing discrepancy between the chronic underfunding of heading 4 and the Council's new political commitments, particularly where development policy is concerned; demands a revision of the heading 4 ceiling for the years 2011-13;
Amendment 151 #
2010/2002(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53 f new
Paragraph 53 f new
53f. Insists that the Commission and Council refrain from reducing heading 4 administrative spending budget lines, as these are necessary for full and effective implementation of the multiannual programmes; sincerely regrets that the Commission's draft budget proposes significant cuts to administrative expenditure for development programmes;
Amendment 60 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8 a (new)
Recital 8 a (new)
(8a) As preventive measures, Member States should ensure that information and awareness-raising campaign are accessible to everyone, taking particular care to ensure that they can be understood by children who are not yet able to read. To this end, notices which are sufficiently easy to understand and tailored to each age group should be displayed in all educational establishments (nursery, primary and secondary schools), and more generally in all places frequented by children.
Amendment 84 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) Child pornography, which constitutes sex abuse images, is a specific type of content which cannot be construed as the expression of an opinion. To combat it, it is necessary to reduce the circulation of child abuse material by making it more difficult for offenders to upload such content onto the publicly accessible Web. Action is therefore necessary to remove the content at source and apprehend those guilty of making distributing or downloading child abuse images. The EU, in particular through increased cooperation with third countries and international organisations, should seek to facilitate the effective removal by third country authorities of websites containing child pornography, which are hosted in their territory. However as, despite such efforts, the removal of child pornography content at its source proves to be difficult where the original materials are not located within the EU, mechanisms should also be put in place to block access from the Union’s territory to internet pages identified as containing or disseminating child pornography. For that purpose, different mechanisms can be used as appropriate, including facilitating the competent judicial or police authorities to order such blocking, or supporting and stimulatbliging Internet Service Providers on a voluntary basis to develop codes of conduct and guidelines for blocking access to such Internet pages, in order to increase their responsibilities. Both with a view to the removal and the blocking of child abuse content, cooperation between public authorities should be established and strengthened, particularly in the interest of ensuring that national lists of websites containing child pornography material are as complete as possible and of avoiding duplication of work. Any such developments must take account of the rights of the end users, adhere to existing legal and judicial procedures and comply with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Safer Internet Programme has set up a network of hotlines whose goal is to collect information and to ensure coverage and exchange of reports on the major types of illegal content online.
Amendment 97 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b – subpoint iii
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b – subpoint iii
(iii) any material that visually depicts any person appearing to beshowing a child or a virtual image of a child engaged in real or simulated sexually explicit conduct or any depiction ofshowing the sexual organs of any person appearing to be a child child, or a virtual image thereof, for primarily sexual purposes; or
Amendment 99 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b – subpoint iv
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b – subpoint iv
(iv) realistic images of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct or realistic images of the sexual organs of a child, regardless of the actual existence of such child, or of a virtual image thereof for primarily sexual purposes.;
Amendment 256 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to encourage any person who knows about or suspects, in good faith, offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 to report these facts to the competent services. Member States shall ensure that such persons can be held criminally liable for failure to assist a person in danger.
Amendment 22 #
2010/0059(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) The EU is committed to supporting the smooth and gradual integration of developing countries into the world economy with a view to sustainable development. The main ACP banana- exporting countries maywill face challenges in the context of changing trade arrangements, notably as a consequence of Most Favoured Nation (MFN) liberalisation in the framework of the WTO and of the bilateral and regional agreements concluded, or in the process of being concluded, between the EU and Latin American countries, which are the leading exporters of bananas. Hence an ACP Banana Accompanying Measures programme should be added to the existing Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation6.
Amendment 32 #
2010/0059(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 2
Article 1 – point 2
Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006
Article 17a – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 17a – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. ACP banana supplying countries listed in Annex IIIa shall benefit from banana accompanying measures. Union assistance to these countries shall aim at supporting their adjustment process following from liberalisation of the EU market for bananas in the framework of the World Trade Organisation. Union assistance shall take into account the countries’ policies and adaptation strategies and the entry into force of bilateral and regional trade agreements concluded between the EU and Latin American countries. Union assistance shall take into account the countries’ policies and adaptation strategies, as well as their regional environment (proximity to ultraperipheral regions of the EU and overseas countries and territories), and shall pay specific attention to the following areas of cooperation:
Amendment 66 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
Ha. whereas price volatility has exacerbated problems relating to undernourishment at global level, as pointed out by the FAO, and whereas greater liberalisation of world trade in agricultural products, encouraged by WTO agreements, has so far made it impossible to counter the problem of hunger in the world,
Amendment 226 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Believes that the CAP must first and foremost play a preventive role, but must also provide immediate responses to the effects of the economic crisis on farming businesses such as the lack of access to credit for farmers, constraints on farm incomes, and increasing rural unemployment;
Amendment 252 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Is of the opinion that a strong European Common Agricultural Policy is needed to ensure that EU farmers remain competitive on the world market against well subsidised trading partners or countries in which societal requirements are not as demanding as they are in the EU; believes that the EU cannot afford to rely on other parts of the world to provide for European food security in the context of climate change, political instability in certain regions of the world and potential outbreaks of diseases or other events potentially detrimental to production capacity;
Amendment 359 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Believes that agriculture is well placed to make a major contribution to delivering the new EU 2020 Strategy priorities of tackling climate change and creating new jobs through green growth whilst at the same time continuing to provide food security for European consumers by producing safe and high-quality food products; stresses that the European Union also has a duty to contribute to world food security;
Amendment 366 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Insists that EU agriculture must remain competitive against fierce competition from well-subsidised trade partners or countries in which societal requirements are not as demanding as they are in the EU; therefore believes that competitiveness should still be a fundamental objective of the CAP post- 2013 to ensure that the EU has the raw materials to produce high- value European food products and they continue to win a greater share of the world market, as well as ensuring fair trade for farmers;
Amendment 649 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
Paragraph 56
56. Believes that there should be a basic EU-funded direct area payment to all EU farmers in order to provide basic food security for European consumers, allow farmers to produce high-quality food competitively in relation to well subsidised trade partners (US) and to countries where societal requirements are not as high as in the EU, ensure that farming activity continues across the EU and provide baseline public goods through cross- compliance requirements for Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions, as well as high quality and animal welfare standards; calls for an absolute requirement of minimum activity to be included in the cross-compliance rules and proportionality to be the key principle applied when enforcing the rules;
Amendment 662 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56 a (new)
Paragraph 56 a (new)
56a. Believes that the European system of aid for the poorest of the poor should remain in place and be placed on a more secure legal footing;
Amendment 14 #
2009/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the degaps in regulation of financial market, supervision and control of the financial sector and the deficiencies in the existing surveillance and early warning systems hasve caused a systemic crisis of global dimensions, which requires international compensation and burden sharingrecasting of the existing paradigms,
Amendment 28 #
2009/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recognises that the degaps in regulation of financial and labour markets, together with the privatisation of public services and social programmes, due to, supervision and control of the financial sector and the unjustified conditionalities imposed on developing countries by the International Fby the financial Iinstitutions (IFIs), proved ineffective inmade it impossible to preventing the crisis, amplifying instead its negative effects; underlines that, contrary to what happened in developed countries, such imposconditions have sharply reduced the capacity of developing countries to react to the economic slowdown through the adoption of fiscal stimulus measures;
Amendment 30 #
2009/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes on the one hand the improved borrowing facilities for low-income countries provided by the IFIs with a higher level of pro-poor spending and emphasis on poverty reduction and pro- growth spending in developing countries; expresses, however, major concern about the unleashing of a new debt crisis, underlining the paradox that developing countries will be obliged to indebt themselves to tackle a crisis caused by the countries and institutions they will be indebted to, which demonstrates once more the need for urgent governmand calls for urgent reforms of the IFIs;
Amendment 66 #
2009/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Believes that protectionism is no sound response to the crisis and reinforces its call upon the EU to do its part by reducing trade barriers and trade-distorting subsidies that have caused so much harm to developing countries;
Amendment 74 #
2009/2150(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
Amendment 3 #
1012/2026(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Takes the view that boosting regional security and combating terrorism and piracy, while essential, must not eclipse the absolute necessity of supporting as a first priority the eradication of poverty in the region, particularly since the European Union has an obligation under its founding Treaty to take account of the objectives of development cooperation – foremost among which are the reduction and eradication of poverty – in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries (Article 208(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union); notes that all the countries of the Horn of Africa are developing countries and as such – apart from Sudan and South Sudan, which have not signed the Cotonou Agreement – have received EUR 2 billion in development aid (of which EUR 644 million went to Ethiopia alone) for indicative national and regional programmes under the 10th EDF (2008- 2013); notes that, during the same period, again under the 10th EDF, the East Africa, Southern Africa and Indian Ocean region is receiving EUR 62519 million (mainpartly for the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development(IGAD)) to eradicate poverty in the countries of the region and help them attain the Millennium Development Goals; recalls, finally, that the African Peace Facility, a sub-instrument of the EDF, gives financial support to the African Union mission in Somalia (AMISOM);