BETA

Activities of Eva JOLY

Plenary speeches (28)

Alarming shortage of payments for financing EU external aid (debate)
2016/11/22
European Central Bank annual report for 2012 (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2013/2076(INI)
Call for a measurable and tangible commitment against tax evasion and tax avoidance in the EU (debate)
2016/11/22
Common rules and procedures for the implementation of the Union's instruments for external action - Instrument for stability - Financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide - Partnership instrument for cooperation with third countries - Establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation - European neighbourhood instrument - Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0404(COD)
Caste-based discrimination (debate)
2016/11/22
One-minute speeches (Rule 150)
2016/11/22
Millennium development goals (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2012/2289(INI)
Reconstruction and democratisation of Mali (debate)
2016/11/22
Partnership and cooperation agreement with Afghanistan (debate)
2016/11/22
Asset recovery to Arab Spring countries in transition (debate)
2016/11/22
Preparations for the European Council meeting (22 May 2013) - Fight against tax fraud, tax evasion and tax havens - Annual tax report: how to free the EU potential for economic growth (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2013/2025(INI)
EU-Central America association agreement (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0303(NLE)
One-minute speeches (Rule 150)
2016/11/22
Outcome of the Rio+20 Summit (20-22 June 2012) (debate)
2016/11/22
Famine in East Africa (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/2814(RSP)
Cooperating with developing countries on promoting good governance in tax matters (short presentation)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/2102(INI)
EU-Cameroon forest law agreement - EU-Republic of Congo forest law agreement - FLEGT voluntary partnership agreements (continuation of debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0062(NLE)
Israeli military operation against the humanitarian flotilla and the Gaza blockade (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/2735(RSP)
Administrative cooperation in the field of taxation - Mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures - Reverse charge mechanism: goods and services susceptible to fraud - Promoting Good Governance in Tax Matters (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/0007(CNS)
Recent earthquake in Haiti (debate)
2016/11/22
Second revision of the ACP-EU Partnership agreement (Cotonou agreement) (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/2165(INI)
Second revision of the ACP-EU Partnership agreement (Cotonou agreement) (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/2165(INI)
Climate change and developing countries in the framework of the UN Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen (debate)
2016/11/22
Democracy building in external relations (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/2718(RSP)
Proposal for a decision (B7-0079/2009) - Setting-up and definition of powers, composition and term of office of special committee on the financial and economic crisis (vote)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/2631(RSO)
Proposal for a decision (B7-0079/2009) - Setting-up and definition of powers, composition and term of office of special committee on the financial and economic crisis (vote)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/2631(RSO)
Situation in Guinea (debate)
2016/11/22
The effects of the global financial and economic crisis on developing countries and on development cooperation (debate)
2016/11/22

Reports (4)

REPORT on Tax and Development – Cooperating with Developing Countries on Promoting Good Governance in Tax Matters PDF (275 KB) DOC (180 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Dossiers: 2010/2102(INI)
Documents: PDF(275 KB) DOC(180 KB)
RECOMMENDATION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of South Africa, of the other part, amending the Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation PDF (166 KB) DOC (88 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Dossiers: 2010/0119(NLE)
Documents: PDF(166 KB) DOC(88 KB)
REPORT Report on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2009 PDF (175 KB) DOC (88 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Dossiers: 2010/2236(INI)
Documents: PDF(175 KB) DOC(88 KB)
REPORT Report on the second revision of the Partnership Agreement ACP-EC (the "Cotonou Agreement") PDF (199 KB) DOC (127 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Dossiers: 2009/2165(INI)
Documents: PDF(199 KB) DOC(127 KB)

Shadow reports (8)

REPORT on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directives 2006/112/EC and 2008/118/EC as regards the French outermost regions and Mayotte in particular PDF (169 KB) DOC (73 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2013/0280(CNS)
Documents: PDF(169 KB) DOC(73 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of an agreement between the European Union and the French Republic concerning the application to the collectivity of Saint-Barthélemy of Union legislation on the taxation of savings and administrative cooperation in the field of taxation PDF (133 KB) DOC (53 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2013/0269(NLE)
Documents: PDF(133 KB) DOC(53 KB)
REPORT on the European Central Bank Annual report for 2012 PDF (170 KB) DOC (83 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2013/2076(INI)
Documents: PDF(170 KB) DOC(83 KB)
RECOMMENDATION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement amending for the second time the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000, as first amended in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 PDF (167 KB) DOC (92 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Dossiers: 2011/0207(NLE)
Documents: PDF(167 KB) DOC(92 KB)
REPORT on 2011 Annual Report of the European Central Bank PDF (191 KB) DOC (125 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2012/2304(INI)
Documents: PDF(191 KB) DOC(125 KB)
REPORT on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2011 PDF (166 KB) DOC (86 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Dossiers: 2012/2048(INI)
Documents: PDF(166 KB) DOC(86 KB)
REPORT on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2010 PDF (172 KB) DOC (89 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Dossiers: 2011/2120(INI)
Documents: PDF(172 KB) DOC(89 KB)
REPORT on the effects of the global financial and economic crisis on developing countries and on development cooperation PDF (261 KB) DOC (163 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Dossiers: 2009/2150(INI)
Documents: PDF(261 KB) DOC(163 KB)

Opinions (17)

OPINION on the proposal for a Council decision on conclusion of the Protocol between the European Union and the Gabonese Republic setting out fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the two Parties currently in force
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Documents: PDF(125 KB) DOC(55 KB)
OPINION on fisheries restrictions and jurisdictional waters in the Mediterranean and Black Sea – ways for conflict resolution
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Documents: PDF(94 KB) DOC(70 KB)
OPINION on the fight against tax fraud, tax evasion and tax havens
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Documents: PDF(112 KB) DOC(208 KB)
OPINION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Union and its Member States, on the one hand, and Central America on the other
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Documents: PDF(98 KB) DOC(53 KB)
OPINION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Union and its Member States, on the one hand, and Central America on the other
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Documents: PDF(98 KB) DOC(56 KB)
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on markets in financial instruments and amending Regulation [EMIR] on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Documents: PDF(176 KB) DOC(464 KB)
OPINION on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on markets in financial instruments repealing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (Recast)
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Documents: PDF(225 KB) DOC(517 KB)
OPINION on the proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on EU priorities for the 67th Session of the United Nations General Assembly
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Documents: PDF(101 KB) DOC(80 KB)
OPINION on EU support for the ICC: facing challenges and overcoming difficulties
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Documents: PDF(134 KB) DOC(62 KB)
OPINION on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Union of the Comoros
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Documents: PDF(99 KB) DOC(54 KB)
OPINION Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Documents: PDF(167 KB) DOC(486 KB)
OPINION Proposal for a Council decision on conclusion of a voluntary partnership agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cameroon on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (FLEGT)
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Documents: PDF(96 KB) DOC(54 KB)
OPINION Proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of the Congo on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (FLEGT)
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Documents: PDF(96 KB) DOC(55 KB)
OPINION on derivatives markets: future policy actions
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Documents: PDF(99 KB) DOC(83 KB)
OPINION Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006 establishing an Instrument for Stability
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Documents: PDF(133 KB) DOC(454 KB)
OPINION Opinion on the institutional aspects of setting up the European External Action Service
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Documents: PDF(122 KB) DOC(92 KB)
OPINION Proposal for a Council regulation on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Guinea
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Documents: PDF(149 KB) DOC(450 KB)

Shadow opinions (10)

OPINION on Pakistan’s regional role and political relations with the EU
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Dossiers: 2013/2168(INI)
Documents: PDF(113 KB) DOC(344 KB)
OPINION on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on granting an EU guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under financing operations supporting investment projects outside the Union
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Dossiers: 2013/0152(COD)
Documents: PDF(237 KB) DOC(454 KB)
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on information accompanying transfers of funds
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Dossiers: 2013/0024(COD)
Documents: PDF(166 KB) DOC(393 KB)
OPINION on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on granting an EU guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under financing operations supporting investment projects outside the Union
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2013/0152(COD)
Documents: PDF(259 KB) DOC(465 KB)
OPINION on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Dossiers: 2013/0025(COD)
Documents: PDF(207 KB) DOC(384 KB)
OPINION on the future of EU-ASEAN relations
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Dossiers: 2013/2148(INI)
Documents: PDF(114 KB) DOC(79 KB)
OPINION on corruption in the public and private sectors: the impact on human rights in third countries
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Dossiers: 2013/2074(INI)
Documents: PDF(108 KB) DOC(207 KB)
OPINION on Trade and investment-driven growth for developing countries
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Dossiers: 2012/2225(INI)
Documents: PDF(119 KB) DOC(81 KB)
OPINION Proposal for a recommendation to the Council on the 66th Session of the United Nations General Assembly
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Dossiers: 2011/2030(INI)
Documents: PDF(112 KB) DOC(71 KB)
OPINION for a recommendation to the Council on the 65th session of the United Nations General Assembly
2016/11/22
Committee: DEVE
Dossiers: 2010/2020(INI)
Documents: PDF(100 KB) DOC(82 KB)

Written explanations (5)

Copyright in the Digital Single Market (A8-0245/2018 - Axel Voss) FR

Je n’ai pas soutenu l’accord final sur la directive sur le droit d’auteur: je me suis abstenue pour ne pas entraver l'adoption de cette réforme sous cette législature car je partage l’objectif de moderniser le cadre existant et de garantir une juste rémunération des auteurs et créateurs, notamment vis-à-vis des plateformes telles que YouTube et Facebook, mais je considère que plusieurs des solutions retenues présentent des effets problématiques qui n’ont pas été résolus, et qu'il faudra résoudre lors de la transposition de cette directive en droit français. Nous devons protéger à la fois le droit d’auteur et les libertés publiques. Or l’article 13 sur la responsabilité des plateformes risque de mener à la mise en place d’un filtrage généralisé et automatisé de tout contenu mis en ligne par des utilisateurs. De tels filtres pourraient censurer injustement certains contenus, limitant alors la liberté d’expression et l’accès à la connaissance. J’aurais préféré la solution portée par les Verts consistant à généraliser le système de licences entre les plateformes et les ayant-droits, garantissant ainsi une juste rémunération pour les auteurs sans entraver nos libertés. L’obtention de licences doit être l’option privilégiée ; il faudra être vigilant lors de la transposition.
2016/11/22
Findings and recommendations of the Special Committee on Terrorism (A8-0374/2018 - Monika Hohlmeier, Helga Stevens) FR

Bien que ce rapport contienne des recommandations bienvenues (renforcement de la coopération, extension des compétences du Parquet européen, suivi accru des flux financiers illicites, meilleure prise en charge des victimes, notamment), j’ai voté contre en raison d’aspects problématiques contraires à notre vision pour combattre efficacement le terrorisme.Il ne remet pas en cause la direction prise ces dernières années vers une surveillance de masse; il va plus loin encore en recommandant l’interconnexion des fichiers, le rallongement de la rétention des données, une collecte biométrique toujours plus vaste, et en voulant faire des algorithmes la nouvelle police de l’internet. Refusons ces politiques coûteuses qui détournent des moyens pouvant être mieux utilisés, notamment pour renforcer les effectifs dans la police et la justice. Préférons la surveillance ciblée à la suspicion généralisée.En liant systématiquement migration et terrorisme, ce rapport stigmatise et oppose les uns aux autres. Il fait également la part belle au fantasme d'une forteresse Europe qui ne résoudra en rien le terrorisme. Ne nous trompons pas de combat. Nous devons investir pour la cohésion de nos sociétés et tarir les sources de l’extrémisme violent.La défense de la démocratie et de nos libertés est un rempart contre les fanatismes.
2016/11/22
Copyright in the Digital Single Market (A8-0245/2018 - Axel Voss) FR

J’ai voté contre le mandat pour la directive sur le droit d’auteur tel que proposé par la commission des affaires juridiques du Parlement européen et son rapporteur Axel Voss (PPE). Ce vote n’était pas un vote «contre» le texte en soi mais un vote «pour» ouvrir à nouveau les discussions au sein du Parlement, afin d’obtenir un texte plus équilibré, protégeant à la fois le droit d’auteur et les libertés fondamentales.Je soutiens cette réforme et partage l’objectif de garantir une juste rémunération des auteurs et créateurs, notamment vis-à-vis des plateformes telles que YouTube et Facebook. Ce texte contient en l’état certaines dispositions qui ouvrent des zones grises sur lesquelles il est essentiel de revenir afin d’éviter toute dérive. C’est le cas en particulier de l’article 13, qui introduit un système de filtrage pour toute mise en ligne de contenu sur ces plateformes. Or, l’introduction de tels filtres pourrait censurer injustement certains contenus, limitant ainsi la liberté d’expression et l’accès à la connaissance. Je préfère à cette dangereuse disposition une solution qui consisterait à généraliser le système de licences entre les plateformes et les sociétés représentant les ayant droits, garantissant ainsi une juste rémunération pour les auteurs/créateurs sans entraver nos droits.
2016/11/22
Extension of the duration of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (A8-0198/2017 - Udo Bullmann, José Manuel Fernandes) FR

Face à l’Europe de l’austérité, les écologistes ont toujours appelé à une politique de relance économique favorisant la demande ainsi que les investissements dans les secteurs d’avenir pour créer des emplois durables. Le plan Juncker permet de stimuler l’investissement privé grâce aux garanties budgétaires apportées par l’UE, mais ce plan doit s'accompagner selon nous d'une politique de relance de la demande. Par ailleurs, ce plan laisse toujours la possibilité de financer des projets de construction d'autoroutes ou de défense, c’est pourquoi je me suis abstenue sur le vote permettant son extension.Mon groupe a eu un rôle très constructif en permettant d’améliorer le texte et nous nous en félicitons, en particulier concernant la plus grande transparence dans la sélection des projets. Malgré des améliorations sur la prise en compte des objectifs d'action pour le climat, il est regrettable que le plan Juncker puisse continuer à financer l’économie du passé, comme les énergies fossiles ou le nucléaire. Alors qu’actuellement la campagne «Pas un euro de plus» de la société civile demande au monde de la finance d’arrêter de financer les activités destructrices de la planète, nous restons cohérents avec nos convictions.
2016/11/22
Combating terrorism (A8-0228/2016 - Monika Hohlmeier) FR

Si je soutiens l’objectif général d’harmoniser les définitions des infractions terroristes au niveau de l'UE, cette directive comporte des lacunes majeures.Je suis préoccupée par la définition des infractions terroristes, couvrant les actes susceptibles de provoquer «une perte économique majeure». Des gouvernements pourraient s’en servir pour museler des actes de désobéissance civile ou les ONG, notamment environnementales. La définition aurait dû être limitée aux actes violents et aux destructions susceptibles de mettre des vies en danger, non un chiffre d’affaires.Je suis alarmée par l’article 5 criminalisant la provocation «indirecte» au terrorisme, qui risque de porter atteinte à la liberté d’information et d’expression – d’autant plus à la lumière de l’article 21 sur le blocage des sites internet.Je suis sceptique quant à l’article 9 criminalisant le voyage, notamment intra-UE. Nul besoin de criminaliser le voyage en soi puisque d'autres infractions suffisent à poursuivre un combattant étranger présumé. Alors que la valeur ajoutée de cette nouvelle disposition n’a pas été démontrée, le risque qu’elle soit détournée et utilisée abusivement de manière discriminatoire est réel.Enfin, je regrette que l’échange d’informations pertinentes entre États membres n’ait pu être rendu obligatoire et automatique, alors que ce devrait être une priorité.
2016/11/22

Written declarations (5)

Written declaration on the implementation of Article 245 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in relation to José Manuel Barroso’s new role at Goldman Sachs

Written declaration on the United Nations Zero Hunger Challenge

Written declaration on establishing a European day in recognition of the victims of European colonisation and colonial slavery

Written declaration on a clean Parliament

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(93 KB) DOC(45 KB)
Authors: Sonia ALFANO, Eva JOLY, Rosario CROCETTA, Rita BORSELLINO

Amendments (2444)

Amendment 9 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
8a having regard to its resolution of 11 April 2018 on protection of investigative journalists in Europe: the case of Slovak journalist Jan Kuciak and Martina Kušnírová
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 12 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
- having regard to its resolution of 29 November 2018 on The Cum Ex Scandal: financial crime and the loopholes in the current legal framework;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 19 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 19 a (new)
- having regard to the infringement procedures against 21 Member States for having not or only partially transposed AMLD4 into national law of which three are currently at the stage of court referrals (Romania, Ireland and now Luxembourg), with one on hold (Greece), nine at the stage of Reasoned Opinions, and eight at the stage of Letters of Formal Notice,
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 20 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 20 a (new)
- having regard to the Commission Communication on strengthening the Union framework for prudential and anti- money laundering supervision,
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 21 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 21 a (new)
- having regard to the Recommendation of the EBA to the Maltese FIAU,
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 22 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 21 b (new)
- having regard to the Formal Opinion to the Maltese FIAU of the Commission,
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 26 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 25 a (new)
- having regard to reports on tax avoidance and tax evasion as challenges for governance, social protection and development in developing countries1a, and gender equality and taxation policies in the EU1b; _________________ 1a Report on tax avoidance and tax evasion as challenges for governance, social protection and development in developing countries (2015/2058(INI)) (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/get Doc.do?pubRef=- //EP//TEXT+REPORT+A8-2015- 0184+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN) 1b Gender equality and taxation policies in the EU (2018/2095(INI)) (https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oei l/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=&refere nce=2018/2095(INI)
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 41 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Notes that money laundering, tax evasion and tax avoidance have important economic, political, and social impacts, including loss of tax revenue, productivity loss, unfair competition and inequality, and incentivise certain economic outcomes that undermine both the countries’ political stability and social contract; stresses that the negative effects on public resources also impact the realisation of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs);
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 45 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Notes with regret that tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning are important factors causing income and wealth inequality, and have shifted the tax burden from rich individuals to poorer citizens, from capital income to labour income and consumption, from MNEs to SMEs and from the financial sector to the real economy; notes that this has resulted in weaker and less efficient tax-and- transfer systems that are essential to finance public goods and stabilise the economy;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 47 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1 c. Notes that tax evasion and tax avoidance are major contributors to gender inequality in the Union and globally as they limit the resources available to governments to increase equality at national and international level; calls on the Commission, the Council and the Member States to include a gender perspective in the formulation of its proposal to tackle tax evasion;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 51 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Stresses that during the work of the TAX3 Special Committee more revelations concerning financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance have come to light, particularly connected to cases such as those of the ABLV Bank in Latvia, the murder of investigative journalists Ján Kuciak and Martina Kušnírová, the Danske Bank in Denmark and Estonia or the Cum Ex scandal involving at least 11 EU countries; stresses that as a result of the Panama Papers scandal, four people have been charged in the US;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 60 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the fact that during its current term the Commission has put forward 22 legislative proposals aimed at closing some of the loopholes, improving the fight against financial crimes and aggressive tax planning, and enhancing tax collection efficiency and tax fairness; calls for the swift adoption of initiatives that have not yet been finalised before the end of this legislature, particularly the key legislative proposals for public Country by Country reporting, Common Corporate tax Base and Common Consolidated Corporate tax base and digital taxation; and for careful monitoring of the implementation to ensure efficiency and proper enforcement, in order to keep pace with the versatility of tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 63 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Regrets that the Council has repeatedly failed to pass the measures that are necessary to require transnational corporations to fulfil their part of the social contract; notes that such failure undermines faith in the ability of democratic politicians to solve issues of injustice that are deeply troubling for our citizens;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 70 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Regrets that due to resistance of Member States, several legislative proposals in the field of tax justice have not been adopted yet to the detriment of European citizens.
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 75 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Deplores again ‘the lack of reliable and unbiased statistics on the magnitude of tax avoidance and tax evasion [and] stresses the importance of developing appropriate and transparent methodologies to quantify the scale of these phenomena, as well as their impact on countries’ public finances, economic activities and public investments’; notes that transparency in general is central to the fight against money laundering, tax evasion and tax avoidance, and that some jurisdictions have interest in keeping the secrecy at place;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 84 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Council and Member States to prioritise projects, notably with the support of the Fiscalis programme, aimed at quantifying the magnitude of tax avoidance in order to better address the current tax gap; urges the Commission and Member States to analyse their tax gaps in the EU and Member States including VAT gaps in order to design tax policies in an effective manner.
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 86 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Calls on the Member States to estimate their tax gaps, and publish the results annually;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 91 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Highlights that close to 40 % of MNEs’ profits are shifted to tax havens globally each year and recognizes that certain jurisdictions within the EU, namely Luxemburg, Ireland and the Netherlands, are regular receivers of financial flows and reported profits generated elsewhere in the Union due to their very low or zero corporate, dividend and capital gains tax rates, and special tax provisions25 ; _________________ 25 Tørsløv, Wier and Zucman ‘The missing profits of nations’, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 24701, 2018.
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 94 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Notes the tendency of corporations to produce their own estimates of ETRs - often based on bogus methods - which are then used to influence policy in a way that diminishes their tax liabilities;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 98 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls that the fight against tax evasion and fraud tackles illegal acts, whereas the fight against tax avoidance addresses situations that are a priori within the limits of the law but against its spirit and could be considered illegal; however, recalls with concern that this strict distinction ignores the existence of grey areas and fails to take sufficient account of the ability of powerful players to change tax law to suit themselves;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 107 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Recalls that ATP describes the setting of a tax design aimed at reducing tax liability by using the technicalities of a tax system or of mismatches between two or more tax systems that go against the spirit of the law and could be considered illegal;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 111 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Notes that the growing role of intangible assets in the MNE value chain and harmful R&D tax incentives are conducive to aggressive tax planning.;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 123 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses the similarity between corporate tax payers and high-net-worth individuals in the use of corporate structures and similar structures such as trusts and offshore locations for the purpose of ATP; recalls the role of intermedia, in this regard, that for the wealthy most of their income arrives in setting up such schemethe form of capital gains rather than earnings;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 128 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the Commission’s assessment and inclusion of ATP indicators in its 2018 European Semester country reports; calls for such assessment to become a regular feature in order to ensure a level playing field in the EU internal market with a clear follow-up, as well as the greater stability of public revenue in the long run; regrets that so far no recommendations to end harmful tax practices have been put forward by the Commission in the course of the European Semester country reports, calls on the Commission to ensure full transparency of this exercise, including the follow-up, and to give countries concrete recommendations regarding the fight against aggressive tax planning strategies;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 143 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Reiterates its call on companies, as taxpayers, to fully comply with their tax obligations and refrain fromstop any forms of aggressive tax planning leading to BEPS, and to consider fair taxation strategy as an important part of their corporate social responsibilityto recognise their business is enabled by tax-funded social, legal and physical infrastructure and public services, and to embrace fair taxation strategy as an important part of their corporate social responsibility; reminds them that rising inequality and the gap between the wealthy and corporate elites is undermining the cohesion of societies and faith in democratic politics;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 149 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14 a. Urges Member States to review and update bilateral taxation agreements between Member States and with third countries to close loopholes that incentivise tax-driven trading practices with the purpose of tax avoidance;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 156 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Recalls that taxes must be paid in the jurisdictions where the actual economic activity and value creation takes place or, in case of indirect taxation, where consumption takes place; especially since it is required to fund the public services that the corporations themselves depend on;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 157 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Deplores the drop in nominal corporate tax rates all over Europe in recent years and the proliferation of incentives to lower the effective tax rate (ETR) compared to the statutory corporate tax rate; notes with concern that, regarding effective tax rates in the EU, in addition to Luxembourg (2.2%), the lowest ETRs are to be found in Hungary (7.5%), Bulgaria (9.5%), Cyprus (9.6%) as well as in the Netherlands (10.4%) and Latvia (10.6%) and that most countries appear to tax MNEs regressively: the larger the MNE, the lower the ETR;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 159 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15 b. Acknowledges the harmful consequences that tax competition between jurisdictions and the resulting "race to the bottom" have on public revenues and the progressivity of taxation; underlines that the further lowering of corporate taxes will eventually put the sustainability of the Union's public finances at stake; calls on the European Commission to propose a Directive that ensures minimum effective corporate tax rates of at least 20% in the European Union;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 173 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Acknowledges that special tax and deduction regimes, including those in non-EU countries like Switzerland, bear substantial responsibility for the global downward spiral of corporate taxes rates; notes that the effective tax rate is much lower than nominal rates in most EU countries, and important disparities and pressure on lower tax rates lead to a race to the bottom;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 175 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)
16 b. Regrets that profit shifting is often used by companies to put pressure on governments and employees, demanding weaker regulation and labour standards with the excuse of low profit margins, even though the company is operating successfully;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 192 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Acknowledges that the G20/OECD- led BEPS project was meant to tackle in a coordinated manner the causes and circumstances creating BEPS practices, by improving the coherence of tax rules across borders, reinforcing substance requirements and enhancing transparency and certainty; regrets that OECD BEPS Action Plan concerns only tax base competition and does not address tax rate competition;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 196 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Notes that the G20/OECD 15-point BEPS action plan is being implemented and monitored and further discussions are taking place, in a broader context than just the initial participating countries, through the Inclusive Framework; notes with regret however that BEPS so far failed to deliver on the most effective solution against the base erosion and profit shifting, deplores the fact that OECD still remain rather an exclusive club of countries rather that an open global platform that could keep up with the pace and deliver the solutions to minimise the negative impacts and risks of globalisation; calls on Member States to support a reform of both the mandate and the functioning of the Inclusive Framework to ensure that remaining tax loopholes and unsolved tax questions such as the allocation of taxing rights among countries are covered by the current international framework to combat BEPS practices;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 204 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Points out that some countries have recently adopted unilateral countermeasures against harmful tax practices (such as the UK’s Diverted Profits Tax and the Global Intangible Low- Taxed Income (GILTI) provisions of the US tax reform) to ensure that the foreign income of MNEs is duly taxed at a minimum effective tax rate in the parent’s country of residence; calls for an EU assessment of these measures and a legislative proposal, if appropriate, considering the negative potential tax base and strategic spillovers the US reform can have on the EU;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 225 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Reiterates its call for a clear definition of permanent establishment, including the concept of a ‘significant digital presence’, so that companies cannot artificially avoid having a taxable presence in a Member State in which they have economic activity;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 239 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
27. Emphasises that the EU actions aimed at addressing BEPS and ATP have equipped tax authorities with an updated toolbox to ensure fair tax collection; stresses that tax authorities should be responsible for making effective use of the tools without imposing an additional significant burden on responsible taxpayers, particularly SMEs;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 245 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
28. Recognises that the new flow of information to tax authorities following the adoption of ATAD I and DAC4 creates the need for adequate resources to ensure the most efficient use of such information and to effectively reduce the current tax gap; notes that there are continuing loopholes in the DAC regime that need to be closed1; __________________________ [1] Greens/EFA Report Reporting taxation: Analysing loopholes in the EU’s automatic exchange of information and how to close them, October 15 2018
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 247 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28 a. Is concerned by the trend amongst some Member States of facilitating onshoring of IP from low tax Third Countries to EU Member States, through the provision of amortisation relief on IP acquirement, the proliferation of ‘patent boxes’ providing reduced taxation rates on certain IP profits, high or complete capital allowances for intellectual property and the introduction or extension of research and development credits1; notes that this while may conform with the BEPS actions’ substance requirements, it is in contrast with the spirit of BEPS; reiterates concerns expressed by the European Parliament2 and European Commission in relation to revenue losses associated with such measures3; _______________________ [1] Eurodad et. al., Tax Games: the Race to the Bottom, Europe’s role in supporting an unjust tax system 2017, December 2017, pp. 22 – 24; and IMF, Fiscal Monitor: Acting Now, Acting Together, April 2016, p 44. [2] European Parliament resolution of 25 November 2015 on tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect, OJ C 366, 27.10.2017, p. 26, paragraph 117. [3] European Commission, DG TAXUD, Tax Policies in the European Union. 2016 Survey, 26 October 2016, 2.1.3 R&D tax incentives, p 2.
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 250 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 c (new)
28 c. Calls on EU Institutions and Member States to support a global tax reform based on the principles of formulary apportionment as included in the CCCTB proposal;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 254 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
29. Welcomes the fact that Member States’ tax systems and overall tax environment have become part of the European Semester in line with Parliament’s call to that effect29 ; welcomes the studies and data drawn up by the Commission30 that allow situations that provide economic ATP indicators to be better addressed, and give a clear indication of the exposure to tax planning as well as furnishing a rich data base for all Member States on the phenomenon; calls on the Commission to make full use of this information and give concerned countries precise recommendations in its Specific Country Recommendations’ (SCRs) reports; urges Member States to swiftly follow the Commission's recommendations to fight ATP; _________________ 29 European Parliament resolution of 25 November 2015 on tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect, OJ C 366, 27.10.2017, p. 51, paragraph 96. 30 Referred to above. The studies provide an overview of Member States’ exposure to ATP structures affecting their tax base (erosion or increase), although there is no stand-alone indicator of the phenomenon, a set of indicators seen as a ‘body of evidence’ nevertheless exists.
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 268 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
32. Calls on the Commission to issue a proposal aimed at repealoutlawing patent boxes, and calls on Member States to favour non- harmful and, if appropriate, direct support for R&D; reiterates, in the meantime, its call to ensure that current patent boxes establish a genuine link to economic activity, such as expenditure tests, and that they do not distort competition; welcomes the improved definition of R&D costs in the common corporate tax base (CCTB) proposal;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 269 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)
32 a. Calls on both the EU institutions and Member States to ensure public procurement contracts do not facilitate tax avoidance or benefit ATP by suppliers. Member States should monitor and ensure that companies or other legal entities involved in tenders and procurement contracts do not participate in tax evasion and avoidance by interacting with financial intermediaries established in offshore centres and tax havens, or by facilitating illicit capital flows, and to increase their transparency policies by requiring annual public country-by-country reporting, tracing beneficial ownership and controlling transfer pricing in order to ensure the transparencyof investments and prevent tax evasion and tax avoidance; calls on the Commission to clarify existing procurement practice under the EU procurement directive, and if necessary, propose an update to it that does not prohibit the application of tax related considerations as criteria for exclusion or even as selection criteria in public procurement1. ______________ [1] Initiatives such as www.tenderhaven.eu have attempted to introduce more transparency.
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 286 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
33. Welcomes the re-launch of the CCCTB project in a two-step approach, with the Commission’s adoption of interconnected proposals on CCTB and CCCTB; calls on the Council to swiftly adopt them, taking into consideration Parliament’s opinion that already includes the concept of virtual permanent establishment that would close the remaining loopholes allowing tax avoidance to take place and level the playing field in light of digitalisationdeplores the continued refusal of certain Member States to support this proposal and the failure of EU solidarity that this refusal represents;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 289 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
33 a. Urges the Council to adopt these legislative proposals as soon as possible and before the end of this legislature, taking into consideration Parliament’s opinion that already includes the concept of virtual permanent establishment; considers that the deployment of this legislation would significantly contribute to closing the remaining loopholes and level the playing field in light of digitalisation and the growing role of intangible assets in the MNE value chain, which have exacerbated the problems with transfer pricing systems; however, expresses concern about the inclusion of a super-deduction for research and development1; ________________ [1] Council of the European Union, Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee, ECO/419,5.4 (http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/docu ment/ST-12848-2017-INIT/EN/pdf)
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 315 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
35. Welcomes the digital tax package adopted by the Commission on 21 March 2018; calls on the Council to swiftly adopt these proposalsdeplores the slow approach by the Council and its inability to come to an agreement on this package yet; points out that this already led to the distortion of the Single Market as national solutions have been put in place in different Member States and warns that the distortion risks worsening as other Member States consider to put in place national digital taxes; calls on the Council to adopt these proposals as soon as possible and before the end of this legislature, taking into account Parliament’s opinion on them;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 320 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a (new)
35 a. Recalls that the digital services under the scope of the digital tax package should be the processing and sale of data, online advertisement, digital interfaces and the provision of digital content; deplores that the Council is currently considering a proposal that is much less ambitious in scope than the Commission’s proposal and than the Parliament’s position;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 328 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
36. Understands that the so-called interim solution is not optimal; believnotes that it will help speed up the search for a better solution at global level, while levelling the playing field in local markets to some extent and preventing further distortion of EU Single Market; insists on the need to take a more optimal and long-term approach by adopting the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Basis (CCCTB) with a digital factor in the formula apportionment, as voted by the Parliament in March 2018, together with the new definition of a Significant Digital Presence (SDP); strongly believes that it is the best way to tackle tax evasion of digital multinationals and deplores that these files are not progressing in the Council;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 335 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 a (new)
36a. Reiterates its call on the Commission to use the power vested in the article 116 TFEU and to make proposals in the area of taxation under this article, in particular for the adoption of the Digital Services Tax (DST) and the CCCTB; believes that the conditions set out in Article 116 are met since there is a clear evidence that competition in the internal market between digital and traditional firms is distorted and that the Council failed to come to an agreement to eliminate the distortion;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 347 #

2018/2121(INI)

38a. Calls on the Commission to tackle existing loopholes in automatic exchange of information, particularly coming from the DAC3 revision; stresses in this regard that this should cover national rulings and rulings with natural persons, that information should be made public, and that information on rulings should be better exchanged with third countries;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 350 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
39. Reiterates, furthermore, its call to ensure simultaneous tax audits of persons of common or complementary interests (including parent companies and their subsidiaries), and its calcalls on the Commission to present a legislative proposal to further enhance tax cooperation between Member States through an obligation to answer group requests on tax matters;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 355 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
40. Emphasises that not only information exchanges between, but also the sharing of best practices among tax authorities contribute to more efficient tax collection; calls on the Commission and the Member States to give priority to the sharing of best practices among tax authorities;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 360 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
42. Welcomes the automatic exchange of financial account information based on the global standard which has been developed by the OECD with Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino and Switzerland; calls on the Commission and the Member States to upgrade the Treaty provisions so as to match the DAC as amended; regrets that Andorra, Liechtenstein, San Marino and Switzerland are moving from secrecy jurisdictions to low taxation jurisdictions, and still have harmful regimes according to the Council assessment on the EU list;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 370 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 a (new)
44a. Highlights with concern that the cum-ex scandal revealed that the cum-ex and cum-cum financial crimes are still ongoing in the EU; condemns the fact that 11 Member States have lost up to EUR 55,2 billion as a result of these criminal schemes;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 378 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 b (new)
44b. Calls on the Commission to assess the state of play of all potentially harmful taxation agreements and any possible loophole in the EU rules on common taxation of parent companies and their subsidiaries, to come up with new upgraded policy measures to tackle dividend arbitrage practices and to take the necessary steps to prevent traders from exploiting loopholes in the law;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 383 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 c (new)
44c. Calls on the Commission to make a proposal to strengthen the DAC6 in order to require the mandatory disclosure of dividend arbitrage schemes and all information on capital gains, including the granting of dividend and capital gains tax refunds;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 398 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
45. Stresses that the proposal for public CBCR was submitted to the co-legislators just after the Panama papers scandal on 12 April 2016, and that Parliament adopted its position on it on 4 July 2017; recalls that the latter called for an enlargement of the scope of reporting and protection of commercially sensitive information; deplores the lack of progress and cooperation from the Council since 2016; urges for progress to be made in the Council so that it enters immediately into negotiations with Parliament as soon as possible and find agreement before the end of this legislature;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 406 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)
45a. Notes that transparency is still lacking in numerous areas of taxation in the EU not limited to the corporate taxation; calls on the Commission and on Member States to collect and publish data on non-doms and CBI/RBI schemes; calls on the Commission to present a proposal to make the publication of tax rulings mandatory;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 408 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 b (new)
45b. Calls on the Commission to issue a proposal that would oblige Member States to ensure that economic operators participating in public procurement procedures comply with a minimum level of transparency regarding tax, particularly public CBCR and transparent ownership structures;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 409 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 c (new)
45c. Reminds Member States of the legal base of the proposal for public CBCR as found in the impact assessment of the Commission published 12 April 2016; recalls that the measures on corporate tax transparency cannot be regarded as relating to fiscal provisions affecting the establishment or functioning of the internal market in the sense of Article 115 TFEU;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 413 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
47. Calls on the Commission to assess possible measures to discourage Member States from granting such State aid in the form of a tax advantage, and to develop a robust method for measuring such indirect state aid;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 419 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 a (new)
48a. Is concerned by the lack of transparency of tax rulings and notes that the tax rulings investigated by the Commission were only available to them because of revelations by investigative journalists, civil society organisations and trade unions.
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 424 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
49. Notes that despite the fact that the Commission found McDonald’s benefited from double non-taxation on certain of its profits in the EU, no decision under EU State Aid rules could be issued, as the Commission concluded that the double non-taxation stemmed from a mismatch between Luxembourg and US tax laws and the Luxembourg-United States double taxation treaty38 ; calls on the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal to harmonise double taxation treaties of Member States and terminate existing mismatches in the qualification of profits and expenses; _________________ 38 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP- 18-5831_en.htm
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 433 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
51. Reiterates its calls to the European Commission for guidelines clarifying what constitutes tax-related State aid and ‘appropriate’ transfer pricing, with a view to removing legal uncertainties for both compliant taxpayers and tax administrations, and providing a framework for Member States’ tax practices accordingly;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 436 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51 a (new)
51a. Points out that the scope of state aide cases proves the urgent need to for a systemic change and approval of EU-wide reforms to curb tax avoidance including mandatory public Country-by-Country Reporting, Common Corporate Tax Base and Common Consolidate Corporate Tax Base or digital taxation; calls for a reform of the European State Aid framework in order to make tackling tax avoidance schemes between multinationals and Member States faster and more effective;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 441 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2.6
LetterboxShell companies
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 445 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
52. Notes that there is no single definition of letterbox companiesshell companies; notes, however, that they are characterised by the absence of real economic activity in the Member State of registration, and are a means for treaty abuse or treaty shopping, usually used with the purpose of circumventing labour laws and social contributions, aggressive tax planning and tax evasion, money laundering and/or terrorist financing;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 448 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52 a (new)
52a. Notes that shell companies offer anonymity to its ultimate beneficiaries and allow them to abuse tax treaties; notes in this regard that the central register on the beneficial ownership foreseen in AMLD4 covers shell companies but regrets that the threshold for disclosure (25% of shareholding) will not prevent owners from remaining hidden; highlights that shell companies can be used as a vehicle for money laundering, tax evasion and tax avoidance; calls on the Commission to propose an amendment to the AMLD5 requiring obliged entities to file a suspicious transaction report whenever they enter into business or help setting up a shell company;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 452 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
53. Points out national measures to specifically ban commercial relationships with letterboxshell companies; highlights, in particular, the Latvian legislation which defines a letterboxshell company as an entity having no actual economic activity and holding no documentary proof to the contrary, as being registered in a jurisdiction where companies are not required to submit financial statements, and/or as having no place of business in its country of residence;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 454 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53 a (new)
53a. Notes that Latvia adopted in May 2018 a law banning financial institutions, as well as intermediaries, from cooperating and doing business with shell companies; calls on the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal to introduce the Latvian legislation in EU legislation and to encourage all EU Member States to follow this example;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 468 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55
55. Underlines that a high share of foreign direct investment held by special purpose entities (SPEs) exists in several Member States, particularly in Malta, Luxembourg and the Netherlands;41 highlights that foreign direct investments through SPEs can be considerably affected by small legislative changes, whether domestically or abroad, affecting tax revenues and financial stability of the concerned countries and of the EU as a whole; _________________ 41 Kiendl Kristo I. and Thirion E., op. cit., p.23.
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 486 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58
58. Urges the Commission and the Member States to establish coordinated, binding, enforceable and substantial economic activity requirements as well as expenditure tests;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 490 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59
59. Calls on the Commission to carry out, within two years, fitness checks of the interconnected legislative and policy initiatives aimed at addressing the use of letterboxshell companies in the context of tax fraud, tax evasion, aggressive tax planning and money laundering; calls on the Commission to make a proposal to ban shell companies in the EU, regarding that their use is associated with aggressive tax planning indicators;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 495 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59 a (new)
59a. Notes that VAT is generally considered a regressive form of taxation, having a disproportionate impact on women and poorer people, who typically spend a higher proportion of their income on consumption1; notes that action on VAT should consider in the context of the overall spread of burden across different groups of taxpayers; is concerned that VAT rates have steadily increased across EU Member States, while corporate income tax rates have decreased2; calls on the European Commission to investigate the impact of increasing VAT rates and decreasing corporate income tax rates on the effective tax burden of different taxpayers; _______________________________ [1] Asa Gunnarsson, Margit Schratzenstaller and Ulrike Spangenberg, Gender equality and taxation in the European Union study, Directorate- General for Internal Policies, European Parliament, 2018;Caren Grown and Imraan Valodia (editors), Taxation and Gender Equity:A Comparative Analysis of Direct and Indirect Taxes in Developing and Developed Countries, Routledge, 2010 pp32 – 74, pp 309 – 310, and p315;Action Aid, Value-Added Tax (VAT), Progressive tax policy brief, 2018;and Janet G.Stotsky, Gender and Its Relevance to Macroeconomic Policy:A Survey, IMF Working Paper, WP/06/233, p.42 [2] Eurodad et. al., Tax Games: the Race to the Bottom, Europe’s role in supporting an unjust tax system 2017, December 2017, pp. 14 - 16;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 502 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61
61. Regrets, however, that every year, large amounts of the expected VAT revenue are lost because of fraud; highlights that according to the Commission’s statistics, the VAT gap in 2016 amounted to EUR 147 billion, which represents more than 12 % of the total expected VAT revenue43 ; notes that the Commission estimates that around EUR 50 billion – or EUR 100 per EU citizen each year – is lost to cross-border VAT fraud44 ; while the Europol estimates around 60 billion EUR of the VAT gap is connected to VAT fraud, partly used also organised crime and terrorism financing; _________________ 43 Study and Reports on the VAT Gap in the EU-28 Member States: 2018 Final Report / TAXUD/2015/CC/131. 44 See Commission press release: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17- 3443_en.htm
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 504 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 a (new)
61a. Highlights with concern that the VAT gap in 2016 amounted to EUR 147 billion; notes that the Commission estimates that around EUR 50 billion each year is lost to cross-border VAT fraud and that the proceeds from criminal activity in the EU are estimated to amount to EUR 110 billion per year; notes that the UNODC estimates that between 2 and 5% of global GDP is laundered each year;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 506 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62
62. Calls for additional statistics to estimate the VAT gap; stresses that there is no common approach to data collection and sharing within the EU; urges the Commission to ensure that harmonised statistics are collected and published regularly in Member States;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 510 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 63
63. Underlines that the feature of the current VAT (transitional) regime of applying an exemption to intracommunity supplies and exports within the EU has been abused by fraudsters, in particular in the VAT carousel fraud; stresses that cash transactions still remain a very high risk regarding VAT fraud;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 535 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 70 a (new)
70a. Regards with concern the Council's adoption of a Proposal to amend the common system of value added tax as regards the temporary application of a generalised reverse charge mechanism (GRCM) in relation to supplies of goods and services above a certain threshold of 2 October 2018, which allows for a GRCM with much weaker criteria than those approved by the European Parliament; acknowledges that a generalised application of the RCM shifts the tax liability to the retail stage, transforming the VAT system into a Sales Tax, jeopardising the in-built faithful reporting incentives of the VAT fractional payments system by concentrating the risk of fraud at the end of the value chain; notes that this creates risks for other types of fraud to arise, through underreporting of sales volumes and the exploitation of the variability of VAT rates across Member States, and that VAT fraud can be passed on to neighbouring countries, creating market disruptions in those borders where some Member States apply GRCM and others do not; calls on the Commission to closely monitor the application and consequences of this new legislation;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 560 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 76
76. Calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure that EPPO towill begin operating as soon as possible and by 2022 at the latest; calls for exemplary sanctions to be pronounced; considers that anyone engaged in an organised VAT fraud scheme should be severely sanctioned in order to avoid a perception of impunity;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 568 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 78 a (new)
78a. Highlights the importance of the implementation of a register of beneficial owners as an important tool to tackle VAT fraud; stresses the need and calls on Member States to create specialised units of police and tax services as well as to appoint specialised prosecutors and judges to deal with this type of fraud;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 583 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 81
81. Emphasises that natural persons do not generally exercise their freedom of movement for the purposes of tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning; underlines, however, that some natural persons have a tax base large enough to span several tax jurisdictions; with high income and/or high wealth use inconsistent definitions of tax residence, special regimes and insufficient enforcement within or beyond the EU to achieve double non-taxation of their income
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 588 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 82
82. Regrets that even without shifting tax residence high net worth individuals (HNWI) and ultra HNWI (UHNWI) continue to have the possibility to shift their earnings and funds or their purchases through different tax jurisdictions to obtain substantially reduced or zero liability by using the services of wealth managers and other intermediaries; deplores that some EU Member States have implemented tax schemed to attract high net worth individuals and create space for double non-taxation;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 592 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 83
83. Notes with regret that corporate tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning contribute to shifting the tax burden on to honest and fair taxpayers, undermining the social contract and requiring law-abiding citizens to contribute a higher proportion of their earnings to the exchequer, as well as increasing inequality between those benefiting from the schemes and those who do not;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 594 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 83 a (new)
83a. Notes that the threat of tax evasion and avoidance has created a race to the bottom regarding taxation of wealth, inheritance and capital incomes visible in the fact that – even without all the loopholes and avoidance strategies – the headline rates for labour income are usually higher than for effortless income from wealth and capital throughout the EU;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 595 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 83 b (new)
83b. Recognizes that low top marginal rates, whether on labour income or on capital income, incentivise certain behaviour from Chief Executive Officers that result in poorer corporate economic governance and increased income inequality;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 601 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84
84. Deplores the fact that some Member States, such as Portugal, have created tax regimes allowing non-nationals to obtain income tax benefits, hereby undermining other Member States’ tax base and fostering harmful policies which discriminate against their own citizens; these regimes offer benefits such as such as non-taxation of foreign possessions and income, lump-sum tax on foreign income, tax-free allowances on a part of incomes earn in the country, lower tax rate on pensions remitted to the country;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 605 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84 a (new)
84a. Reminds that the Commission in its communication of 2001 suggested to include special regimes for expatriates in its list of harmful tax practices1 but has not provided any data on the scope of the problem since; calls on the Commission to reactivate its work on this issue and to start by collecting information on the users and costs of existing regimes, including the costs of double non-taxation of cross-border capital income that is usually ignored by cost estimates of national tax agencies. __________________ [1] COM (2001) 260: Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee Tax policy in the European Union - Priorities for the years ahead (https://eur- lex.europa.eu/procedure/EN/164839)
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 615 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 85
85. Observes that a majority of Member States have adopted citizenship by investment (CBI) or residency by investment (RBI) schemes57 , generally known as visa or investor programmes, by which citizenship or residence is granted to non-EU citizens, whether they are from EU or non-EU countries, in exchange for financial investment; observes that these programmes do not necessarily require applicants to spend time on the territory in which the investment is made; _________________ 57 18 Member States have some form of RBI scheme in place, including four Member States that operate CBI schemes in addition to RBI schemes: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Malta, Romania. 10 Member States have no such schemes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden. Source: study entitled ‘Citizenship by investment (CBI) and residency by investment (RBI) schemes in the EU‘, EPRS, October 2018, PE: 627.128; ISBN: 978-92-846-3375-3.
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 623 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 86 a (new)
86a. Notes that Citizenship by investment and residency by investment schemes in Member States such as Latvia, Austria or the UK have been used by a significant number of actors originating from Russia and countries under Russian influence; deplores that the secrecy surrounding these money flows has significantly increased the political, economic and security risks for European countries, particularly the risks of money laundering.
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 624 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 86 b (new)
86b. Notes that CBI and RBI schemes offered by third countries might pose EU security risks regarding visa issuing, and may increase the potential for tax evasion; highlights that, according to the OECD, CBI and RBI schemes are even more problematic when implemented by low or no-taxation jurisdiction and when no minimum presence is required;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 631 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 87
87. Stresses that CBI and RBI schemes carry significant risks, including a devaluation of EU citizenship and the potential for corruption, money laundering and tax evasion as well as security risks; reiterates its concern that citizenship or residence could be granted through these schemes without proper or indeed any customer due diligence (CDD) having been carried out by competent authorities; notes that the obligations contained in AMLD5 subjecting obliged entities to consider CBI or RBI applicants as a high-risk factor in the course of their due diligence process do not mitigate the risks associated with the schemes and should not constitute a way to absolve Member States from their responsibility to establish, abide by and monitor enhanced due diligence standards; notes that several formal investigations into corruption and money laundering have been launched at national and EU level directly related to CBI and RBI schemes; underlines that, at the same time, the economic sustainability and viability of the investments provided through these schemes remain uncertain; notes that one Member State’s decision to implement CBI and RBI schemes have spillover effects on other EU Member States;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 640 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88 a (new)
88a. Deplores that the financial benefits of such schemes accrue to a limited number of Member States whereas the potential costs of providing services to those who buy them may be borne by other states, creating an injustice across the Union;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 643 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 89
89. Worries that there is very little transparency in relation to the number and origin of applicants, the numbers of individuals granted citizenship or residency by these schemes and the amount invested through these schemes; appreciates the fact that somenotes that only a minority of Member States make explicit the name and nationalities of the individuals who are granted citizenship or residency under these schemes; calls on the Member States implementing these schemes to publish and share with other EU countries the names of all applicants, or at least the names of the politically exposed persons;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 653 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 90
90. Is concerned that according to the OECD, CBI and RBI schemes could be misused to undermine the common reporting standard (CRS) due diligence procedures, leading to inaccurate or incomplete reporting under the CRS, in particular when not all jurisdictions of tax residence are disclosed to the financial institution; notes that in the OECD’s view, the visa schemes which are potentially high-risk for the integrity of the CRS are those that give a taxpayer access to a low personal income tax rate of less than 10 % on offshore financial assets, and do not require a significant physical presence of at least 90 days in the jurisdiction offering the golden visa scheme; is concerned that Malta and Cyprus have schemes59 among those that potentially pose a high risk to the integrity of CRS; notes with concern that Member States that offer this kind of schemes and refuse at the same time to receive information from other non-EU Member States via CRS create a loophole in automatic exchange of information systems; _________________ 59 The Cypriot Citizenship by Investment: Scheme for Naturalisation of Investors by Exception, the Cypriot Residence by Investment, the Maltese Individual Investor Programme, and the Maltese Residence and Visa programme.
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 659 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 91
91. Concludes that the potential economic benefits of CBI and RBI schemes do not offset the serious money laundering and tax evasion risks they present; calls on Member States to phase out allban existing CBI or RBI schemes as soon as possible; stresses that, in the meantime, Member States should properly ensure that enhanced CDD on applicants for citizenship or residence through these schemes is duly carried out, as required by AMLD5nd monitored by competent authorities; and urges the Commission to identify legislative instruments to set and impose EU – wide harmonised standards of these schemes; calls on Member States to ensure that competent authorities bear the ultimate responsibility for assessing due diligence findings and decision-making, and make explicit the name and the nationalities of the individuals who are granted citizenship or residency under these schemes; calls on the Commission to monitor rigorously and continuously the proper implementation and application of CDD within the framework of CBI and RBI schemes until they are repealed in each Member State and start infringement procedures;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 667 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 92
92. Calls on Member States to prevent conflicts of interest linked to CBI and RBI schemes, which might arise when private firms which assisted the government in the design, management and promotion of these schemes, also advised and supported individuals by screening them for suitability and filing their applications for citizenship or residence; calls on Member States to require physical presence in the country as a condition for benefiting from CBI and RBI schemes before the phase out;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 675 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 93
93. Urges the Commission to finalise its study on CBI and RBI schemes in the Union; urges the Commission to examine whether, and, if so, which of these schemes posed a threat to EU legislation; calls on the Commission to assess the risks associated with the selling of citizenship and residence as part of its next Supranational Risk Assessment; urges the Commission to also assess the risks associated with the adoption of visa- waiver agreements with third countries that have CBI or RBI schemes in place; calls on the Commission to expand the scope of obliged entities covered by AMLD5 to include all agents or firms acting as intermediaries in the trade of citizenship and residency or acting as advisors in residence and citizenship planning; calls on the Commission to establish mechanisms for coordinating information sharing between Member States on rejected applications; calls on the Commission to assess the extent to which these schemes have been used by EU citizens;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 686 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 95
95. Notes that free ports within the EU can be established under the ‘free zone’ procedure; notes that free zones are enclosed areas within the customs territory of the Union where non-Union goods can be introduced free of import duty, other charges (i.e. taxes) and commercial policy measures; highlights with concern that free ports can be also used for the purpose of tax evasion;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 694 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 97
97. Notes that, apart from secure storage, the motivations for the use of free ports include a high degree of secrecy and the deferral of import duties and indirect taxes such as VAT or user tax; recognizes that the purpose of free ports is not to constitute a place for the safe and tax-free storage of value for the wealth of individuals while it has been found that they are frequently used as such;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 697 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 99
99. Observes that under the Union Customs Code, customs warehouses are on an almost identical legal footing with free ports; recommends, therefore, they be put on an equal footing with free ports under legal measures aimed at mitigating money laundering and tax evasion risks therein, such as AMLD5; considers that warehouses should be equipped with the adequate staff to be able to undertake the necessary scrutiny of the operations that they host;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 700 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 101
101. Notes that under DAC5, as of 1 January 2018, direct tax authorities have ‘access upon request’ to a broad information set with regard to ultimate beneficial ownership (UBO) information collected under the AMLD; notes that EU AML legislation is built on the trust in reliable CDD research and the diligent reporting of suspicious transactions by obliged entities, which will become AML gatekeepers; notes with concern that ‘access upon request’ to information held by free ports may only have very limited effect in specific cases63 ; takes the view that direct tax offices should be able to fish into UBO data as part of their surveillance tasks; _________________ 63 EPRS study entitled ‘Money Laundering and tax evasion risks in free ports’, October 2018, PE: 627.114; ISBN: 978-92- 846-3333-3.
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 710 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 102 a (new)
102 a. Calls on the Commission to begin the process and propose concrete steps for the phasing out of the system of free ports in Europe;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 712 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 103
103. Recalls the need to use amnesties with extreme caution in order not to encourage tax avoiders to wait for the next amnesty; calls on the Member States which enact tax amnesties to always require the beneficiary to explain the source of funds previously omitted;deleted
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 715 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 103 a (new)
103 a. Points out that tax amnesties represent a high risk of decreased tax compliance in the long run and a threat to the rule of law and the fight against money laundering;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 716 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 103 b (new)
103 b. Calls on the Member States to refrain from further using tax amnesties as this measure only represents a source of quick tax collection in the short run while has a significantly negative impact on the overall tax systems;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 726 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 106 a (new)
106 a. Call on Member States to do group requests and to harmonise the definition of tax crimes; call on the Commission to eliminate any obstacles in administrative and legal cooperation;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 727 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 106 b (new)
106 b. Calls on the Commission to assess and presents proposals to close loopholes in the DAC2, particularly by including hard assets and cryptocurrencies in the scope of the directive, by prescribing sanctions for non-compliance or false reporting from financial institutions, as well as by including more types of financial institutions and types of accounts that are not being reported at the moment, such as pension funds;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 728 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 106 c (new)
106 c. Considers that coordinated on-site inspections and joint audits should be part of the European framework of cooperation between tax administrations;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 737 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 108 a (new)
108 a. Notes that, according to AMLD4, the Commission shall identify high risk third countries presenting strategic deficiencies in their regime on anti-money laundering and countering terrorist financing; welcomes in this regard the adoption by the Commission in June 2018 of the methodology for identifying high risk third countries; urges the Commission to publish first results as soon as possible, and acknowledges that, in the meantime, the Commission uses the list from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), however excluding Serbia, which is on the FATF list;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 741 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 109
109. Deplores the fact that a large number of Member States have failed to fully or partially transpose AMLD4 into their domestic legislation within the set deadline, and that for this reason, infringement procedures have had to be opened by the Commission against them, including referrals before the Court of Justice of the European Union67 ; calls on these Member States to swiftly remedy this situation; reminds Member States of their legal obligation to respect the deadline of 10 January 2020 for the transposition of AMLD5 into their domestic legislation; and calls on the Commission to ensure that the AMLD5 is transposed fully in a timely manner or to consider using the legal tool of a regulation instead; _________________ 67 On 19 July 2018, the Commission referred Greece and Romania to the Court of Justice of the European Union for failing to transpose the fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive into their national law. Ireland had transposed only a very limited part of the rules and was also referred to the Court of Justice. Moreover, on 8 November 2018, the Commission adopted a negative opinion on the Maltese Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit and required it to continue taking additional measures to fully comply with its obligations.
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 746 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 110
110. Recalls the crucial importance of CDD as part of the know-your-customer (KYC) obligation which consists of obliged entities having to properly identify their customers and the source of their funds as well as the ultimate beneficial owners of the assets, including the immobilisation of anonymous accounts; notes that adequate resources within tax administrations are necessary for the effective implementation of this obligation;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 758 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 112
112. Recalls that KYC and CDD continues throughout the business relationship, and that customers’ transactions have to be monitored for suspicious or unusual activities; recalls, in this context, the obligation for obliged entities to promptly inform national FIUs, on their own initiative, of transactions suspected of ML, associate predicate offences or terrorist financing; is concerned that AMLD5 continues to allow for managing directors to be registered as beneficial owners while the real beneficial owner of a company or trust is not known; calls on the Commission to present a legislative proposal to end the practice of accepting the ultimate beneficial owners to hide behind straw men and to urge other jurisdictions at international level to do the same; calls on the Member States when transposing AMLD5 into national law to ensure that obliged entities terminate the business relationship with another company whose ultimate beneficial owners are not known;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 782 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 116 a (new)
116 a. Is aware that the 500 euro note, the issuing of which has been abandoned by the ECB, continues to be used for money laundering and criminal activities; notes that some Member States are considering banning it; recalls that for such a measure to be effective the ban needs to be extended to all countries where the euro is accepted as a currency;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 791 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 117
117. Is aware that the current AML legal framework has so far consisted of directives and is based on minimum harmonisation, which has led to different national supervisory and enforcement practices in the Member States; calls on the Commission to assess, in the context of a future revision of the AML legislation, in the required impact assessment, whether a regulation would be a more appropriate legal act than a directive; calls, in this context, for a swift transformation into a regulation of the AML legislation if the impact assessment so advises; calls on the Commission to make, in the meantime, full use of the instruments at hand to enforce AML legislation in the Member States, starting with formal opinions and ending with infringement procedures or to consider the legal tool of a regulation instead;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 796 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 117 a (new)
117 a. Deplores cases such as the Russian Laundromat, the Danske Banks case, the ABLV case and the Azerbaijan Laundromat that have demonstrated how hundreds of billions of euros of dirty Russian money connected to Russian ruling elites and oligarchs have been laundered via EU banks and offshore jurisdictions;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 799 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 117 b (new)
117 b. Notes with concern that undetected flow of Russian money to Europe can create political, economic and security risks that have become clearly visible in cases such as the Salisbury attacks or the case of Cambridge Analytica and other interference in the democratic process in Europe;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 800 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 117 c (new)
117 c. Calls on the Commission and the Council to ensure that the issues of money laundering and illicit financial flows are given an adequate degree of attention in EU sanction programmes in order to cut oligarchs off from their funds; calls for an EU wide Magnitsky Act to freeze assets of human rights violators; considers that it is time to end the free flow of money from Russia to EU banks; calls on the European Commission to explore the option of reversing the burden of proof so that Russian-origin money is considered suspect until proven otherwise;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 805 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 121
121. Concludes that the current level of coordination of anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) supervision of financial institutions, particularly in AML/CFT situations with cross-border effects, is not sufficient to address current challenges in this sector and that the Union’s ability to enforce coordinated AML rules and practices is currently inadequate; acknowledges that smaller EU Member States have been targeted for money laundering as a result of their lack of capacity to police illegal flows adequately; calls therefore for a new centralised system at EU level for AML/CFT supervision, with proper resources; calls on the Commission to develop specialized trainings for FIUs, particularly with respect to capacities in smaller Member States;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 810 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 122
122. Calls for an assessment of long- term objectives leading to an enhanced AML/CFT framework as mentioned in the ‘Reflection Paper on possible elements of a Roadmap for seamless cooperation between Anti Money Laundering and Prudential Supervisors in the European Union’, such as the establishment at EU level of a mechanism to better coordinate the activities of AML/CFT supervisors of financial sector entities, notably in situations where AML/CFT concerns are likely to have cross-border effects, and a possible centralisation of AML supervision via an existing or new Union body empowered to enforce harmonised rules and practices in EU Member States;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 817 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124
124. Stresses that ESAs, and in particular the EBA, should be provided with sufficient resource capacity to carry out their oversight functions and improve AML supervision; notes the recommendation to the Maltese FIAU of the EBA pointing to uncertainties in the current banking legislation preventing the EBA from taking further actions to effectively enforce the Union law and calls on Member States to swiftly transpose the recently adopted changes to the Capital Requirements Directive into national law;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 828 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 126
126. Recalls that pursuant to AMLD5 Member States are obliged to set up automated centralised mechanisms enabling swift identification of holders of bank and payment accounts, and to ensure that any FIU is able to provide information held in those centralised mechanisms to any other FIU in a timely manner; calls on the Member States to speed up the establishment of these mechanisms so that Member States’ FIUs are able to cooperate effectively with each other in order to detect and counteract money-laundering activities; recalls that EU FIUs are strongly encouraged to use the FIU.net system; highlights that information sharing between FIUs and Law Enforcement Agencies, including with Europol, should be improved;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 843 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 127
127. Highlights that in order to fight effectively against money laundering activities, cooperation is essential not only between Member States’ FIUs but also between Member States’ FIUs and the FIUs of third countries; calls on the Commission to engage actively with Member States to find mechanisms to improve and enhance the cooperation of Member States’ FIUs with the FIUs of third countries; calls on the Commission to take opportune action in this regard at the relevant international forums, such as the OECD and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF); considers that in any resulting agreement proper consideration should be given to the protection of personal data in accordance with Directive (EU) 2016/680;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 850 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 128
128. Points out that the non- standardisation of suspicious transaction report formats and non-standardisation of suspicious transaction report thresholds among Member States and with respect to the different obliged entities leads to difficulties in the processing and exchange of information between FIUs; calls on the Commission to explore mechanisms to set up standardised reporting formats for obliged entities in order to facilitate the exchange of information between FIUs in cases with a cross-border dimension; and to reflect on the standardisation of suspicious transaction thresholds
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 857 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 129 a (new)
129 a. Considers the established swift information exchange by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the United States Department of the Treasury as a model for the EU and calls on the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal to set up a European Financial Intelligence Unit (EFIU) to facilitate coordination, including the exchange of information between FIUs within the Union; considers that this EFIU shall coordinate, assist and support Member Sates FIUs in cross-border cases, shall lend support to those Member States especially in maintaining and developing the technical infrastructure for ensuring the exchange of information, assisting them in joint analysis of cross-border cases and strategic analysis, and shall coordinate the work of Member States FIUs for cross-border cases; requires the Commission to provide the EFIU with adequate financial, human and technical resources in order to fulfil its tasks;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 865 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 130
130. Welcomes the fact that AMLD5 has broadened the list of obliged entities to include providers engaged in exchange services between virtual currencies and fiat currencies, custodian wallet providers, art traders and free ports; calls on the Commission to further broaden the list of obliged entities to include agents and service providers engaged in the trade of citizenship and residency or acting as advisors in residence and citizenship planning;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 875 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 133
133. Notes that the Union’s AML legislation obliges Member States to establish central registers containing complete beneficial ownership data for companies and trusts, and that it also provides for their interconnection; welcomes the fact that AMLD5 obliges Member States to ensure that the information on beneficial ownership of companies is accessible in all cases to any member of the general public; deplores that the information on beneficial ownership of trusts is, as a general rule, subject to legitimate interest and calls, therefore, on Member States to make use of the option in AMLD5 to grant open access also to information on trusts, and calls on the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal to amend AMLD5 to make open access to information of trusts compulsory; stresses that the interconnection of registers should be ensured by the Commission; considers that the Commission should closely monitor the functioning of this interconnected system and assess within a reasonable time whether it is working properly and whether it should be supplemented by the establishment of an EU public register of beneficial ownership;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 877 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 133
133. Notes that the Union’s AML legislation obliges Member States to establish central registers containing complete beneficial ownership data for companies and trusts, and that it also provides for their interconnection; welcomes the fact that AMLD5 obliges Member States to ensure that the information on beneficial ownership is accessible in all cases to any member of the general public; calls on Member States to establish freely accessible and open data registers; stresses that the interconnection of registers should be ensured by the Commission; calls on the Commission to develop and issue technical guidelines to facilitate convergence of format, interoperability and interconnection of Member States’ registers considers that the Commission should closely monitor the functioning of this interconnected system and assess within a reasonable time whether it is working properly and whether it should be supplemented by the establishment of an EU public register of beneficial ownership;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 883 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 133 a (new)
133 a. Is concerned of the poor quality of the beneficial ownership information collected in the national registers and calls on the EBA to monitor the correctness of the information;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 889 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 136
136. Underscores the problem of money laundering through investment in real estate in European cities through foreign shell companies; recognises that these type of practices have serious externalities on house prices in local markets that negatively affect the access to affordable housing of the residents in those cities; recalls that the Commission should assess the necessity and proportionality of harmonising the information in the land and real estate registers and assess the need for the interconnection of those registers; calls on the Commission, if appropriate, to accompany the report with a legislative proposal; is concerned that money laundering is also done through life insurance contracts and financial instruments and is, therefore, of the opinion that beneficial ownership information on these assets should also be available to authorities; is of the opinion that also beneficial owner should be registered in real estate registers and not only mere legal owners possibly hiding the ultimate beneficial owner and calls on the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal to amend the AMLD5 in this regard;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 896 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 138
138. Underlines the positive potential of new distributed ledger technologies, such as blockchain technology; notes at the same time the increasing abuse of new payment and transfer methods based on these technologies to launder criminal proceeds, to evade taxes or to commit other financial crimes; acknowledges the need to monitor technological developments to ensure that legislation addresses in an effective manner the abuse of new technologies and anonymity, which facilitates criminal activity;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 903 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 138 a (new)
138 a. Notes that because of the anonymity provided to users by virtual currencies, transactions cannot be monitored by authorities, increasing the risk of money laundering and tax evasion; stresses in this regard that virtual currencies can be used to circumvent the exchange of information system;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 905 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 138 b (new)
138 b. Acknowledges that the decentralised aspect of virtual currencies and the lack of clear intermediaries complicates regulation activities; welcomes the fact that AMLD5 includes some virtual currencies’ actors; regrets however that some important actors are not covered by anti-money laundering rules, like cryptocurrency exchanges, trading platforms, or software or hardware wallets;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 906 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 138 c (new)
138 c. Calls on the Commission to issue a proposal for a EU regulation of virtual currencies, including licensing requirements and uplifting anonymity;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 926 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 141
141. Recalls that EU AML legislation requires Member States to lay down sanctions for breaches of anti-money laundering rules; stresses that these sanctions must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive; recalls that EU AML legislation requires Member States to publish information and statistics on AML enforcement actions, and in particular that a decision imposing an administrative sanction or measure for breach of EU AML legislation shall be published by the competent authorities on their official website immediately after the person sanctioned is informed of that decision and that the publication shall include at least information on the type and nature of the breach and the identity of the persons responsible; urges Member States to also publish the nature and value of the sanctions imposed; calls on Member States to also apply sanctions and measures to the members of the management body and to other natural persons who under national law are responsible for a breach of anti-money laundering rules;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 935 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 145
145. Takes note of the Methodology for identifying high-risk third countries under Directive (EU) 2015/849 published on 22 June 2018 (SWD(2018)0362) and calls on the Commission to make the blacklisting process fully transparent to the public;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 947 #

2018/2121(INI)

147. Is worried about the accelerating corporate, dividend or capital gains tax race to the bottom worldwide in terms of nominal tax rate76 77 ; _________________ 76 The average corporate income tax rate across the OECD dropped from 32.5 % in 2000 to 23.9 % in 2018. Overall, 22 of the 38 countries surveyed in the latest tax policy reform 2018 report from the OECD now have combined statutory corporate income tax rates equal to or below 25 %, compared with only six in 2000. Source: OECD and Selected Partner Economies, Tax Policy Reforms 2018. 77 It is also worth noting that the EU 28 are already well below this level, with an average corporate income tax rate in 2018 of 21.9 %, down from 32 % in 2000, according to the Commission: Taxation Trends in the European Union - Data for the EU Member States, Iceland and Norward, 2018 Edition (page 36) and Taxation Trends in the European Union - Data for the EU Member States, Iceland and Norward, 2015 Edition (page 147).
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 951 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 149
149. Calls on the Commission to conduct a mapping exercise to analyse the extent of reciprocity in the exchange of information between the US and Member States; calls on the Council to give a mandate to the Commission to negotiate an agreement with the US to ensure reciprocity in the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA); calls on the Commission and Council to consider sanctions, like withholding tax on payments of EU-source income or the introduction on the list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes, if the US does not ensure reciprocity in the FATCA;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 960 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 150
150. Recalls the importance of a common EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes (hereinafter ‘EU list’) based on comprehensive, transparent, robust, objectively verifiable and commonly accepted criteria that is regularly updated, accompanied by appropriate and dissuasive countermeasures;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 966 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 151
151. Welcomes the adoption by the Council of the first EU list on 5 December 2017 and the ongoing monitoring of the commitments made by third countries; is of the opinion that also EU countries should be included in the screening of non- cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes; notes that the list has been updated several times on the basis of the assessment of those commitments; underlineregrets that this assessment is based on criteria deriving from a technical scoreboard and that Parliament had no legal involvement in this process; calls in this context on the Commission and the Council to inform Parliament in detail ahead of any proposed change to the list; calls on the Council to publish a regular progress report regarding black- and grey-listed jurisdictions as part of the regular update from the CoC Group to the Council;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 978 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 152
152. Deeply regrets the lack of transparency during the initial listing process; welcomes, however, the improvement in transparency made by the disclosure of letters sent to jurisdictions screened by the CoC Group, as well as the set of commitment letters received; calls for all remaining undisclosed letters to be made publicly available to ensure scrutiny and proper implementation of commitments; recommends to put countries that refuse to disclose their commitment letter on the blacklist;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 980 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 152 a (new)
152 a. Recommends that the blacklisting process be made by a panel of independent experts rather than by the CoC group, so as to increase the objectivity and transparency of the EU list and to make it free from any political interference; believes that a more transparent and objective EU list will improve the credibility of the EU in its fight against tax havens;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 983 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153
153. Welcomes the recent clarifications from the CoC Group on fair taxation criteria, especially regarding the lack of economic substance for jurisdictions having no corporate income tax rate or a rate close to 0 %; calls on the Member States to work towards the gradual improvement of the EU listing criteria to cover all harmful tax practices79 , including criteria like the advantages given to non- residents or the transparency of the tax ruling system; _________________ 79 Work on fair taxation criteria 2.1 and 2.2 of Council conclusions 14166/16 of 8 November 2016.
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 996 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 154 b (new)
154 b. Notes that the negotiations between the EU and Switzerland on the revision of the bilateral approach to reciprocal market access are still ongoing; calls on the Commission to ensure that the final agreement between the EU and Switzerland contains a tax good governance clause including specific rules on State aid under the form of a tax advantage, transparency requirements regarding the automatic exchange of information on taxation and beneficial ownership as well as anti-money laundering provisions;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 998 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 154 a (new)
154 a. Is concerned that Austrian residents who hold bank accounts with credit institutions in Liechtenstein are not affected by the Act on Common Reporting Standards if their capital incomes are yielded from asset structures (private foundations, establishments, trusts and the like), and the credit institution in Liechtenstein takes care of the taxation in accordance with bilateral treaties; calls on Austria to change its law in this regard so as to close the loophole of the CRS;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1009 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 155 a (new)
155 a. Calls for the setting up of dissuasive and EU-wide harmonised sanctions for the blacklisted countries; recommends that the coordinated denunciation by Member States of bilateral tax treaties with those countries be considered as one of the last resort sanctions;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1014 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 156 a (new)
156 a. Notes that sanctions and countermeasures are essential to fight against money laundering, tax evasion and tax avoidance; notes in this regard that the economic weight of the European Union is a strength and can be a deterrent for tax havens and non-cooperative jurisdictions that would politically and economically suffer from such sanctions;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1018 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 158
158. Reiterates its call for the EU to have a leading role in the global fight against tax evasion, aggressive tax planning and money laundering, in particular through Commission initiatives in all related international forums; considers that the EU should also lead by example, and calls on the Commission to ensure that those with a commercial or vested interest in promoting tax avoidance and tax evasion should not have a role in guiding or advising the EU's policy- making on these matters;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1032 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 159 a (new)
159 a. Calls on the Commission to take a leading role in the global debate and to urgently explore the ways for the pricing of digital assets; encourages the EU institutions to take the lead in the taxing of Tech Giants to speed up the work at OECD and UN levels; recalls, however, that the EU shall not wait for a global solution and shall immediately act;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1033 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 159 b (new)
159 b. Asks Member States to delegate to the Commission the power to renegotiate on their behalf the tax treaties with third countries, so as to integrate the new definition of a significant digital presence in a harmonised way once it is adopted at EU level; strongly believes it is essential in order to avoid creating any loopholes in the international tax environment;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1037 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 160
160. Calls for a global summit on remaining necessarythe urgently needed fundamental global tax reforms in order to enhance tax revenue collection, ensure an equitable tax system, strengthen international cooperation and put pressure on all countries, in particular their financial centres, to comply with transparency and fair taxation standards; calls for the Commission to take the initiative for such a summit and for the summit to allow for the establishment of the abovementioned global tax body;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1044 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 161
161. Believes that supporting developing countries in combating tax evasion and aggressive tax planning, as well as corruption and secrecy that facilitate illicit financial flows, is of the utmost importance for strengthening policy coherence for development in the EU and improving developing countries’ tax capacities and domestic resource mobilisationretain and mobilise their own resources for sustainable economic development;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1050 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 161 a (new)
161 a. Notes that the intensity of losses due to tax avoidance is substantially greater in low and middle-income countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and in South Asia compared to other regions1; notes furthermore that bilateral tax treaties signed by developing countries with developed countries negatively impact their tax revenues2; ____________________ [1] Cobham, A and Petr Janský (2017) Global Distribution of Revenue Loss from Tax Avoidance https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/fil es/wp2017-55.pdf [2] http://www.actionaid.org/publications/imp act-tax-treaties-revenue-collection-case- study-developing-and-least-developed
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1060 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 164
164. Welcomes the participation on an equal footing of all countries involved in the Inclusive Framework, which brings together over 115 countries and jurisdictions to collaborate on the implementation of the OECD/G20 BEPS Package; calls on the Member States to support a reform of both the mandate and functioning of the Inclusive Framework to ensure that developing countries’ interests are taken into consideration; recalls the exclusion of over 100 developing countries in negotiating the BEPS actions; recalls calls from the Group of 77 (G77) and developing countries for global reform and decision-making to take place within a global tax body under the auspices of the UN;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1062 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 165
165. Recalls that public development aid should be directed to a greater extent towards the implementation of an appropriate regulatory framework and the bolstering of tax administrations and institutions responsible for fighting illicit financial flows; calls for this aid to be provided in the form of technical expertise in relation to resource management, financial information and anti-corruption rules; calls for this aid to also favour regional cooperation against tax fraud, tax evasion, aggressive tax planning and money laundering; stresses that this aid should include support to civil society and media in developing countries to ensure public scrutiny over domestic tax policies;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1064 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 166
166. Expects the Commission to come up with adequate resources to implement the ‘Collect More – Spend Better’ approach, notably through its flagships programmes81 ; calls on the Commission to further develop the element of fairness of tax systems under the ‘Collect more’ pillar, focusing on progressive taxation in order to distribute tax contributions fairly and bridge economic and gender inequalities; _________________ 81 European Commission discussion paper: A Contribution to the Third Financing for Development Conference in Addis Ababa.
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1068 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 167
167. Recalls the need for fair treatment of developing countries when negotiating tax treaties, taking into account their particular situation and ensuring a fair allocation of tax rights according to genuine economic activity and value creation; calls, in this regard, for adherence to the UN model tax convention to be used as a minimum standard and for transparency around treaty negotiations to be ensured; acknowledges that the OECD model tax treaty grants more rights to the country of residence, favouring European and North-American multinational companies; calls on EU Member States to consider as well the Model Double Taxation Agreement developed by the African Tax Administration Forum (ATAF);
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1070 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 167 a (new)
167 a. Calls on Member States to undertake spillover analyses when negotiating tax treaties with developing countries and when adopting its tax policies; urges the Commission to consider spillover effects of EU tax regulations, in line with the Policy Coherence for Development and produce an impact assessments of European tax policies on developing countries, in order to take better into account negative spillovers on developing countries and the special needs of those countries;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1073 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 167 b (new)
167 b. Notes the particular importance of transparency, including through public CBCR and public registers of beneficial owners, given the limited capacity of developing countries to meet requirements through existing exchange of information procedures; calls on the EU and its Member States to enforce the principle that listed or unlisted multinational companies of all countries and sectors, and especially those companies extracting natural resources, must adopt CBCR as a standard, requiring them to publish, as part of their annual reporting and on a country-by-country basis for each territory in which they operate, the names of all subsidiaries and their respective financial performance, relevant tax information, assets and number of employees, and to ensure that this information is made publicly available, while minimising administrative burdens by excluding micro-enterprises; calls on the European Union and its Member States to ensure that, when negotiating tax and investment treaties with developing countries, income or profits resulting from cross-border activities should be taxed in the source country where value is extracted or created;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1088 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 170 a (new)
170 a. Recalls the article 79 of the Political Declaration Setting Out The Framework For The Future Relationship Between the European Union and The United Kingdom and insists that the future relationship must ensure open and fair competition and that provisions to ensure this should cover State Aid, competition, social and employment standards, environmental standards, climate change, and relevant tax matters, building on the level playing field arrangements provided for in Withdrawal Agreement and commensurate with the overall economic relations;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1094 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 170 b (new)
170 b. Notes with concerns the fact the United Kingdom was ranked 2nd biggest conduit for tax havens after The Netherlands1, and ranked 23rd on the 2018 Financial Secrecy Index, accounting for 17% of the global market in off shorefinancial services; deplores the fact the UK remains in the centre of a largenetwork of British secrecy jurisdictions, notably the Crown Dependencies Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man and to Overseas Territories including tax havens such as Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands or Bermuda; underlines that the Cayman Islands ranked on the 3rd place, Guernsey on the 10th place, British Virgin Islands on 16th and Jersey on 18th place of the respective index; ________________ [1] Offshore Financial Centers and the five largest value conduits in the world, July 2017, University of Amsterdam. http://corpnet.uva.nl/ofcs/
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1095 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 170 c (new)
170 c. Notes that 90 % of the biggest global companies have a presence in a UK tax haven; states that the very light regulation in the past in the area of tax and money laundering encouraged criminal around the globe to use the UK and the City of London for their illegal activities; underlined that according to the National Crime Agency GBP 90 billion – about 4% of UK’s GDP – is laundered into the UK annually, large number coming from Russia;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1096 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 170 d (new)
170 d. Demands that the future deal must include a tax good governance clause and that the UK abides by exiting and ongoing EU tax legislation in return to any access to Single Market for those offering financial, legal or accountancy services;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1098 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 170 e (new)
170 e. Notes that Brexit will create a divergence of policies against financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance between the EU and the United Kingdom, which will constitute new economic, fiscal and security risks; stresses the urgency to approve the necessary reforms in these areas and the need to reassess the financial agreements with the UK that will become a third country vis-à-vis the EU in the event of Brexit, both regarding London as a global financial center as well as its Overseas territories;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1099 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 170 f (new)
170 f. Calls on the Council to promptly assess the situation of Gibraltar once the Brexit is effective to include the territory in the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions as it is obviously non- compliant with the Council’s criteria;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1114 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 172 a (new)
172 a. Notes that double taxation treaties between Member States and developing countries do not usually promote source taxation, therefore benefiting multinational corporations at the expense of mobilisation of domestic resources by developing countries; notes that the lack of domestic resource mobilisation prevents fully financed public services such as healthcare or education in these countries, which disproportionately impacts women and girls; urges the Member States to mandate the Commission to review existing double taxation treaties so as to examine and address these problems, and to ensure that future double taxation treaties include gender equality provisions in addition to general anti-abuse provisions;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1128 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 177 a (new)
177 a. Reiterates the need for enhanced cooperation between tax administrations and financial supervisors for a joint and effective surveillance of the role of financial intermediaries and in the light that some tax-driven financial instruments may pose a risk to financial market stability and market integrity;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1131 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 177
177. Welcomes the broad definition of both ‘intermediary’ and ‘reportable cross- border arrangement’ in the recently adopted DAC683 ; calls on all Member States to deliberately apply the EU reporting obligation also to purely domestic cases; _________________ 83 OJ L 139, 5.6.2018, p. 1.
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1146 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 178 a (new)
178 a. Recognizes that the divergent interests between the commercial interests of the tax avoidance industry and the public mandate of the EU to minimise tax avoidance can clash in situations where conflicts of interest arise, such as public procurement contracts that require the provision of paid advice, the provision of informal or unpaid advice via official advisory and expert groups, and via revolving doors;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1151 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 178 b (new)
178 b. Calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure that those with a commercial or vested interests in promoting tax avoidance and tax evasion, such as big accountancy firms like Deloitte, PWC, EY and KPMG, do not have an advising role in policies to fight tax avoidance and evasion; for instance, restricting their membership in advisory and expert groups, not commissioning tax-related studies and impact assessments to these actors, regulating revolving doors, and implementing full lobby transparency rules;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1154 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 178 c (new)
178 c. Stresses the role played by intermediaries as facilitators and beneficiaries of ATP schemes and deplores that such intermediaries develop bespoke schemes for customers in a way that undermines the cohesion of society and operate with a business model that runs counter to the social contract;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1156 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 179
179. Reiterates that financial institutions, advisors and other intermediaries that knowingly, systematically and repeatedly facilitate, engage or participate in money laundering or tax evasion activities should face effective, proportional and dissuasive penalties, their licences to operate should undergo serious revision and, where applicable, be prestricvented from operating in the single marketSingle Market; re-iterates its request that self-regulating professions such as lawyers and auditors should be subject to an independent oversight and calls on the Commission to put forward a proposal to amend AMLD5 in this regard;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1171 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 181
181. Worries that whistle-blowers are often discouraged from reporting their concerns for fear of retaliation; considers that the recognition in AMLD5 of the right of whistle-blowers to present a complaint in a safe manner to the respective competent authorities when exposed to a threat or retaliation and of their right to an effective remedy constitutes a significant improvement of the situation of individuals reporting suspicions of money laundering or terrorist financing internally within the company or to a FIU; calls on Member States to implement fully-fledged whistleblower protection when transposing the AMLD5 into national law;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1178 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 182 a (new)
182 a. Welcomes the European Commission’s April 2018 publication of a horizontal proposal on whistleblower protection; regrets that EU staff members were not incorporated in the scope; recognizes that EU staff members are not currently afforded the same level of protections as in the proposal; urges all EU institutions, agencies, and bodies to immediately address this situation by adapting their internal rules in line with international best practices for the protection of whistleblowers;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1188 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 185
185. Strongly condemns acts of violence against journalists; recalls with dismay that in recent years journalists involved in the investigation of dubious activities with a money laundering component have been murdered in Malta and Slovakia85 ; underlines that according to the Council of Europe, abuses and crimes committed against journalists have a deeply chilling effect on freedom of expression and amplify the phenomenon of self- censorship; _________________ 85 Daphne Caruana Galizia, killed in Malta on 16.10.2017; Ján Kuciak, killed together with his partner Martina Kušnírová, in Slovakia on 21.2.2018.
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1193 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 186
186. Urges theCalls on Maltese authorities to deploy all available resources to make progress in identifying the instigator of the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1197 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 187 a (new)
187 a. Calls on Slovak authorities to fully investigate cases of large-scale tax evasion schemes, VAT frauds and money laundering cases brought to light by Jan Kuciak´s investigations;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1199 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 187 b (new)
187 b. Calls on the Commission and Bulgaria to ensure the protection of Bulgarian investigative journalists in the context of the scandal revealed by Bivol, related to the use of shell companies to misuse EU funds in the country;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1201 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 188
188. Deplores the fact that investigative journalists are often victims of abusive lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate and silence them by burdening them with the costs of legal defence until they are forced to abandon their criticism or opposition; recalls that these abusive lawsuits constitute a threat to fundamental democratic rights, such as to freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom to disseminate and receive information; calls on the Commission and Member States to put in place mechanismslegislative and non- legislative proposals to protect journalists and to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP); considers that these mechanisms should take duly into consideration the right to a good name and reputation; calls on the Commission to assess the possibility of taking legislative action in this area;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1208 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 188 a (new)
188 a. Calls on the European Commission to set up a financial support scheme for investigative journalism as soon as possible, including a permanent and dedicated budget line for the support of independent, quality media and investigative journalism in the post-2020 MFF;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1210 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 188 b (new)
188 b. Regrets that the Bulgarian Presidency of the Council of the EU refused to participate in a TAX3 committee hearing, failing to comply with the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in the artcilec 4 of the TEU;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1213 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 189
189. Welcomes the work done by the Platform for Tax Good Governance; notes that the mandate of the Platform applies until 16 June 2019; calls for it to be extended or renewed to ensure that civil society concerns and expertise are heard by Member States and the Commission, but considers that intermediaries with a commercial interest in tax avoidance should no longer be members; encourages the Commission to broaden the scope of the experts invited to the Expert Group on Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (EGMLTF) to include experts from the private sector (business and NGOs) so long as they do not have a commercial interest in these issues;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1222 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 192 a (new)
192 a. Deplores that the Council failed to cooperate with the TAX3 Committee by not allowing the access to its documents or by doing so with a significant delay, and thus failed to comply with principle of sincere cooperation and breach of article 4 of TEU; deplores that the Bulgarian Presidency repeatedly refused to come to speak to the Committee about matters concerning the tax agenda;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1223 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 193
193. Notes the increased communication from the CoC Group and welcomes in particular the biannual publication of its report to the Council, as well as the letters sent to jurisdictions and commitments received in the context of the EU listing process of the EU tax blacklist;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1227 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 196 a (new)
196 a. Calls on the CoC Group to take further measures to ensure transparency of its meetings particularly recording and publishing minutes of meetings including the positions of the different Member States on the discussed agenda;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1229 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 197
197. Believes that the mandate of the CoC Group needs to be updated, since it addresses matters beyond the assessment of harmful EU tax practices, which is more than simply providing technical input to the decisions made by the Council; calls on the extension of the scope of the CoC Group, to enable it to deal with personal taxation issues, including CBI/RBI schemes, special schemes provided by Member States, and amnesties; calls, based on the nature of the work undertaken by the Group which is also of a political nature, for such tasks to be brought back under a framework which enables democratic control or supervision, starting by applying transparency; urges the CoC Group to apply transparency principles to its decision-making process, publishing not only the final position of the Group but also the positions of its members;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1238 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 201
201. Takes note of the persons who refused to participate in TAX3 committee hearings as referred to in Annex XX; requests to deny non-cooperative parties the access to the European Parliament and calls on the Council and the Commission to do the same;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1275 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 206
206. Stresses that all scenarios should be envisaged and not only shifting from unanimity to qualified majority voting through a passerelle clause, since the latter clause also requires unanimity in the Council to be triggered; calls on the Commission to issue its proposal before the end of its current mandate, early 2019;
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 1283 #

2018/2121(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 208
208. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the European Council, the Council, the Commission, the ESAs, EPPO, the ECB, Moneyval, the Member States, the national parliaments, the UN, the G20, the FATF and the OECD.
2018/12/20
Committee: TAX3
Amendment 75 #

2018/2110(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Given (i) the high and systematic violations of the Transport Regulation from Member States, and (ii) considering the insufficient resources the Commission invests to carry out official audits on animal welfare during transport, calls on a Committee of Inquiry to be set up to investigate alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to animal welfare during transport within and outside the EU;
2018/09/27
Committee: TRAN
Amendment 26 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas national security is the sole responsibility of the Member States as laid down in Article 4(2) TEU and Article 73 TFEU; whereas national security is increasingly depending of its broader European dimension; and whereas national security is not defined in any legal act of the Union and leaves a too wide margin of discretion to Member States;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 28 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas at the same time Article 4(2) TFEU designates the area of freedom, security and justice as an area of shared competence between the Union and the Member States; whereas the EU has specific competences as regards facilitating and encouraging coordination and cooperation between Member States; whereas the mandate for EU action is provided by Article 67 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union(TFEU) to ensure a 'high level of security through measures to prevent and combat crime'; whereas such measures and actions should be taken in compliance with the Union's fundamental rights framework including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 37 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E
E. whereas the line between the EU and national competence is not always clear, underlining the importance of cooperation between the two governance levels; whereas the diverse landscape of regional, national, EU and international actors in the field of terrorism with overlapping competences and insufficiently delineated mandates, the multitude of formal and informal fora for cooperation and exchange of information, as well as the division of competences between the different regional and national agencies, between law enforcement services and intelligence services and between the EU and the Member States, give rise to difficulties with regard to the coordination and coherence of the response to the terrorist threat;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 49 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas the Commissioner for Security Union is a valued actor in joining up the Commission’s policy development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation; whereas the establishment of the position of Commissioner for Security Union signals the EU’s commitment to encouraging cooperation between Member States on issues of internal security; while fully respecting the status of these matters as national competencies as laid down in the Treatieereas it could play a stronger role in conducting transversal impact assessments, especially in the field of fundamental rights;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 52 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
F a. whereas the fight against terrorism is a policy area where many actors and their tasks overlap, notably when it concerns strategies that can be issued by the European Council, the Council of the EU and by the Commission, making it unclear who is in the lead; whereas the Commissioner for the Security Union and the delimitation of his competences vis-à- vis the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator further complicates the questions concerning coordination;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 68 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
I a. whereas any stronger role for the EU in counter-terrorist strategies should also mean enhanced parliamentary oversight at EU level;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 74 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J
J. whereas terrorism is not a novelty in Europe; whereas in recent years the EU Member States have suffered major terrorist attacks, perpetrated or inspired by jihadist groups such as Daesh or Al-Qaeda; whereas far right, far left and ethno- nationalist separatist extremism are alsomain matters of concern; as the 2011 Uttoya massacre demonstrates;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 87 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
J a. whereas there is a growing risk of retribution terrorism from violent extreme-right groups and white supremacist individuals, as witnessed in some Member States; whereas extreme- right plots have already been foiled;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 94 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital K
K. whereas developments and instability in the Middle East, North Africa, and Caucasian regions have enabled Daesh and other terrorist groups to gain a foothold in countries bordering the EU such as those of the Western Balkans, and the nexus between internal and external security has become more prominent;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 96 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)
K a. whereas military expeditions, such as in Iraq or Libya, have further contributed to destabilise the EU’s neighbouring regions, to weaken state actors and to fuel the jihadist rhetoric of retaliation against the “West”;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 104 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L
L. whereas there has been a change of strategy since the military collapse of Daesh in its territory, with a decline in numbers of those travelling to Syria and Iraq for terrorist purposes and jihadists and ‘sleeper-celviolent individuals inside the EU being encouraged to carry out attacks in their home countries;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 126 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital O
O. whereas the return of foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs) and their families poses particular challenges in terms of security and radicalisation; whereas child returnees as well as the spouses of FTFs pose specific problems as they can be both victims and potential perpetrators at the same time; whereas their judicial treatment and social reintegration constitute an important yardstick for our societies’ fairness, openness and inclusiveness;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 140 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Q. whereas perpetrators of terrorist attacks in the EU very often include EU nationals, often second or third generation migrants, who have grown up in the Member States which they have attacked, as well as foreigners who may in some cases have resided for a significant time in the Member State targetedare predominantly European citizens;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 150 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital R
R. whereas most migrants wish to seek a new life and integrate into our countries but a major terrorist threat can be created by relatively few people, andno confusion whatsoever between migrants and potential terrorists should be entertained by any public authority, media our open societies and open borders are vulnerable to abuse, with some terrorists making use of migrants’ and asylum seekers’ routes of access to European countries and exploiting the freedom of movement across Europepolitical figure; whereas some terrorists did cross the external border of the European Union without being detected;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 155 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital S
S. whereas the flow of illegal migrants and refugees poses challenges to integration, which have already been exploited by extremists and could be further exploited in the futureprioritisation of funding for measures addressing border management over integration of migrants and refugees and funding addressing social exclusion, coupled with the lack of direct access to local and regional authorities and civil society organisations poses challenges to integration;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 177 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital U
U. whereas populism-fuelled political discourse regarding the terrorist threat can lead tois dangerously contributing to the polarisation withinof our societyies;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 184 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital U a (new)
U a. whereas the definition of radicalisation is too often connected to political representations; whereas the real issue is actually political violence; whereas it is impossible to isolate only one path towards violent extremism, as social cohesion, political context, economic condition, religious and ideological ideals, personal traumas and psychological vulnerabilities, as well as surroundings and networks, constitute as many factors and triggers;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 192 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital W
W. whereas national strategies against radicalisation are important in terms of providing general frameworks for programmes at local level; whereas these strategies must ensure sufficient financing for vetted local authorities, vetted NGOs and civil society partners so that these programmes can be implemented;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 204 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital Z a (new)
Z a. whereas the decade-long trend for divestment from schools and basic public services and infrastructures has led entire populations and communities to feel physically, politically and socially abandoned by the majority;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 209 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital AA
AA. whereas it is estimated that there arcould be between 50 000 and 70 000 potentially radicalised jihadists in the EU; whereas extreme-right political violence is rising;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 218 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital AB
AB. whereas a violent radicalisedextremist discourse has been increasingly present in the territory of the EU, often in the form of books, teaching or audiovisual content, including satellite TV channels; whereas this discourse opposes Europeandemocratic values, undermines pluralism, promotes violence and intolerance against all other religions, is openly anti-Semitic, refuses equality between men and women, and rejects the science and education which have been promoted by Islam during centuriespromotes a reactionary vision of culture and society;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 222 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital AC
AC. whereas there is a prevalence of Wahhabi and Salafist literature available in certain bookshops and online in Europe, leaving little alternative interpretation available to Muslim communities; whereas this globalised and easy to embrace version of Islam breaks away with the cultural historically rooted practices of Muslim communities in Europe and contributes to undermine their broader integration;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 234 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital AD
AD. whereas throughout Europe significant numbers of cases of radical hate preachers have been documented; whereas the hate preachers often originate from outside the EU, while some mosques receive opaque funding from third countries;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 242 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital AE
AE. whereas there are self-designated religious teaching centres propagating extremist ideas in the EU, in which youngsters, including young children, are exposed to a learning content based on anti-European values and violent content; whereas radpolitical organisations often exploit the vulnerabilities of young peopleadolescents and youngsters by attracting them with social and cultural offers;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 255 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital AH
AH. whereas Europol’s Internet Referral Unit (IRU) has made more than 50 000 referrals and on average 87 % of the content referred to companies by the IRU has been removed on the basis of voluntary consideration of the compatibility of the referred internet content with their own terms and conditions; whereas Europol’s IRU is operating under still unclear rules; whereas the removal of online content should always be subject to the possibility of judicial redress; whereas after they identify the content to remove, no judicial procedure is initiated against the uploaders, allowing them to simply copy the content to another website;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 270 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital AI
AI. whereas although majorsome progress has been made with regard to removal of online terrorist content, there is a need to scale up the companies’ engagement; whereas the removals are often not complete, removing the content from one website but leaving it on another belonging to the same company; whereas effective and comprehensive reporting by companies and law enforcement has to be improved;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 280 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital AJ
AJ. whereas, in response to larger companies removing more content and doing so at a greater pace, Daesh is increasingly using new and/or smaller platforms which are less suited to fast removal of terrorist material; whereas this diversification to smaller platforms makes additional technical support essential to enable, for example, the introduction of platform-agnostic automated tools, such as the database of hashes which can identify online terrorist content with a high degree of accuracy; whereas the use of automated tools also carries high risks of false hits, with an impact on the fundamental right to freedom of expression;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 286 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital AK
AK. whereas prisons have become hothouses of extremism, incubating terroriststudies and reports show how prisons can easily evolve into microcosms of the crime-terror nexus, where recruitment and networking take place; whereas in many Members States, prisons, often overcrowded and in poor conditions, become dangerous milieus in which the vital necessity to seek protection favours the flocking to violent extremist groups; whereas many of those serving prison sentences will soon be released back into their communities and there are few resources to monitor their activities; whereas prison conditions can play a significant role in heightening or lessening risks of radicalisation; whereas prisons should reform criminals and terrorists, in view of their social reintegration, rather than facilitate their path towards extremist violence;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 302 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital AL
AL. whereas retention of data is an essential part ofcan be a helpful tool in the investigative process; whereas police and judicial authorities usually rely heavily on communications data to successfully proceed with their casework; whereas in order for interoperability of information systems to reach its full potential, harmonised data retention regimes across the EU are vital; whereas the necessity of an appropriate data retention regime when it comes to the fight against terrorism was consistently raised during the work of the TERR Committee;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 311 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital AM
AM. whereas the use of encryption by terrorists to protect their communications or stored data represents a considerable challenge for law enforcement, denying access to essential intelligence and evidence; whereas encryption becomes particularly critical when even the responsible online service providers are unwilling or unable to decrypt the communicnew technologies should not be seen as a threat and whereas technological advances on encryption improve the overall security of our information systems, including by allowing end-users to better protect their data and communications; whereas, however, there are still notable gaps in securing communications and whereas techniques such as onion routing and hidden networks can be used by malicious users, including terrorists; whereas this causes serious challenges for investigations;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 320 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital AM a (new)
AM a. whereas policy responses towards mass surveillance and generalised suspicion are often costly and ineffective, diverting resources that could be better used, e.g. for targeted surveillance, and are threatening the defining features of an open society, where freedom, privacy and the presumption of innocence need to be respected;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 331 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital AQ
AQ. whereas information systems can be divided into centralised and decentralised systems, the former being managed by the EU and its agencies and the latter by the Member States; whereas centralised information systems include the Schengen Information System (SIS), the Visa Information System (VIS), Eurodac, the Entry/Exit System (EES), the proposed European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) and the proposed European criminal records information system for third country nationals (ECRIS-TCN);deleted
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 332 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital AR
AR. whereas decentralised systems and mechanisms for information exchange are managed by the Member States’ authorities and include: the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS), for exchanging national criminal record information; the EU passenger name records (PNR) system requiring airlines to share passengers’ data with national authorities for all flights between third countries and the EU; the Advance Passenger Information (API) system that collects information on passengers ahead of inbound flights to the EU; and the Prüm framework for exchanging DNA, fingerprints and vehicle registration data;deleted
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 338 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital AS
AS. whereas several pilot projects are being implemented with the aim of overcoming the disadvantages of a decentralisedimproving the EU PNR system; whereas there is a need for a quick reply to requests from passenger information units (PIUs) of other Member States, which may prove challenging as they are processed manually;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 345 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital AV
AV. whereas the Commission proposals will only apply to centralised systems, leaving national and decentralised systems out of their scope, and therefore constitute only a first step in creating a comprehensive framework of interoperable information systems; whereas within the territory of one Member State there may be a multitude of separate decentralised databases at federal, regional and local level, with different data inputs in different systems and complex procedures - or none at all - for the sharing or checking of the data by the relevant authorities at the different levels;
2018/09/18
Committee: TERR
Amendment 366 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital AZ
AZ. whereas adjusting the legal standards applying to information exchange between intelligence and law enforcement authorities is one of the main challenges that need to be addressed, especially since intelligence often concerns information on people who are not yet suspects in criminal investigations but might belong to terrorist networks or are returning FTFs;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 368 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital AZ a (new)
AZ a. whereas mixing intelligence and law enforcement information entail major legal challenges and risks due to the different accountability rules applying to both types of information, including risks to the fundamental right of suspects to have a fair trial when intelligence information is used as evidence in court proceedings;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 377 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital BB
BB. whereas security services tend to cooperate and exchange information bilaterally or through the Counter Terrorism Group (CTG); whereas it is necessary to find a practical solution to fill the existing gaps between the parallel tracks of the law enforcement community and the intelligence community, as well as between Europol’s ECTC and the CTG, in order to allow a more systematic interaction between both communities and an enhanced operational cooperation, while still keeping them separate;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 386 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital BC
BC. whereas the UK government has expressed its intention of leaving the EU on 29 March 2019; whereas the EU and the UK are highly interdependent in the area of security and counter-terrorism; whereas both should be able to continue to share, collect and analyse vital operational intelligence in the fight against serious crime on a level equivalent to the current one; whereas the recent UK evaluation of the use of the Schengen Information System revealed that UK authorities illegally copied classified personal information from the SIS and unlawfully shared this information with third countries; whereas this constitutes serious and immediate risks to the integrity and security of SIS data as well as for the data subjects;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 391 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital BD
BD. whereas efficient and systematic cooperation between the Member States and the EU agencies as well as among the agencies in the counter-terrorism field is imperative, especially cooperation between Europol and Eurojust in order to effectively detect, prevent, and investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of a terrorist attack; whereas if the terrorist threat is evidently transnational, jurisdiction remains essentially national, while European agencies offer support and coordination at the EU level; whereas the decision to establish a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) underlines the intention to scale up the investigation powers at European level in order to fight transnational crime and protect the Union’s financial interests; whereas an extension of the EPPO’s competences to cross-border terrorism affairs should be envisaged in the future;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 399 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital BG
BG. whereas several EU instruments such as Decision 2005/671/JHA, the CT Directive and the Europol regulation require Member States to share information on terrorism with the relevant agencies; whereas increased information sharing with Europol and Eurojust on a regular basis and in a timely and systematic manner, including contextual information, facilitates their work in detecting links between cases and providing an overview of challenges and best practice related to investigations, prosecutions and convictions for terrorist offences; whereas in the framework of this Decision, Member States still do not have the obligation to automatically exchange relevant information with another Member State where such information could be used in the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 412 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital BK
BK. whereas close cooperation with online service providers (OSPs) is necessary when it comes to securing and obtaining electronic evidence, given its importance for investigating terrorist offences; whereas according to Chapter V of the General Data Protection Regulation, MLA Treaties and other international agreements are the preferred mechanism to enable access to personal data held overseas;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 423 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital BL
BL. whereas the functioning of the Schengen area without internal borders is only sustainable if the external borders are effectively secured and protected andgoes hand in hand with an efficient EU border management policy, proper internal security measures are adopted to facend the respect of the riskule of serious crimelaw and fundamental rights;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 428 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital BM
BM. whereas the thwarted attack on the Thalys train of 21 August 2015, the Paris attacks of 13 November 2015 and the Brussels attacks of 22 March 2016 have demonstrated major failures in European border control policy, since at least eight of these attacks’ perpetrators entered Greece via irregular flows in July, August and October 2015amongst other things certain flaws in the EU's border management policies;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 431 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital BN
BN. whereas the Council conclusions 10152/17 recommend to Member States that all, when faced with irregular migrants are checked, they perform checks, where relevant, at national level against databases fed and used by competent authorities and the national Automatic Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS), at European and international level against the SIS, Europol, VIS, Eurodac and Interpol databases (I-24/7 network) and more specifically Nominal data, Stolen and Lost Travel Documents (SLTD), Foreign Terrorist Fighters (FTF) and Travel Documents Associated with Notices (TDAWN);
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 436 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital BO
BO. whereas on the basis of Article 11 of Regulation (EC) 1168/2011 and the positive opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (EBCGA) is allowed to process personal data; whereas, however, EBCGA is experiencing difficulties in monitoring terrorism due to the short personal data retention period established by Regulation (EC) 2016/1624 that comprises only 90 days; whereas between Eurojust and EBCGA there is only a memorandum of understanding which includes the exchange of general, strategic and technical information but not the exchange of personal information; whereas there is need for a specific legal framework for EBCGA to process personal data in order to fulfil its tasks;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 440 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital BP
BP. whereas there is a need forsome EBCGA officers to alsohave access the Eurodac, SIS, EES and VIS databases at border crossing points in order to perform checks;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 443 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital BQ
BQ. whereas there is currently no repository on long-stay visas and residence documents;deleted
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 449 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital BR
BR. whereas the fact that Member States, and more specifically the airport operators on their territory, are not yet obliged to conduct conformity checks on passengers’ personal data on their ticket and ID card or passport,; which makes it difficult to ascertain whether the given identity matches the true identity of the personereas proper identity checks and authentication of travelling documents should remain police authorities tasks and not be outsourced to private companies;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 455 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital BS
BS. whereas battlefield evidence is often essential to identify potential foreign terrorist fighters and needs to be included in the relevant databases in order to reach border guards in real time;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 458 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital BT
BT. whereas Operation Sophia has technical and human capabilities to contribute to the fight against terrorism; whereas if it is to effectively contribute to this effort, the mandate of Operation Sophia has to be amended;deleted
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 490 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital BX
BX. whereas the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP) is a useful tool for counter- terrorist financing; whereas it does not allow tracing terrorist financing activities using SEPA transactions, which leads to a significant information gap; whereas a TFTS system complementary to the existing TFTP Agreement would enhance the EU’s capacity to prevent and investigate terrorist attacks by providing key additional information on terrorist financing activities and would be more efficient and effective than pursuing financial information concerning suspicious transactions through bilateral or multilateral information and/or legal assistance requests;deleted
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 512 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital CH
CH. whereas several terrorist attacks in the EU were perpetrated by individuals known to the authorities, using rented vehicles;deleted
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 521 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital CM a (new)
CM a. whereas Regulation 98/2013 provides insufficient restrictions and controls to prevent the illicit manufacture of homemade explosives, for example by only requiring a registration of transactions which does not deter or prevent terrorists from acquiring explosives precursors; whereas ensuring stricter controls in particular by establishing common conditions and criteria for licences is a key priority;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 522 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital CM b (new)
CM b. whereas the Commission proposal for a new Regulation on explosives precursors COM(2018) 209 final of 17 April 2018 provides for stricter and more harmonised rules concerning the making available, introduction, possession and use of substances or mixtures that could be misused for the illicit manufacture of explosives, with a view to limiting their availability to the general public, and ensuring the appropriate reporting of suspicious transactions throughout the supply chain;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 525 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital CP
CP. whereas access to firearms and components of explosive devices is obviously crucial to enable terror attacks; whereas in the EU, violent-extremist groups often have to turn to criminal networks to acquire weaponry like the Charlie Hebdo attackers did; whereas according to Europol’s Te- Sat 2018 report, firearms were used in 41 % of all attacks, a slight increase compared to 2016 (38 %);
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 528 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital CP a (new)
CP a. whereas there are also abuses of legal supplies; whereas it was found out that Saudi Arabia is sending arms exported by EU Members States (and others) to jihadist groups in Syria;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 534 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital CS a (new)
CS a. whereas since 9/11 the global threat of terrorism has been mainly addressed at international and transatlantic levels through adventurous and often counterproductive military actions, extra-judiciary killings often with armed drones, illegal rendition and prison programmes from powerful agencies, in blatant violation of human and fundamental rights, including humanitarian law;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 535 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital CT
CT. whereas the key regiona number of countries in the EU’s neighbourhood, and more specifically in the BalkansMiddle East and North Africa, are facing important challenges similar to those faced by EU Member States such as those relating to foreign fighters and returnees management, as well as to home-grown radical cells;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 541 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital CU
CU. whereas the Balkans remain a key region for European stability; whereas the challenges related to terrorism and Islamist extremism compound a regional context already weakened by ethnic, political and social polarisation as well as criminal networkempirical data clearly shows that Western Balkan countries are more resilient to home-grown terrorism and the phenomenon of FTFs than most of current EU Members States; whereas theBalkan countries of the region have not yet been, but may become, targets for terrorism, and are already used as transit countries for people and weaponhave not been affected by large scale terrorist attacks;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 546 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital CV
CV. whereas all North African and Middle East countries have been confronted with major terrorist actions and remain prime targets; whereas most of these countries may suffer from the return of foreign fighterface multiple challenges in relation to return of FTFs, considering the large number of jihadists from this region;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 551 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital CW
CW. whereas regions which are not direct EU neighbours but are areas of interest, such as the Sahel, the Horn of Africa, West Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia, have also experienced the development of terrorist networks; whereas in these regions religious radicalismextremism and sectarian violence benefiting from external financing is also a serious concern;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 555 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital CX
CX. whereas the EU is cooperating with third countries in the area of counter- terrorism in a variety of ways; whereas a number of EU instruments can be used to finance CT programmes abroad; whereas the EU has deployed a network of CT experts within EU delegations; whereas EU agencies such as Europol or Eurojust are also cooperating with third countries in the area of counter-terrorism, through strategic and operational agreements for example; whereas the EU’s main instruments for cooperation on CT with third countries is the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP) and its Article 5 measures; whereas, due to past failures, cooperation on CT with third countries in the context of the IcSP mainly focusses on a criminal justice approach and is legally obliged to strictly comply with international human rights law and international humanitarian law; whereas the Commission has, for the purpose of complying with Article 10 of the IcSP Regulation and the aim of preventing any negative effects of CT cooperation and with third countries, developed detailed ‘Operational Human Rights Guidance for EU external cooperation actions addressing Terrorism, Organised Crime and Cybersecurity Integrating the Rights- Based Approach’;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 559 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital CX a (new)
CX a. whereas EU Member States have reportedly provided information to the USA and other actors which used such assistance to carry out extrajudicial killings of terror suspects in countries such as Yemen, Somalia, Syria and Pakistan, in particular via armed drones; whereas such lethal strikes have led to a high number of civilian casualties whose death and injuries remain without redress; whereas a number of EU Member States have procured and use armed drones and whereas a consortium of EU Member States develops European armed drones; whereas, despite repeated calls by the European Parliament, the Council has not started working on a legal framework which would guarantee that armed drones are not used for illegal activities such as extraterritorial killings of terror suspects;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 560 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital CX b (new)
CX b. whereas the Council of Europe, the European Court of human Rights but also the European Parliament via its Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners (TIDP) have investigated large scale and systematic abuses involving also EU Member States;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 563 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital CY
CY. whereas there is an EU sanction system in the area of CTEU sanctions are in force as regards a number of persons and organisations with three types of measures, which isare implemented by the EEAS; whereas this system is underused owing to procedural constraints and reluctanc, the Commission and Member States; whereas the European Court of Justice has addressed some onf the part of the Member Stateslegal problems with the EU terrorist list;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 566 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital CZ
CZ. whereas in the 20-year period 1998-2018, some 6 652 people were direct victims of terrorism across Europe, with 713 murdered and 5 939 injured; whereas prior to 2001 most victims of terrorism were mainly attributable to the IRA and ETA. while since then the vast majority were as a result of Islamist terrorism;deleted
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 578 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital DA a (new)
DA a. whereas victims can play a powerful and compelling role in the fight against violent extremism;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 596 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital DE a (new)
DE a. whereas fundamental rights must be secured and protected for each and every individual;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 600 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital DF
DF. whereas the Union is founded on the values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as on the principles of democracy and the rule of law; whereas acts of terrorism constitute the mosta serious violation ofchallenge to these universal values and principles;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 606 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital DG
DG. whereas the EU should do the utmost possible to guarantee the physical and psychological integrityfundamental rights of its citizens who are endangered by terrorists; whereas Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights enshrines both the right to liberty and the right to security, which complement each other; whereas security should be at the service of fundamental rights;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 611 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital DH
DH. whereas the Charter of Fundamental Rights prohibits discrimination on the ground ofbased on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, andge or sexual orientation; whereas the Charter also recognises the right of people with disabilities to benefit from measures to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration, and participation in the life of the community; whereas the rights of persons with disabilities in the EU are also protected by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 613 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital DH a (new)
DH a. whereas evidence shows that counter-terrorism policies have had a disproportionate impact on ethnic or religious minorities, including Muslims, people of African descent, migrants, refugees and people perceived as such; whereas ethnic profiling has been reported on the rise in several EU Member States; whereas widespread human rights violations feed into a sense of injustice and defiance towards public authorities and ultimately prove counterproductive to combating terrorism;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 616 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital DH b (new)
DH b. whereas counter-terrorism policies adopted in EU Member States since 2014 have eroded the rule of law, enhanced executive powers, peeled away judicial controls, restricted freedom of expression and exposed everyone to government surveillance; whereas these CT policies share common features including: ineffective oversight and accountability mechanisms; imprecise and overly broad definitions of “terrorism” in laws, in violation of the principle of legality and leading to numerous abuses; standards of proof reduced from the traditional criminal standard of “reasonable suspicion” to mere “suspicion,” and in some States to no formal requirement of suspicion at all; use of administrative control measures to restrict people’s freedom of movement and association as a proxy for criminal sanctions, which would offer the people in question better safeguards against abuse; criminalisation of various forms of expression that threaten legitimate protest, freedom of expression, and artistic freedom; fewer possibilities to challenge counter- terrorism measures and operations, in particular due to the State’s use of secret evidence typically not disclosed to a person affected by the measures or their lawyer; States invoking national security concerns and the “threat of terrorism” to arbitrarily target migrants and refugees, human rights defenders, activists, political opponents, journalists, minority groups, and people lawfully exercising their rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 627 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. ReiterateConsiders that while Member States remain first in line to respond to and prevent threats, a clear need exists to fully recognise the Securityfor the European Union’s role in supporting them, bridging the gaps, and providing common solutions and adding valueed value; urges Member States and EU institutions to work towards a common strategic culture, including a shared legal labelling and a streamlining of the common lists of terrorist organisations;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 637 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that, at this stage, the EU and the Member States should improve cooperation through existing European agencies and Member States’ security and justice institutions; believes that additional means shall be granted to these EU agencies such as Eurojust in order to deal with the increasing workload; recommends that an extension of the EPPO’s remit to cross-border terrorism affairs be envisaged in the near future;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 650 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the next President of the Commission toand of the European Council to ensure that the EU establishes a unique portfolio with a clear political leadership and concrete tasks as regards the strengthening of Member States’ cooperation in the fight against terrorism, either through maintaining a self-standing portfolio for the Commissioner for Security Union; or through reinforcing the role of the Council’s Counter-Terrorism Coordinator;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 657 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Urges the Commission to systematically conduct impact assessments and citizen and expert stakeholder consultations of future counter- terrorism legislative proposals, particularly with respect to the possible impact on fundamental rights and freedoms;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 661 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Calls for enhancing the investigative powers vested in the EPPO and extending its remit to encompass counter-terrorism missions towards a full- fledged European Bureau of Investigation able to initiate and conduct investigations on a European scale, with strong safeguards to balance its powers for suspects, high standards for pre-trial custody across the EU, and democratic oversight exercised jointly at EU and national levels;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 665 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Calls for enhancing the democratic oversight of CT activities at European level by granting the European parliament effective investigation powers including the possibility to subpoena witnesses.
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 676 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Considers the return of so-called foreign fighters a security as much as a judiciary and fundamental rights challenge; calls on the Member States to monitor all foreign terrorist fighters; callurges for an effective proper and appropriate follow-up of the threat posed by returneesortionate assessment of their actual threat, and for this purpose invites Member States to share contextual information about returnees via Europol; calls on the Commission to assist Member States in the establishment of aligned classification systems in order to distinguish between high, medium and low-risk returnees; reminds EU and national authorities that returnees can be instrumental in the fight against further terrorist threat and in the prevention of radicalisation;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 689 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Recommends to the Member States that they start building appropriate structures to respond to child returneevulnerable returnees, including children and spouses of FTFs, and in particular the development of expertise, including that of experienced professionals, in the areas of trauma, extremism, child development, education and risk assessment and tailored to the local and national context, as well as clear legal and organisational structures for dealing with this phenomenon;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 714 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Notes that terrorists have been known to start off in petty crime; is concerned that certain Member States’ justice systems have low cprofiles of actual and potential terrorists show a recurring pattern of delinquency and, often, prison time in their path towards violence; underlines that systems which are entirely punitive are ineffective or even counter- productive; calls on Member States to de- criminalise certain minor offences for non-viction rates, with inadequatolent offenders, such as the usentences being issued for serious crime and radicalised individuals being released prematurely or on of cannabis (marijuana) and other soft drugs; argues therefore for an enhanced analysis and research on the connections between terrorist and criminal activities that parole; therefore encourages Member States to organise their justice systems such as to ensure effective intervention vis-à-vis habitual offenders and sufficient dissuasiveness for such offenders; vide them with the financial means (drug dealing, thievery, etc.), the recruits and as well the weapon providers networks; calls in this regard, for strategies focussed on local engagement, aiming at enhancing social resilience and community cohesion encourages also Member States to promote alternatives sanctions to imprisonment;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 735 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Affirms that absolute respect for fundamental freedoms and individual rights is essential to prevent terrorism and political violence, as they safeguard from counterproductive surveillance policies and unwanted effects of stigmatisation and self-fulfilling conclusions;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 737 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10 b. Calls for the Europeanisation of established good practices and common standards, especially regarding the returnees, as laid out in the “Malta Principles for Reintegrating Returning Foreign Terrorist Fighters”;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 743 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Calls for the creation of an EU ‘Centre of Excellence for Preventing Radicalisation (CoE PR)’, as a successor to the Radicalisation Awareness Network, to be embedded in the Commission with adequate financial and human resources; believes its tasks should include coordination, including of funding, and facilitation of cooperation among Member States, policymakers, practitioners (by involving former RAN and ESCN structures), experts and researchers in the area of preventing and countering radicalisation, exchange of best practices, lighthouse projects and training, also by partnering with key strategic third countries; considers that this centre should also establish methodologies to evaluate and measure the effectiveness of programmes and projects;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 750 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Notes that the European Court of Auditor’s report of 2018 on deradicalisation found that the Commission does not maintain a complete overview of EU-funded measures, and that no indicators or targets for EU funds are used to measure to what extent the approach is successful; highlights, however, that quantified targets or indicators may not be adequate for measuring the success of a complex issue such as radicalisation; calls on the Commission to propose a new financial instrument in the forthcoming MFF for preventing and countering radicalisation, which would streamline resources currently fragmented across different funds and programmes and allow for better coordination and visibility as well as higher impact;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 766 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Calls for the creation of a European Simone Veil Resilience Prize, which would be awarded every year by the European Parliament in close consultation with the RAN, to the best social and cultural project at local level in the EU, promoting societal engagement, EU fundamental values, inclusiveness and democracy with the aim of building resilient societies that are immune to polarisation and radicalisation;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 773 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14 a. Calls for urgent and comprehensive investment policies throughout the EU in schools and basic public services and infrastructures; considers that for each euro spent in security measures and external operations, one euro must be spent on social cohesion, violence prevention and education programmes;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 775 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 24
Radical IslamSectarian Political Violence
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 777 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)
14 b. Condemns forcefully and solemnly all forms of political violence targeting innocent civilians; recalls that violent extremism can take various forms of ideological justification; believes that the major focus of prevention is to find ways to strengthen the fabric of our societies, the possibilities extended to everyone to integrate socially, economically and culturally; reaffirms that the challenges are political, not military nor technological;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 786 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Urges the Member States to encouragemonitor religious and tpolerate only ‘practices of Islam’ that are in full accordance with EUitical activities going against democratic values; welcomes theall various initiatives by moderate Muslim religious communities throughout Europe to counter the dangerous narratives from within their communitifrom all religious authorities working toward inclusion and integration narratives and programmes;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 797 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the Member States to conduct prior screenings of chaplainreligious ministers and to consistently blacklist any hate preachers, regardless of their faith; calls on the Commission to introduce an EU watch list so as to better exchange information on radical chaplains;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 804 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Calls on the Member States to increase the offer of higher education opportunities for chaplains in the EU, with accrediting theological education programmescurricula integrating EU values; invites the Commission and the Member States to develop and fund a network of European religious scholars that can spread - and testify to - practices of Islam that are compliant with EUdemocratic values;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 819 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Suggests the creation of a European Islamic Institute and Research Centre where scholars could conduct research on compatibilities between elements of practice of the Muslim religion and European values, and which could be called on to constitute a trusted advisory board for EU institutions and Member StatCalls on Member States to encourage and develop university curricula and academic chairs for contemporary theology studies;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 827 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the Member States to implement the CT Directive under which incitement to commit a terrorist act is a criminal offence, in order to exclude hate preachers from public activity using all legal measures, including refusal of visas or expulsion from EU territory, and to start judicial proceedings against such preachers;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 833 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Urges the Member States to close without delay mosques and places of worship and ban associations that do not adhere to EU values andban associations that incite to terrorist offences, hatred, discrimination or violence;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 843 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Invites the Member States to examine how to ensure that places of worship, education, charities, cultural associations and similar entities provide details regarding the provenance of their funds and their distribution, both within and outside the EU, and how data concerning these entities, where there exists suspicion or reasonable grounds to suspect links with terrorist groups, could be recorded in a centralised database, set up with all the appropriate guaranteexchanged with competent EU and Member State authorities, in accordance with data protection rules;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 854 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. AskInvites the Member States to ban and remove all religious literature withtake down any content made available to the public, online or offline, advocating their territory that incites to violent and terrorist acts; asks f commission of terrorist offences and thereby causing a danger that one or more such literature to be removed from online platforms and shops as part of the referrals by the Internet Referral Unitoffences may be committed, while respecting fundamental rights including freedom of expression and freedom of religion;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 861 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Calls on the Member States to act against satellite TV channels propagating hate speechdisseminating violence, hate speech and incitement to terrorism, in accordance with the Audiovisual Media Services Directive; requests the Commission to prepare an analysis of possible legislative changes in the Directive in order to improve the effectiveness of blocking such channels broadcasting from third countries;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 870 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
25. Calls on the Member States to establish binding procedurguidelines for schools for tackling the challenge of radicalisedviolent pupils, and to offer training for teachers with regard to this; stresses the need for involvement of child protection authorities and social services, in cooperation where relevant with law enforcement and justice bodies in the process of addressing radicalisation;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 879 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25 a. believes education must become a full-fledged tool in the fight against all extremist violence and violent radicalisation processes – not as an institutional message but as a process to discover, explore, engage and confront history, civilisations, cultures, ideologies and religions;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 887 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
26. Underlines the need to achieve automatic, fast and full removal of terrorist content; requests the Commission to present a legislative proposal obliging companies to remove terrorist content fully within one hour andonline content constituting a public provocation to commit a terrorist offence, as defined in Article 5 of Directive 2017/541, that is hosted in their territory; calls on the Commission to issue an impact assessment looking at the possibility to introduce clear reporting obligations on the incidence of such terrorist content and on removal rates, as well asnd at possible sanctions for non-compliance; stresses that proper transparency reporting is needed to assess whether state authorities are playing an appropriate role in investigating and prosecuting offences when illegal content is reported;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 912 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
27. Calls for the creation of an online European platform that citizens can use in order to flag terrorist and extremist content onlinonline content constituting a public provocation to commit a terrorist offence;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 915 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27 a. Recalls that measures of removal and blocking must be set following transparent procedures and provide adequate safeguards, in particular to ensure that those measures are limited to what is necessary and proportionate and that users are informed of the reason for those measures; safeguards relating to removal or blocking shall also include the possibility of judicial redress;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 922 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
28. Calls for involvement of social media, civil society organisations and audiovisual companies, including public broadcasters, in developing and disseminating effective counter-narratives, also with the inclusion of victims, where appropriate;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 938 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
29. Calls on Member States to ensure safe, humane and orderly prison conditions and to create specific procedures for radicalised inmates, in order to for actual rehabilitation and reformation with impreovent radicalisation of others, as well as to ensure targeted monitoring and targeted disengagement measures, and to train prison staff accordinglyd quality and quantity in staffing; calls for an EU contribution to enhance training for correction officers on issues related to violent extremism and potential terrorist threats;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 940 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)
29 a. Underlines that any specific programme dedicated to a certain group of prisoners, such as those considered as "radicalised", shall respect the same human rights and international obligations as for any prisoners; warns against the risk of arbitrary categorisation of prisoners, discriminatory practices and disproportionate constraints and restrictions such as permanent solitary confinement; stresses that inhuman detention conditions and bad treatments are not only contrary to Member States' obligations, but also counter-productive as regards the objective of combating radicalisation and violent extremism; recalls that the training of staff and increase of resources is essential in order to improve the situation in prisons;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 950 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 b (new)
29 b. Calls on the European Commission to launch a European Forum on prisons' conditions in order to encourage the exchange of best practices between experts and practitioners across all Member States;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 955 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
30. Urges Member States to facilitate access to regular chaplains as it reduces the risks of the self-organisation of radical religious cells; suggests to introduce a licensing system for chaplains accessing prisons, and calls on the Council, with support from the Commission, to draw up guidelines on this; calls on Member States to regularly evaluate and monitor the chaplains having access to prisons;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 963 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30 a. Urges Member States to work towards harmonising upwards the conditions for pre-trial detention, increase the means for juvenile justice and envisage programmes for “alternatives to prison” to curb violent extremism;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 987 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
34. Urges Member States to adopt the approach of ‘information sharing by default’ when it comes to sharing CT- related information, thus exchanging such information as a rule, and refraining from such exchange only in specific cases where circumstances require that it be withheld, as defined in Article 2(7) of the revised Decision 2005/671/JHA;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 990 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
35. Calls on the Member States to respect their obligations under the CT Directive to exchange relevant information in connection with terrorist offences as soon as possible with the competent authorities of other Member States, not only on request but also spontaneously; recommends in this regard an urgent revision of Decision 2005/671/JHA and its Article 2, so that relevant information gathered by the competent authorities in the framework of criminal proceedings in connection with terrorist offences is automatically exchanged - instead of upon request or spontaneously - to the competent authorities of another Member State where such information could be used in the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences as referred to in Directive (EU) 2017/541, in that Member State;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1002 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
37. Regrets the current existence of 28 different legal regimes for data retention, which is counter-productive for cooperation and information exchange; urges the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal on data retention, in line with the requirements stemming from the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, while taking into account the needs of the competent authorities and the specificities of the CT field;deleted
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1009 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)
37 a. Calls for improved training for law enforcement officers in the field of human rights and individual freedoms as well as more discerning processes to prevent the potential abuses, and efficient whistle-blower protection;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1018 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
40. Urges the Member States to ensure that the relevant information available at local or regional level and in their databases is automatically uploaded where possible through smart technical solutions to national systems and, where appropriate, to relevant European databases whilst ensuring data quality standardsand security standards as well as all data protection safeguards, in particular limitations on access rights;;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1024 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
41. Welcomes the deployment of a central automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS) within SIS to enable end users to search SIS on the basis of fingerprint data; calls for the roll-out of the system by 2019; urges all Member States to implement the AFIS functionality of SIS immediately; notes that despite the legal basis of SIS II permitting the storage of fingerprints, such biometrics have so far only been used to confirm the identity of a person following a check on name or date of birth; believes that identification based solely on fingerprints would represent significant added value;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1035 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
43. Calls on the Commission to propose legislation establishing one centralised ECRIS system, allowing for the exchange of criminal record information both for EU nationals and third-country nationals;deleted
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1046 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
45. Calls on the Member States to interconnect their PIUs in order to facilitate the exchange of PNR, data and calls on the Commission to propose technological solutions to make the exchange of PNR data less time-consuming and demanding in terms of human resources by automating the processing of requests from one PIU to another; encourages, therefore, projects such as the ISF project led by the Netherlands to develop PIU.net based upon the established FIU.net; asks the Commission, together with Europol, to support the development of joint targeting rules and risk assessments to be applied by the Member States, in order to enable Europol to search national PNR data with central algorithms;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1052 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
46. Calls on Member States to consider creating systems similar to PNR for other international modes of transport;deleted
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1060 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
47. Calls on the Member States to make their PIUs multidisciplinary units, including personnel from customs, law enforcement and intelligence authorities, in order for the competent authorities to better share information;deleted
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1063 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
48. Calls on Member States to strengthen the Prüm network by updating their national processing systems to adapt to modern information technology; urges the Commission to further develop a ‘hub- and-spoke’ model to link national systems more efficiently via a central and the Council to modernise and upgrade the Prüm decisions 2008/615/JHA and 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 to link national systems more efficiently and to update the data protection articles in line with the most recent Union data prouter; ction acquis;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1071 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
49. WelcomAcknowledges the proposed regulations on interoperability, and calls for additional information systems, including decentralised European and national systems, to be included in the future; asks Member States to engage proactively in this process; is convinced that interoperability is vital for bringing all relevant and necessary information together, in particular identity data, while respecting access rights and purpose limitation full alignment with EU data protection rules, in particular with regards to access rights and purpose limitation; asks Member States to engage proactively in this process;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1083 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
53. Calls on the Member States that have not yet done so to create national counter-terrorism ‘fusion centres’/coordination units, as well as coordinated databases, in order to centralise terrorism-related information and intelligence from all relevant national stakeholderlaw enforcement authorities;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1091 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
54. Calls on the Member States to explore new approaches to intensifying cooperation and exchange of information between law enforcement and intelligence services at national level, e.g. through secure pseudonymised hit/no hit search solutions, whichwhile fully respecting the principle of purpose limitation and preserveing the necessary separation between law enforcement and intelligence work and the required principles of information ownership, admissible evidence in criminal proceedings and source protection;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1093 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54 a (new)
54 a. Calls on the Member States to secure proper democratic oversight and public accountability for all security and intelligence services, while preserving the necessary degree of secrecy; insists that legislative, ministerial and judicial controls must be sufficient to ensure that the security and intelligence services respect civil liberties and fundamental rights, and operate within the law;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1119 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57 a (new)
57 a. Calls for the setting up of a special programme “Erasmus for police officers” on the ground, preferably for junior and low-graded officers, to encourage them to participate in Joint Investigation Teams (JITs) in other EU Member States at least once throughout their careers thereby allowing those who do not necessarily have experience in collaborating with their counterparts in other Member States to acquire additional experience and observe best practices on how to fight cross-border crime more effectively; encourages the extension of this programme to other security and correction officers in the future;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1138 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59
59. Calls for appropriate funding and staffing for Europol and Eurojust, considering itstheir continuously increasing responsibilities and vital role in strengthening European law enforcement and judicial cooperation;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1144 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 a (new)
61 a. Rejects policies leading to mass surveillance, inefficient, costly and in breach of fundamental rights; calls therefore for enhanced human rather than technological resources and “targeted surveillance” which presupposes serious grounds for suspicion, with more human capacities to treat, analyse and react to the intelligence gathered;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1147 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62
62. Urges the Commission and the Member States to provide enhanced financial and human resources, including data scientists and big data analysts, for the development of technical solutions to deal with the high volume of data to be analysed order to analyse and react to relevant data; calls for Europol to be tasked with further R&D projects, with a focus on standardisation and big data managementlysis for the benefit of Member States;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1156 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 64
64. Calls on Member States to ensure cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with a view to increasing the decryption abilities of the competent authorities; calls for the swift creation of a ‘Decryption Hub’ at Europol to develop decryption tools and expertise in order to better support Member Statesnotes that the Commission amended the 2018 Europol budget with an additional EUR 5million to reinforce Europol's capabilities to decrypt information lawfully obtained in criminal investigations and to develop a toolbox of alternative investigation techniques at the disposal of Member States; welcomes the commitment from the Commission that measures that could weaken encryption or could have an impact on a larger or indiscriminate number of people will not be considered;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1166 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 66
66. Believes that operational agreements with third countries are indispensable in Europol’s work, aund welcomes the fact that the Commission is currently negotiatingerlines that any operational agreements with eight countries from the Mediterranean and North Africa (MENA) rega third country has to pass the necessity and proportionality test, has to ensure that the level of data protection; requests the renegotiation of operational agreements with particular close partners, such as the EFTA countries, eventually granting them improved access to Europol’s information systemssulting from this agreement is essentially equivalent to the level of protection provided by EU law, in particular with regard to the purpose limitation principle, the right of access, the right to rectification and the control by an independent authority, and that the third country provides for adequate safeguards as regards the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms protected by the Charter, particularly the freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and human dignity;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1179 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69
69. Calls for the use of JITs in case of terrorist attacks; believes that JITs increase the effectiveness of cooperation and the investigation of cross-border offences; further calls for the participation of Europol and Eurojust in these JITs, as this means better use of the resources and capabilities provided by the EU agencies; demands that improved and easily accessible funding is provided for such JITs; calls on Member States to encourage junior or low-graded members to join JITs as this would improve the exchange of information at all levels of the hierarchy;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1184 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71
71. Calls on the Commission to examine the possibility of a legislative proposal that obliges service providers and communications platforms present on the EU market to cooperate when it comes to encrypted communications if there is a judicial decision to that effect;deleted
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1195 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72
72. Calls for the swift adoption of the Commission proposals for a regulation and directivesolutions aimed at improving cross- border access to electronic evidence; requests online service providers (OSPs) to provide single points of contact for law enforcement/judiciary request by streamlining the use of mutual legal assistance (MLA) requests as well as European Investigation Orders; notes that there is an urgent need to reduce the delays in replying to such requests and orders;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1209 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 74
74. Stresses the need to introduce a biometric matching service so as to prevent people using multiple identities with the help of real passports issued by third countries using alternative names; stresses the need to feed the relevant databases by making use of biometric data, including through the further development of facial recognition technologyenabling querying with biometric data across several EU information systems so as to contribute to the fight against identity fraud;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1213 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75
75. Welcomes the Commission proposal to the effect that information on long-stay visas and residence permits, including biometrics, for third country nationals should be included in the Visa Information System;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1217 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 76
76. Encourages the Commission to continue negotiations with third countries on return and readmission and to evaluate whether the Return Directive (Directive 2008/115/EC) provides an adequate legal framework for the return of irregular migrants who pose as asylum seekers but in fact have terrorist motives and are a clear risk to public security;deleted
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1224 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 77
77. Encourages the Member States to use the revised visa waiver suspension mechanism, effectively notifying circumstances which might lead to a suspension of a third country’s visa waiver, such as a substantial increase in the risk to public policy or internal security;deleted
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1228 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 78
78. Calls on the Member States to make it compulsory for airport operators to conduct conformity checks when passengers board a plane in order to make sure that the identity stated on the ticket matches the ID card or passport in the passenger’s possession, while ensuring that airport operators are not granted any tasks that only pertain to police authorities, such as proper identity checks or verification of the authenticity of ID or travelling documents;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1241 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 80
80. Calls on the co-legislators to consider providing EBCGA with a specific mandate for processing operational personal data suited to its operational role, including in the prevention and detection of cross-border crime and terrorism at the EU’s external borders; believes that such a mandate should allow for sufficient data retention periods and for the exchange of personal data with CSDP missions, Europol and Eurojust and, in specific circumstances and with the necessary safeguards, with third countries;deleted
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1244 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 81
81. Notes that suspects whose personal data was previously processed by the EBCGA will disappear in the analytical system after 90 days and appear as unknown/new suspects; calls, therefore, for the extension of the retention period of personal data managed by the EBCGA related to suspects of cross-border crime and terrorism up to a period of 3 years, similarly to the retention period of Europol and Eurojust;deleted
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1248 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 82
82. Considers it important for EBCGA to have access to all relevant databases and information systems, especially the SIS, but also the EES, and the VIS, Eurodac and the Europol information system, not only for the work of the border management teams, but also for analytical purposes related to new phenomena at the external borders and to changes in border movements or modus operandi;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1256 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 85
85. Calls on the Member States, Frontex and Europol to establish a European Targeting Centre within Frontex that constitutes a joint venture with the national authorities and Europol; believes this centre should assist with the advance identification of travellers who pose a threat to the security of the EU and should function as a ‘round-the-clock’ service for national border guards when there are doubts regarding certain individuals; recommends the use of sophisticated software to increase the effectiveness of targeting and cooperation with international partners in this area;deleted
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1264 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 86
86. WelcomNotes Europol’s participation in the law enforcement cell of the US-led Operation Gallant Phoenix (OGP) in Jordan, whereby it processes information obtained from the battlefield and exchanges it through established channels and procedures with Member States’ law enforcement authorities via the Europol National Units;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1272 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 39
Operation Sophiadeleted
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1275 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88
88. Calls for the mandate of EUNAVFOR MED Operation Sophia to be extended and its territorial scope enlarged with a view to better responding to changing migration patterns such as ghost landings from Tunisia, and for the fight against terrorism to be specifically included in its mandate;deleted
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1281 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 89
89. Welcomes in this regard the creation of a crime information cell within EUNAVFOR MED Operation Sophia, composed of staff members from relevant law enforcement authorities of Member States, Frontex and Europol, in order to improve information sharing between them;deleted
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1288 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 90
90. Calls on the Member States to reassess the possibility of a new UN Security Council resolution allowing Operation Sophia to take operational measures against vessels and related assets inside the coastal states’ territory which are suspected of being used for human smuggling or trafficking, oil smuggling, violating the UN arms embargo or terrorism-related offences;deleted
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1300 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 92 a (new)
92 a. Calls on the Member States that have not correctly or fully implemented the Anti-Money Laundering Directive to swiftly proceed; calls for a proper EU list of AMLD high-risk countries with an autonomous, objective and transparent assessment;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1319 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 97
97. Calls on the Commission to develop, together with Member States and international partners, ways of better monitoring financial flows and identifying users of electronic wallets and prepaid cards, crowdfunding platforms and online and mobile payment systems in relevant investigations; calls for a closer, better monitoring system to ensure that all religious and cultural associations and entities akin provide full transparency as to the funds they receive from outside the EU;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1328 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 98
98. Calls for the establishment of a European Union Terrorist Financing Tracking System (TFTS) for transactions by individuals with links to terrorism and its financing made within the Single Euro Payments Area, which would be complementary to the Terrorist Financing Tracking Program (TFTP) in the US;deleted
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1337 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 99
99. Urges Member States to allocate more means for the national Financial Intelligence Units (FIU) and the further development and capabilities of FIU.net by Europol so that it can become a full European FIU, used to its full potential and in order to facilitate the manual processing of bilateral requests; and improve cooperation between national FIUs;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1371 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 110
110. Believes that a system must be set up for car rental agencies to check the identity of clients against police databases, showing only a red or green flag;deleted
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1387 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114 a (new)
114 a. Calls for market surveillance authorities to reinforce their surveillance activities for such products, as they clearly have the potential to affect adversely public security;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1392 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 118 a (new)
118 a. Calls for civil use of automatic and semi-automatic weapons to be completely outlawed; calls therefore for the internal market rules for the acquisition, and use of firearms, explosives and chemicals crucial to their composition to be further tightened;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1403 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 121 a (new)
121 a. Deems necessary to fundamentally revise the EU’s export policy and especially ban the arms export to countries with shady links to global terrorist groups; calls for a supervisory body to monitor the implementation of the export criteria by Member States; and calls at EP level for the appropriate structures for permanent scrutiny of Member States’ compliance with the EU Common Position on arms exports;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1406 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 121 a (new)
121 a. Urges the EU and its Member States to pursue global actions on the international stage to address the protracted conflicts that destabilise entire regions, feed the cycle of violence and suffering, and unfortunately provide fuel to many terrorist narratives;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1409 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 122
122. Calls for the intensification of EUstrict compliance with the Union’s values when cooperationg with neighbouring countries in the area of CT; considers that the EU must maintain a global approach to CT, with a specific focus on cooperation with key third countries on the basis of clearly defined priorities and strict compliance with international humanitarian law and international human rights law in order to prevent past mistakes such as complicity in torture, ill-treatment, illegal rendition and extrajudicial killings of terror suspects; believes that such EU assistance and cooperation should be focussed on a criminal justice approach and should in particular not weaken the EU’s attempts to abolish the death penalty worldwide; insists on the need to ensure the greatest possible degree of transparency and accountability over such cooperation, notably through parliamentary scrutiny;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1412 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 122 a (new)
122 a. Believes that the EU should strongly invest in actions addressing the root causes of terrorism in third countries; strongly supports external counter-extremism programmes in prisons, cooperative programmes with religious leaders and communities, inter- religious dialogues and fora, and in general all kinds of reconciliation programmes which lower inter- community tensions and prevent sectarian policies via, in particular economic, social, educational means;
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1420 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 123
123. Considers that CT is a field which requires concrete expertise, including on related aspects such as rights of victims; calls, therefore, for the deepening of professionalisation of the EU network in this area, in particular by granting CT operative personnel coming from Member States a better and longer integration into the EU structure, beyond a single assignment within an EU delegation; considers that posting within the EU institutions would maximise expertise and use of competences in the field of CT;deleted
2018/09/12
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1425 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124
124. Calls for the simplification of the EU restrictive measures system in order to make it an effective tool in the area of CT;deleted
2018/09/13
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1457 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 128
128. Calls on the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal on the victims of terrorism, including a clear definition of their specific status and rights, and a standardised form to claim compensationsubmit as soon as possible a report to the European Parliament and to the Council, assessing the extent to which the Member States have taken the necessary measures in order to comply with the Victims’ Directive 2012/29/EU and assessing whether it is necessary to amend that Directive in order to take into account the specific needs of victims of terrorism; considers that there should be a simplified procedure at national level for granting automatic compensation to victims of terrorism directly after an attack and for sanctioning fraudsters, and that the question of further compensation should be reviewed at regular intervals on the basis of an assessment of the victim’s situation;
2018/09/13
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1474 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 132
132. Calls on the Member States to ensure that the assistance provided to victims of terrorism also encompasses measures such as legal aid, first aid, psychological support, cash advances to help cover immediate expenses, certified childcare and home support, tax relief schemes and help with transport;
2018/09/13
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1482 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 134
134. Calls on the Commission to amend the European Solidarity Fund to includconsider a financial scheme for the compensation of victims in the event of large-scale terror attacks, in order to support Member States when needed and in cross-border cases;
2018/09/13
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1485 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 135
135. Calls on the Member States to ensure thatoffer the opportunity to all victims of terrorism arto be entitled to be a partyparticipate in judicial proceedings relating to a terrorist attack concerning them and to take into account the specific situation of cross-border victims, without prejudice to the rights of suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings;
2018/09/13
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1496 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 136
136. Calls for the Member States and the EU institutions, when adopting and applying CT measures, to finuphold the right balance between the different fundamental rights involved; considers in this respect that, while privacy is a fundamental right, the first priority should lie in protecting people’s fundamental rights to life and securityEU standards of privacy and fundamental rights as enshrined in the EU Charter; reaffirms that security is at the service of freedom; believes that in a truly democratic society, security must be understood as the security of freedom and rights; considers that curtailing the freedom of expression, opinion or belief is dangerous for peace in society; recalls that CT measures shall not result in arbitrary decisions or in discriminatory policies and practices based on perceived nationality, religion, ethnic or racial origin nor any type of direct or indirect discrimination;
2018/09/13
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1502 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 136 a (new)
136 a. Believes that security and freedom cannot be ‘balanced’ as in an equation, for this implies that any increase in security will automatically result in a lowering of rights and vice versa; affirms that security is at the service of freedom, and human rights and liberties are fundamental values, as much as security;
2018/09/13
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1505 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 136 a (new)
136 a. Urges Member States to ensure robust democratic control on counter- terrorist policies by enhancing parliamentary oversight with adequate means and serious powers to carry out investigations and make binding decisions;
2018/09/13
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1507 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 136 b (new)
136 b. Regrets the increasing number of cases where counter-terrorism measures are used against individuals with very little or no links at all to terrorism, such as the case of Ahmed H. in Hungary who was convicted to 10 years in prison on terrorism charges for throwing rocks at border guards; calls on Member States to refrain from using counter-terrorism policies to other ends;
2018/09/13
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1509 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 137
137. Calls for legislation in the field of terrorism and national, regional and local response strategies for protection, resilience and response in case of an attack to take into account the specific needs and circumstances of all vulnerable/disabled people people, including people with disabilities, migrants, asylum seekers and refugees as well as children; further calls for the involvement of persons with disabilities and their representative organisations in the decision-making that affects them;
2018/09/13
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1513 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 138
138. Calls on the Commission and the Fundamental Rights Agency to examine the challenges that exist in thise field of counter-terrorism policies and to identity best practices within the Member States which take into account the specific circumstances of people with disabilities; calls on the Commission to encourage the exchange of best practices and to develop guidance in this respect;
2018/09/13
Committee: TERR
Amendment 1514 #

2018/2044(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 138 a (new)
138 a. Regrets that the Fundamental Rights Agency’s mandate still limits its role in support of fundamental rights; underlines that the Agency should be able to offer opinions on legislative proposals on its own initiative and that its remit should extend to all areas of rights protected under the Charter, including, for instance, issues of police and judicial cooperation;
2018/09/13
Committee: TERR
Amendment 7 #

2018/0336(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4) To that end, a verification procedure should be established whereby the Authority must, in certain circumstancesfollowing a final decision by the supervisory authority or European Data Protection Supervisor, ask the committee of independent eminent persons to assess whether a European political party or a European political foundation has deliberately influenced or attempted to influence the outcome of elections to the European Parliament by taking advantage of an infringement of the applicable rules on protection of personal data. Where the committee finds that to be the case, the Authority should impose sanctions in line with the effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctioning system established by the Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014. These sanctions should pursue the objective of guaranteeing free and fair elections to the European Parliament, while possible sanctions imposed by the data protection authorities should pursue the objective of protecting natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data.
2018/11/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 14 #

2018/0336(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Regulation 1141/2014
Article 10a, first subparagraph
If the Authority becomes aware of a final decision of a supervisory authority within the meaning of point 21 of Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council17adopted pursuant to Article 58(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or of a final decision of the European Data Protection Supervisor established in accordance with Article [52]of Regulation (EU) [2018/xxxx (45/2001)] of the European Parliament and of the Council adopted pursuant to [Article 58(2)] of Regulation [2018/xxxx (45/2001)] finding that a natural or legal person has infringed applicable rules on the protection of personal data and if it follows from that final decision, or where there are otherwise reasonable grounds to believe, that the infringement is linked to political activities byfactual grounds indicating that the infringement was committed on behalf of, under instructions from, or with the support of a European political party or a European political foundation in the context of elections to the European Parliament, the Authority shall refer this matter to the committee of independent eminent persons established by Article 11. The committee shall give an opinion as to whether the European political party or the European political foundation concerned has deliberateintentionally influenced or attempted to influence the outcome of elections to the European Parliament by taking advantage ofinfringing the applicable rules on the protection of personal data, or by authorising, instructing or supporting an entity that has infringementd the applicable rules. The Authority shall request the opinion without undue delay and no later than 1 month after the decision of the supervisory authority. The committee shall deliver its opinion within a short, reasonable deadline set by the Authority. _________________ 17 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), (OJ L 119, 4.5. 2016, p. 1).
2018/11/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 16 #

2018/0336(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Regulation 1141/2014
Article 11, paragraph 3, first subparagraph, second sentence
When requested by the Authority, the committee shall give an opinion on whether a European political party or a European political foundation has deliberateintentionally influenced or attempted to influence the outcome of elections to the European Parliament by taking advantage of an infringement of the applicable rules on the protection of personal data, or by authorising, instructing or supporting an entity that has infringed the applicable rules. In both cases the committee may request any relevant document and evidence from the Authority, the European Parliament, the European political party or European political foundation concerned, other political parties, political foundations or other stakeholders, and it may request to hear their representatives. In the case of opinions on whether a European political party or a European political foundation has deliberateintentionally influenced or attempted to influence the outcome of elections to the European Parliament by taking advantage of an infringement ofinfringing the applicable rules on the protection of personal data, or by authorising, instructing or supporting an entity that has infringed the applicable rules, the supervisory authorities referred to in the Article 10(a) shall cooperate with the committee in accordance with applicable law.
2018/11/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 39 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
(1) This Regulation aims at ensuring the smooth functioning of the digital single market in an open and democratic society, by preventaddressing the misuse of hosting services for terrorist purposes and contributing to the investigation of criminal offences. The functioning of the digital single market should be improved by reinforcing legal certainty for hosting service providers, reinforcing users’ trust in the online environment, and by strengthening safeguards to the freedom of expression and informationensure the rule of law and fundamental rights, in particular the freedom of expression and information, the right to freedom and pluralism of the media, the freedom to conduct a business and the rights to privacy and the protection of personal data.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 48 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)
(1a) Regulation of hosting service providers can only complement Member States’ strategies and actions to address illegal terrorist offences, which must emphasize offline measures, such as criminal investigations and cross-border cooperation, as well as preventive measures, including investment in education, social cohesion, and violence prevention, among others. As many studies show, the process of radicalisation very rarely happens online only. Actual violent radicalisation entails several complex processes, including person-to-person communication in conjunction with other offline factors. The role that internet and social media may play in this process should however not be undermined.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 58 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
(3) The presence of terrorist content online has serious negative consequences for users, for citizens and society at large as well as for the online service providers hosting such content, since it undermines the trust of their users and damages their business models. In light of their central role and in proportion to the technological means and capabilities associated with the services they provide, online service providers have particular societal responsibilities to protect their services from misuse by terrorists and to help tackle terrorist content disseminacompetent authorities to address terrorist offences committed through their services.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 64 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4) Efforts at Union level to counter terrorist content online commenced in 2015 through a framework of voluntary cooperation between Member States and hosting service providers need to be complemented by a clear legislative framework in order to further reduce accessibility to terrorist content online and, adequately address a rapidly evolving problemn evolving problem, and put in place necessary safeguards to ensure the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights. This legislative framework seeks to build on and address some shortcomings of voluntary efforts, which were reinforced by the Commission Recommendation (EU) 2018/3347 and responds to calls made by the European Parliament to strengthen measures to tackle illegal and harmful contentcontent in line with the horizontal framework established by Directive 2000/31/EC and by the European Council to improve the automatic detection and removal of content that incites to terrorist actscontent. _________________ 7Commission Recommendation (EU) 2018/334 of 1 March 2018 on measures to effectively tackle illegal content online (OJ L 63, 6.3.2018, p. 50).
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 66 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
(5) The applicis Regulation should lay down specific obligations of this Regulation should not affect the application ofcertain hosting service providers, and duties of care for those hosting service providers exposed to a significant amount of illegal terrorist content. The application of this Regulation should be without prejudice to Articles 14 and 15 of Directive 2000/31/EC8 . In particular, any measures taken by the hosting service providerthe liability exemption granted to hosting service providers should not be affected by any measures they take in compliance with this Regulation, including any proactiveadditional measures, should not in themselves lead to that service provider losing the benefit of the liability exemption provided for in that provision, on the condition that they do not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or information or, upon obtaining such knowledge, they remove or disable access to that content expeditiously. As Article 15 of Directive 2000/31/EC prohibits general monitoring obligations on the information which they store as well as general obligations to actively seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity, this Regulation should not lead to information transmitted by competent authorities to hosting providers that is vague about the status of legality of the content notified. Where the hosting provider is not informed by the competent authority whether the content notified is considered to be illegal, it might risk facing liability for failing to act expeditiously to remove the content. Therefore, this information needs to be provided in any case by the competent authority. This Regulation leaves unaffected the powers of national authorities and courts to establish liability of hosting service providers in specific cases where the conditions under Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC for liability exemption are not met. _________________ 8 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1).
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 74 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
(6) Rules to preventaddress the misuse of hosting services for the dissemination of terrorist content online in order to guarantee the smooth functioning of the internal market are set out in this Regulation in full respect of the rule of law and the fundamental rights protected in the Union’s legal order and notably those guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 77 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
(7) This Regulation contributes to the protection of public security while establishing appropriate and robust safeguards to ensure protection of the rule of law and the fundamental rights at stake. This includes the rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data, the right to effective judicial protection, the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to receive and impart information, the freedom to conduct a business, and the principle of non-discrimination. Competent authorities and hosting service providers should only adopt measures which are necessary, appropriate and proportionate within a democratic society, taking into account the particular importance accorded to the freedom of expression and information and the rights to privacy and the protection of personal data, which constitutes one of the essential foundations of a pluralist, democratic society, and is one of the values on which the Union is founded. Measures taken to remove terrorist content online constitutinge an interference in the freedom of expression and information, and therefore should be strictly targeted, necessary, appropriate and proportionate to help the fight against terrorism, including investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences, in the sense that they must serve to preventaddress the dissemination of terrorist content, but without thereby affecting the right to lawfully receive and impart information, taking into account the central role of hosting service providers in facilitating public debate and the distribution and receipt of facts, opinions and ideas in accordance with the law.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 88 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
(8) The right to an effective remedy is enshrined in Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Each natural or legal person has the right to an effective judicial remedy before the competent national court against any of the measures taken pursuant to this Regulation, which can adversely affect the rights of that person. The right includes, in particular the possibility for hosting service providers and content providers to effectively contest the removal orders before the court of the Member State whose authorities issued the removal order, and the possibility for content providers to contest the results of measures taken by the hosting provider.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 92 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
(9) In order to provide clarity about the actions that both hosting service providers and competent authorities shouldmight take to preventaddress the dissemination of terrorist content online, this Regulation should establish a definition of terrorist content for preventative purposes drawing onthat is in line with the definition of terrorist offences under Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council9 . Given the need to address the most harmful terrorist propaganda online, the definition should capture material and information that incites, encourages or advocates the commission or contribution to terrorist offences, provides instructions for the commission of such offences or promotes the participation in activities of a terrorist group. Such information includes in particular text, images, sound recordings and videos. When assessing whether content constitutes terrorist content within the meaning of this Regulation, competent authorities as well as hosting service providers should take into account factors such as the nature and wording of the statements, the context in which the statements were made and their potential to lead to harmful consequences, thereby affecting the security and safety of persons. The fact that the material was produced by, is attributable to or disseminated on behalf of an EU-listed terrorist organisation or person constitutes an important factor in the assessment. Content disseminated for educational, artistic, journalistic or research purposes, or for awareness raising purposes against terrorist activity, should be adequately protected. Furthermore, the expression of radical, polemic or controversial views in the public debate on sensitive political questions should not be considered terrorist content. _________________ 9Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending Council Decision 2005/671/JHA (OJ L 88, 31.3.2017, p. 6).
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 102 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
(10) In order to cover those online hosting services where terrorist content is disseminated, this Regulation should apply to information society services which storeose main or one of the main purposes is to offer the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service at his or her request and in making the information stored available to third partiese public, and who has general control of and access to the content data stored and processed, irrespective of whether this activity is of a mere technical, automatic and passive nature, and irrespective of whether a payment of the user is required. By way of example such providers of information society services include social media platforms, video streaming services, video, image and audio sharing services, file sharing and other cloudonline services to the extent they make the information available to third parties and websites where users can make comments or post reviewse public. The Regulation should also apply to hosting service providers established outside the Union but offering services to users who are within the Union, since a significant proportion of hosting service providers exposed to terrorist content on their services are established in third countries. This should ensure that all companies operating in the Digital Single Market comply with the same requirements, irrespective of their country of establishment. The determination as to whether a service provider offers services in the Union requires an assessment whether the service provider enables legal or natural persons in one or more Member States to use its services, and whether these services are specifically targeted at users in the Union. However, the mere accessibility of a service provider’s website or of an email address and of other contact details in one or more Member States taken in isolation should not be a sufficient condition for the application of this Regulation. By contrast, services which consist of providing mere technical facility such as ‘cloud services’ which consist in the provision of on demand physical or virtual resources that provide computing and storage infrastructure capabilities on which the service provider has no contractual rights as to what content is stored or how it is processed or made publicly available by its customers or by the end-users of such customers, and where the service provider has no technical capability to remove specific content stored by their customers or the end-users of their customers, or services that consist of selling goods on- line, delivery of goods as such, or the provision of services off-line, or private websites, including blogs, should not be considered as hosting service providers within the scope of this Regulation. Mere conduits and other electronic communication services within the meaning of Directive xxx/2019 of the European Parliament and of the Council [European Electronic Communication Code] or providers of caching services, or other services provided in other layers of the Internet infrastructure, such as registries and registrars, DNS (domain name system) or adjacent services, such as payment services or DDoS (distributed denial of service) protection services should also not be understood as hosting service providers. The same is the case for Interpersonal communication services that enable direct interpersonal and interactive exchange of information between a finite number of persons, whereby the persons initiating or participating in the communication determine its recipient(s).
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 114 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
(12) Hosting service proviWithout prejudice to Article 15 of Directive 2000/31/EC, hosting service providers that have been exposed to a significant number of uncontested removal orders should apply certain duties of care, in order to preventaddress the dissemination of terrorist content on their services. These duties of care should not amount to a general monitoring obligation. Duties of care should include that, when applying this Regulation, hosting services providers act in a diligent, proportionate and non- discriminatory manner in respect of content that they store, in particular when implementing their own terms and conditions, with a view to avoiding removal of content which is not terrorist. The removal or disabling of access has to be undertaken in the observance of freedom of expression and information and freedom and pluralism of the media.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 125 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
(13) The procedure and obligations resulting from legal orders requesting hosting service providers to remove terrorist content or disable access to it, following an assessment by the competent authorities, should be harmonised. Member States should remain free as to the choice of the competent authorities allowing them to designate administrative, law enforcement orCompetent judicial authorities of the Member States should assess whether content is terrorist content, and whether to issue legal orders requesting hosting service providers to remove terrorist content or disable access to it. Member States should designate judicial authorities with that task. Given the speed at which terrorist content is disseminated across online services, this provision imposes obligations on hosting service providers to ensure that terrorist content identified in the removal order is removed or access to it is disabled within one hour fromexpeditiously after receiving the removal order. It is for the hosting service providers to decide whether to remove the content in question or disable access to the content for users in the Union.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 131 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
(14) The competent authority should transmit the removal order directly to the addressee and point of contact by any electronic means capable of producing a written record under conditions that allow the service provider to establish authenticity, including the identity of the sender, the accuracy of the date and the time of sending and receipt of the order, such as by secured email and platformselectronically signed email or other secured channels, including those made available by the service provider, in line with the rules protecting personal data. This requirement may notably be met by the use of qualified electronic registered delivery services with qualified electronic signatures as provided for by Regulation (EU) 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council12 . _________________ 12 Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC (OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 73).
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 136 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
(15) Referrals by the competent authorities or Europol constitute an effective and swift means of making hosting service providers aware of specific content on their services. This mechanism of alerting hosting service providers to information that may be considered terrorist content, for the provider’s voluntary consideration of the compatibility its own terms and conditions, should remain available in addition to removal orders. It is important that hosting service providers assess such referrals as a matter of priority and provide swift feedback about action taken. The ultimate decision about whether or not to remove the content because it is not compatible with their terms and conditions remains with the hosting service provider. In implementing this Regulation related to referrals, Europol’s mandate as laid down inEuropol as laid down in Article 4(1)(m) of Regulation (EU) 2016/79413 remains unaffected. _________________ 13Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council Decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA (OJ L 135, 24.5.2016, p. 53).
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 143 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
(16) Given the scale and speed necessary for effectively identifying and removing terrorist content, proportionate proactive measures, including by using automated means in certain cases, are an essential element in tackling terrorist content online. With a view to reducing the accessibility of terrorist content on their services,The vast majority of hosting service providers are never exposed to illegal terrorist content. Given the complexity of effectively identifying and removing terrorist content at scale, and the potential impact on fundamental rights, duties of care that go beyond the mere removal of terrorist content online following removal orders from competent authorities could be taken by those hosting service providers that have been subject to a significant number of uncontested removal orders. Those hosting service providers should assess whether it is appropriate to take proactiveadditional measures depending on the risks and level of exposure to terrorist content as well as to the effects on the rights of third parties and the public interest of information. Consequently, those hosting service providers should determine whaonly put appropriate, effective, necessary and proportionate proactive measure should be putadditional measures in place. This requirement should not imply an obligation of general monitoring obligation. In the context of this assessment, the absence of removal orders and referrals by Europol addressed to a hosting provider, is an indication of a low level of exposure to terrorist content.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 149 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) When putting in place proactiveadditional measures, hosting service providers should ensure that users’ right to freedom of expression and information - including to freely receive and impart information - isas well as the rights to privacy and protection of personal data, are preserved. In addition to any requirement laid down in the law, including the legislation on protection of personal data, hosting service providers should act with due diligence and implement safeguards, including notably human oversight and verifications, where appropriate, to avoid any unintended and erroneous decision leading to removal of content that is not terrorist content. This is of particular relevance when hosting service providers use automated means to detect terrorist content. Any final decision to use automated means, whether taken by the hosting service provider itself or pursuant to a request by the competent authority, should be assessed with regard to the reliability of the underlying technology and the ensuing impact on fundamental rightsremove or disable access to content should always be taken by a natural person. Any decision to use automated means should be assessed with regard to the reliability of the underlying technology and the ensuing impact on fundamental rights. In any case, hosting service providers should undertake a fundamental rights audit for any automated means for detecting terrorist content they use.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 155 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
(18) In order to ensure that hosting service providers exposed to terrorist content take appropriate measures to preventaddress the misuse of their services, the competent authorities should requestmay recommend to hosting service providers having received a significant amount of removal orders, which hasve become final, to report on the proactiveadditional measures to be taken. These could consist of measures to prevent the re-upload of terrorist content, removed or access to it disabled as a resultthat employ the use of a removal order or referrals they received, checking against publicly or privately-held tools containing known terrorist content. They may also employ the use of reliable technical tools to identify new terrorist content, either using those available on the market or those developed by the hosting service provider. The service provider should report on the specific proactive measures in place in order to allow the competent authority to judge whether the measures are effective and proportionate and whether, if automated means are used, the hosting service provider has the necessary abilities for human oversight and verificatiliable technical tools to detect and identify new terrorist content, but that should leave the final decision to removal or disabling access to a decision by a natural person. In assessing the effectiveness and proportionality of the measures, competent authorities should take into account relevant parameters including the number of removal orders and referrals issued to the provider, their economic capacity and the impact of its service in disseminating terrorist content (for example, taking into account the number of users in the Union).
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 165 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
(19) Following the requestcommendation, the competent authority should enter into a dialogue with the hosting service provider about the necessary proactiveadditional measures to be put in place. If necessary, the competent authority should impose the adoption of appropriate, effective and proportionate proactive measures where it considers that the measures taken are insufficient to meet the risks. A decision to impose such specific proactiveSuch measures should not, in principle, lead to the imposition of a general obligation to monitor uploaded content, as provided in Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC. Considering the particularly grave risks associated with the dissemination of terrorist content, the decisions adopted by the competent authorities on the basis of this Regulation could derogate from the approach established in Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC, as regards certain specific, targeted measures, the adoption of which is necessary for overriding public security reasons. Before adopting such drecisommendations, the competent authority should strike a fair balance between the public interest objectives and the fundamental rights involved, in particular, the freedom of expression and information, the freedom of the media, the rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data, and the freedom to conduct a business, and provide appropriate justification.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 176 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
(21) The obligation to preserve the content for proceedings of administrative or judicial review is necessary and justified in view of ensuring the effective measures of redress for the content provider whose content was removed or access to it disabled as well as for ensuring the reinstatement of that content as it was prior to its removal depending on the outcome of the review procedure. The obligation to preserve content for investigative and prosecutorial purposes is justified and necessary in view of the value this material could bring for the purpose of disrupting or preventing terrorist activity, and for prosecuting and convicting terrorists. Where companies remove material or disable access to it, in particular through their own proactive measures, and do not inform the relevant authority because they assess that it does not fall in the scope of Article 13(4) of this Regulationadditional measures, law enforcement may be unaware of the existence of the content. Therefore, the preservation of content for purposes of prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences, which should be initiated after the authorities have been informed pursuant to Article 13(4) of this Regulation, is also justified. For these purposes, the required preservation of data is limited to data that is likely to have a link with terrorist offences, and can therefore contribute to prosecuting terrorist offences or to preventing serious risks to public security.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 180 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
(22) To ensure proportionality, the period of preservation should be limited to six months to allow the content providers sufficient time to initiate the review process and to enable law enforcement access to relevant data for the investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences. However, this period may be prolonged for the period that is necessary in case the review proceedings are initiated but not finalised within the six months period upon request by the authority carrying out the review. This duration should be sufficient to allow law enforcement authorities to preserve the necessary evidence in relation to investigations, while ensuring the balance with the fundamental rights concerned. The preserved content and data should be erased after the end of this period.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 188 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
(24) Transparency of hosting service providers' policies in relation to terrorist content is essential to enhance their accountability towards their users and to reinforce trust of citizens in the Digital Single Market. Hosting service providers exposed to terrorist content should publish annual transparency reports containing meaningful information about action taken in relation to the detection, identification and removal of terrorist content.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 190 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24 a (new)
(24 a) Content providers whose content has been removed following a removal order, should have a right to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 191 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
(25) Complaint procedures constitute a necessary safeguard against erroneous removal of content protected under the freedom of expression and information. Hosting service providers should therefore establish user-friendly complaint mechanisms and ensure that complaints are dealt with promptly and in full transparency towards the content provider. The requirement for the hosting service provider to reinstate the content where it has been removed in error, does not affect the possibility of hosting service providers to enforce their own terms and conditions on other grounds. Member States should also guarantee that hosting service providers and content providers can effectively exercise their right to judicial redress. Furthermore, content providers whose content has been removed following a removal order should have the right to an effective judicial remedy in accordance with Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Effective appeal mechanisms should be established at national level to ensure that any party subject to a removal order issued by a competent judicial authority should have the right to appeal to a judicial body. The appeal procedure is without prejudice to the division of competences within national judicial systems.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 195 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
(26) Effective legal protection according to Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union requires that persons are able to ascertain the reasons upon which the content uploaded by them has been removed or access to it disabled. For that purpose, the hosting service provider should make available to the content provider meaningful information enabling the content provider to contest the decision. However, this does not necessarily require a notification to the content provider. Depending on the circumstances, hosting service providers may replace content which is considered terrorist content, with a message that it has been removed or disabled in accordance with this Regulation. Further information about the reasons as well as possibilities for the content provider to contest the decision should be given upon request. Where competent authorities decide that for reasons of public security including in the context of an investigation, it is considered inappropriate or counter-productive to directly notify the content provider of the removal or disabling of content, they should inform the hosting service provider.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 202 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
(27) In order to avoid duplication and possible interferences with investigations, the competent authorities should inform, coordinate and cooperate with each other and where appropriate with Europol when issuing removal orders or sending referrals to hosting service providers. In implementing the provisions of this Regulation, Europol could provide support in line with its current mandate and existing legal framework.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 207 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
(28) In order to ensure the effective and sufficiently coherent implementation of proactive measuremeasures by hosting service providers, competent authorities in Member States should liaise with each other with regard to the discussions they have with hosting service providers as to removal orders and the identification, implementation and assessment of specific proactiveadditional measures. Similarly, such cooperation is also needed in relation to the adoption of rules on penalties, as well as the implementation and the enforcement of penalties.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 212 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
(29) It is essential that the competent authority within the Member State responsible for imposing penalties is fully informed about the issuing of removal orders and referrals and subsequent exchanges between the hosting service provider and the relevant competent authority. For that purpose, Member States should ensure appropriate communication channels and mechanisms allowing the sharing of relevant information in a timely manner.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 214 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
(30) To facilitate the swift exchanges between competent authorities as well as with hosting service providers, and to avoid duplication of effort, Member States may make use of tools developed by Europol, such as the current Internet Referral Management application (IRMa) or successor tools or Eurojust.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 218 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
(32) The competent authorities in the Member States should be allowed to use such information to take investigatory measures available under Member State or Union law, including issuing a European Production Order under Regulation on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters14 . _________________ 14 COM(2018)225 final.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 221 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
(33) Both hosting service providers and Member States should establish points of contact to facilitate the swift handling of removal orders and referrals. In contrast to the legal representative, the point of contact serves operational purposes. The hosting service provider’s point of contact should consist of any dedicated means allowing for the electronic submission of removal orders and referrals and of technical and personal means allowing for the swift processing thereof. The point of contact for the hosting service provider does not have to be located in the Union and the hosting service provider is free to nominate an existing point of contact, provided that this point of contact is able to fulfil the functions provided for in this Regulation. With a view to ensure that terrorist content is removed or access to it is disabled within one hour from the receipt of a removal order, hosting service providers should ensure that the point of contact is reachable 24/7. The information on the point of contact should include information about the language in which the point of contact can be addressed. In order to facilitate the communication between the hosting service providers and the competent authorities, hosting service providers are encouraged to allow for communication in one of the official languages of the Union in which their terms and conditions are available.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 227 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
(34) In the absence of a general requirement for service providers to ensure a physical presence within the territory of the Union, there is a need to ensure clarity under which Member State's jurisdiction the hosting service provider offering services within the Union falls. As a general rule, the hosting service provider falls under the jurisdiction of the Member State in which it has its main establishment or in which it has designated a legal representative. Nevertheless, where another Member State issues a removal order, its authorities should be able to enforce their orders by taking coercive measures of a non-punitive nature, such as penalty payments. With regards to a hosting service provider which has no establishment in the Union and does not designate a legal representative, any Member State should, nevertheless, be able to issue penalties, provided that the principle of ne bis in idem is respected.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 228 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
(35) Those hosting service providers which are not established in the Union, should designate in writing a legal representative in order to ensure the compliance with and enforcement of the obligations under this Regulation. Hosting service providers may make use of an existing legal representative, provided that this legal representative is able to fulfil the functions as set out in this Regulation.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 233 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
(37) For the purposes of this Regulation, Member States should designate competent judicial authorities. The requirement to designate competent authorities does not necessarily require the establishment of new authorities but can be judicial existing bodies tasked with the functions set out in this Regulation. This Regulation requires designating authorities competent for issuing removal orders, referrals and for overseeing proactiveadditional measures and for imposing penalties. It is for Member States to decide how many authorities they wish to designate for these tasks.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 244 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
(38) Penalties are necessarycan contribute to ensureing the effective implementation by hosting service providers of the obligations pursuant to this Regulation. Member States should adopt rules on penalties, including, where appropriate, fining guidelines. Particularly severdissuasive penalties shall be ascertained in the event that the hosting service provider systematically fails to remove terrorist content or disable access to it within one hour fromafter receipt of a removal order. Non- compliance in individual cases could be sanctioned while respecting the principles of ne bis in idem and of proportionality and ensuring that such sanctions take account of systematic failure. In order to ensure legal certainty, the regulation should set out to what extent the relevant obligaand ongoing failure, gainful interest, and other factors alleviating or aggravating the failure to remove terrorist content. Sanctions can be subject to penalties. Penalties for non-compliance with Article 6 should only be adopted in relation to obligations arising from a request to report pursuant to Article 6(2) or a decision imposing additional proactive measures pursuant to Article 6(4)d possible penalties should not encourage the arbitrary removal by hosting service providers of content which is not terrorist content. In order to ensure legal certainty, the regulation should set out to what extent the relevant obligations can be subject to penalties. When determining whether or not financial penalties should be imposed, due account should be taken of the financial resources of the provider. Member States shall ensure that penalties do not encourage the removal of content which is not terrorist content.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 247 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40
(40) In order to allow for a swift amendment, where necessary, of the content of the templates to be used for the purposes of this Regulation the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission to amend Annexes I, II and III of this Regulation. In order to be able to take into account the development of technology and of the related legal framework, the Commission should also be empowered to adopt delegated acts to supplement this Regulation with technical requirements for the electronic means to be used by competent authorities for the transmission of removal orders, and for determining what corresponds to a significant number of uncontested removal orders pursuant to this Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carries out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations are conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making15 . In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. _________________ 15 OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 248 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
(41) Member States should collect information on the implementation of the legislation including information on the number of cases of successful detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences as a consequence of this Regulation. A detailed programme for monitoring the outputs, results and impacts of this Regulation should be established in order to inform an evaluation of the legislation.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 249 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 42
(42) Based on the findings and conclusions in the implementation report and the outcome of the monitoring exercise, the Commission should carry out an evaluation of this Regulation no sooner than three years after its entry into force. The evaluation should be based on the five criteria of efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, coherence and EU added value. It will assess the functioning of the different operational and technical measures foreseen under the Regulation, including the effectiveness of measures to enhance the detection, identification and removal of terrorist content, the effectiveness of safeguard mechanisms as well as the impacts on potentially affected rights and interests of third parties, including a review of the requirement to inform content providersfundamental rights, including the freedom of expression and information, the right to freedom and pluralism of the media, the freedom to conduct a business and the rights to privacy and protection of personal data.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 252 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 43
(43) Since the objective of this Regulation, namely ensuring the smooth functioning of the digital single market by preventcontributing to the investigation of terrorist offences and addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of the limitation, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective,
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 258 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. This Regulation lays down uniform rules to preventaddress the misuse of hosting services for the dissemination of terrorist content online. It lays down in particular:
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 265 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) rules on duties of care to be applied by hosting service providers in order to prevent the dissemination ofthat are particularly exposed to terrorist content through their services and, in order to ensure, where necessary, its swift removal;
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 275 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. This Regulation does not apply to content which is disseminated for educational, artistic, journalistic or research purposes, or for awareness raising purposes against terrorist activity.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 282 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. This Regulation is without prejudice to the liability regime under Directive 2000/31/EC.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 288 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1
(1) 'hosting service provider' means a provider of information society services consisting inwhose main or one of the main purposes is to offer the storage of information provided by and at the request of the content provider and in making the information stored available to third partiese public, and who has general control of and access to the content data stored and processed;
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 295 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2
(2) 'content provider' means a user who has provided informationcontent data that is, or that has been, stored and made available to the public at the request of the user by a hosting service provider;
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 298 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – introductory part
(3) 'to offer services in the Union’ means: enabling legal or natural persons in one or more Member States to use the services of the hosting service provider, irrespective of whether a payment of the user is required or not, which has a substantial connection to that Member State or Member States, such as
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 300 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c
(c) targeting of activities towards users in one or more Member States.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 305 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
(4) 'terrorist offences' means offences as defined in Article 3(1) of Directive (EU) 2017/541;
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 310 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – introductory part
(5) 'terrorist content' means one or more of the following information:manifestly illegal information qualifying as one or more of the offences defined in Articles 5 to 7 of Directive 2017/541 on combating terrorism.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 315 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a
(a) inciting or advocating, including by glorifying, the commission of terrorist offences, thereby causing a danger that such acts be committed;deleted
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 321 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b
(b) encouraging the contribution to terrorist offences;deleted
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 327 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point c
(c) promoting the activities of a terrorist group, in particular by encouraging the participation in or support to a terrorist group within the meaning of Article 2(3) of Directive (EU) 2017/541;deleted
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 336 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point d
(d) instructing on methods or techniques for the purpose of committing terrorist offences.deleted
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 348 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6
(6) ‘dissemination of terrorist content’ means making terrorist content available to third partiese public on the hosting service providers’ services;
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 359 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 8
(8) 'referral' means a notice by a competent authority or, where applicable, a relevant Union body to a hosting service provider about information that may be considered terrorist content, for the provider’s voluntary consideration of the compatibility with its own terms and conditions aimed to prevent dissemination of terrorism content;deleted
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 361 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new)
(9a) ‘competent authority’ means an independent judicial authority designated or created by the Member State.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 365 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Hosting service providers that have been subject to a significant number of uncontested removal orders shall take appropriate, reasonable and proportionate actions in accordance with this Regulation, against the dissemination of terrorist content and to protect users from terrorist content. In doing so, they shall act in a diligent, proportionate and non- discriminatory manner, and with due regard in all circumstances to the fundamental rights of the users and take into account the fundamental importance of the freedom of expression and information in an open and democratic society. These duties of care shall not result in a general monitoring obligation of the content which hosting service providers make available to the public.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 374 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. Hosting service providers shall include in their terms and conditions, and apply, provisions to prevent the dissemination of terrorist contenthat inform their users about the rules relating to terrorist content pursuant to this Regulation.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 384 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. The competent authority shall have the power to issue a decisionremoval order requiring the hosting service provider to remove terrorist content or disable access to it..
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 390 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. Hosting service providers shall remove terrorist content or disable access to it within one hour fromexpeditiously and as soon as possible after receipt of the removal order, taking into account the hosting provider’s size and resources.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 399 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) a detailed statement of reasons explaining why the content is considered terrorist content, at least, by reference to the categories of terrorist content listed in Article 2(5) and substantiating the elements of unlawfulness and intentionality and the relevant national law;
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 406 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point e a (new)
(ea) a qualified electronic signature of the issuing authority, pursuant to Regulation (EU) 910/20141a; _________________ 1aRegulation (EU) 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC (OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 73.)
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 408 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point f
(f) information about redress available to the hosting service provider and to the content provider, including redress with the competent authority as well as recourse to a court;
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 410 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point g
(g) where relevantnecessary and proportionate, the decision not to disclose information about the removal of terrorist content or the disabling of access to it referred to in Article 11.;
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 414 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point g a (new)
(ga) deadlines for appeal for the hosting service provider and for the content provider.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 415 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. Upon request by the hosting service provider or by the content provider, the competent authority shall provide a detailed statement of reasons, without prejudice to the obligation of the hosting service provider to comply with the removal order within the deadline set out in paragraph 2.deleted
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 423 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 5
5. The competent authorities shall address removal orders to the main establishment of the hosting service provider or to the legal representative designated by the hosting service provider pursuant to Article 16 and transmit it to the point of contact referred to in Article 14(1). Such orders shall be sent by electronic means capable of producing a written record under conditions allowing to establish the authentication of the sender, including the accuracy of the date and the time of sending and receipt of the order, pursuant to point (ea) of paragraph 3.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 430 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7
7. If the hosting service provider cannot comply with the removal order because of force majeure or of de facto impossibility not attributable to the hosting service provider, it shall inform, without undue delay, the competent authority, explaining the reasons, using the template set out in Annex III. The deadline set out in paragraph 2 shall apply as soon as the reasons invoked are no longer present.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 434 #

2018/0331(COD)

8. If the hosting service provider cannotrefuses to comply with the removal order because the removal order contains manifest errors, does not sufficiently establish the illegality of the content, or does not contain sufficient information to execute the order, it shall inform the competent authority without undue delay, asking for the necessary clarification, using the template set out in Annex III. The deadline set out in paragraph 2In such cases, the competent authority shall apreply as soon as the clarification is providedpromptly.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 440 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 9
9. The competent authority which issued the removal order shall inform the competent authority which oversees the implementation of proactive measuresadditional measures pursuant to Article 6, referred to in Article 17(1)(c) when the removal orders that have becomes final for a specific hosting provider reach a significant number. A removal order becomes final where it has not been appealed and judicial redress has not been sought within the deadline according to the applicable national law or where it has been confirmed following an appeal.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 446 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5
1. The competent authority or the relevant Union body may send a referral to a hosting service provider. 2. Hosting service providers shall put in place operational and technical measures facilitating the expeditious assessment of content that has been sent by competent authorities and, where applicable, relevant Union bodies for their voluntary consideration. 3. The referral shall be addressed to the main establishment of the hosting service provider or to the legal representative designated by the service provider pursuant to Article 16 and transmitted to the point of contact referred to in Article 14(1). Such referrals shall be sent by electronic means. 4. The referral shall contain sufficiently detailed information, including the reasons why the content is considered terrorist content, a URL and, where necessary, additional information enabling the identification of the terrorist content referred. 5. The hosting service provider shall, as a matter of priority, assess the content identified in the referral against its own terms and conditions and decide whether to remove that content or to disable access to it. 6. The hosting service provider shall expeditiously inform the competent authority or relevant Union body of the outcome of the assessment and the timing of any action taken as a result of the referral. 7. Where the hosting service provider considers that the referral does not contain sufficient information to assess the referred content, it shall inform without delay the competent authorities or relevant Union body, setting out what further information or clarification is required.Article 5 deleted Referrals
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 460 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – title
6 Proactive measuresAdditional measures (This amendment applies throughout the text.)
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 463 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. Hosting service providers shallmay, where appropriate, take proactivethey have been subject to a significant number of uncontested removal orders, take additional measures to protect their services against the dissemination of terrorist content. The measures shall be effective, targeted and proportionate, taking into accounto the risk and level of exposure to terrorist content, the fundamental rights of the users, and the fundamental importance of the freedom of expression and information in an open and democratic societyand rights to privacy and personal data protection in an open and democratic society. The measures shall not result in any general monitoring of the content which hosting service providers make available to the public, nor to the automated removal of content without human intervention.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 475 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Where it has been informed according to Article 4(9), the competent authority referred to in Article 17(1)(c) shallmay request the hosting service provider to submit a report, within three months after receipt of the request and, if necessary, thereafter at least on an annual basis, on the specific proactiveadditional measures it has taken, including by using automated tools, with a view to:.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 478 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) preventing the re-upload of content which has previously been removed or to which access has been disabled because it is considered to be terrorist content;deleted
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 487 #

2018/0331(COD)

(b) detecting, identifying and expeditiously removing or disabling access to terrorist content.deleted
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 495 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
The reports shall include all relevant information allowing the competent authority referred to in Article 17(1)(c) to assess whether the proactiveadditional measures are effective and proportiproportionate and effectively contribute to addressing terrorist conatent online, including toan evaluate the functioning of any automated tools used as well as the human oversight and verification mechanisms employion of the nature and functioning measures it has taken, as well as information on the number of reinstated content and the human oversight, review mechanisms available to individuals and any verification mechanisms used to assess the illegality of the terrorist content removed or whose access has been disabled.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 501 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. Where the competent authority referred to in Article 17(1)(c) considers that the proactiveadditional measures taken and reported under paragraph 2 are insufficient in mitigating and managing the risk and level of exposurenot reducing the risk and level of exposure, or do not respect the principles of necessity and proportionality, it may request the hosting service provider to take specific additional proactivre-assess the measures needed. For that purpose, the hosting service provider shall cooperate with the competent authority referred to in Article 17(1)(c) with a view to identifying the specific measures that the hosting service provider shall consider to put in place, establishingincluding suggestions for key objectives and benchmarks, as well as timelines for their implementand taking into account, in particular, the economic capacity of the hosting service provider and the effect of such measures on the fundamental rights of the users and the fundamental importance of the freedom of expression and information, as well as rights to privacy and personal data protection.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 505 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. Where no agreement can be reached within the three months from the request pursuant to paragraph 3, the competent authority referred to in Article 17(1)(c) may issue a decision imposing specific additional necessary and proportionate proactive measures. The decision shall take into account, in particular, the economic capacity of the hosting service provider and the effect of such measures on the fundamental rights of the users and the fundamental importance of the freedom of expression and information. Such a decision shall be sent to the main establishment of the hosting service provider or to the legal representative designated by the service provider. The hosting service provider shall regularly report on the implementation of such measures as specified by the competent authority referred to in Article 17(1)(c).deleted
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 520 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 5
5. A hosting service provider may, at any time, request the competent authority referred to in Article 17(1)(c) a review and, where appropriate, to revoke a request or decision pursuant to paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 respectively3. The competent authority shall provide a reasoned decision within a reasonable period of time after receiving the request by the hosting service provider.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 523 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Hosting service providers shall preserve terrorist content which has been removed or disabled as a result of a removal order, a referral or as a result of proactiveadditional measures pursuant to Articles 4, 5 and 6 and related user data removed as a consequence of the removal of the terrorist content and which is necessary for:
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 533 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) remedying complaints following the mechanism described in Article 10.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 534 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The obligation in paragraph 1 shall also apply when hosting service providers remove content as a consequence of a referral by Europol within the meaning of Article 4(1) (m) of Regulation (EU) 2016/794.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 535 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. The terrorist content and related user data referred to in paragraph 1 shall be preserved for six months. The terrorist content shall, upon request from the competent authority or court, and shall be erased thereafter. The terrorist content shall be preserved for a longer period when and for as long as necessary for ongoing proceedings of: (a) administrative or judicial review referred to in paragraph 1(a), upon request from the competent authority or court; (b) the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences referred to in paragraph 1(b), upon request from the prosecutor or judge leading the respective criminal proceedings, (c) complaints referred to in paragraph 1(c), upon request of the complaint body of or acting on behalf of the hosting service provider.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 543 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Member States shall provide in national legislation that except in cases of validly established urgency, access to terrorist content and related user data preserved for any of the purposes under point (b) of paragraph 1 shall be authorised only after a prior review by a court or an investigating judge.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 544 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – title
Transparency obligations for hosting service providers
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 546 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. Hosting service providers shall set outexplain in clear manner in their terms and conditions their policy to prevent the dissemination ofand specific measures with regard to terrorist content, including, where appropriate, a meaningful explanation of the functioning of proactive measures including the use of automated toolsadditional measures, as well as a description of the complaint and arbitration mechanism available for content providers in accordance with Article 10.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 550 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. Hosting service providers exposed to terrorist content that have received removal orders in a given year shall publish annual transparency reports on action taken against the dissemination of terrorist content for those years.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 558 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) information about the hosting service provider’s measures to preventaddress the re-upload of content which has previously been removed or to which access has been disabled because it is considered to be terrorist content;
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 561 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) number of pieces of terrorist content removed or to which access has been disabled, following removal orders, referrals, or proactive or additional measures, respectively;
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 564 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point c a (new)
(ca) number of pieces of alleged terrorist content which had to be made available again following a complaint or a redress;
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 565 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point c b (new)
(cb) number of pieces of alleged terrorist content which were not removed pursuant to paragraphs 7 and 8 of Article 4, and the grounds for not removing them;
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 571 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 a (new)
Article 8 a Transparency obligations for competent authorities 1. Competent authorities shall publish annual transparency reports on removal orders and follow-up taken regarding terrorist content. 2. Transparency reports shall include at least the following information: (a) information about the competent authority’s measures in relation to the detection, identification and removal of terrorist content; (b) information about the competent and other authorities’ measures to prosecute the content providers or other persons, where applicable, following the removal or disabling of access of terrorist content; (c) number of pieces of terrorist content removed or to which access has been disabled, following removal orders, referrals pursuant to Article 4(1) (m) of Regulation (EU) 2016/794, and additional measures, respectively; (d) number of removals that have led to the successful detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences; (e) number of pieces of alleged terrorist content which had to be made available again following a redress; (f) number of pieces of alleged terrorist content which were not removed pursuant to paragraphs 7 and 8 of Article 4, and the grounds for not removing them (g) overview and outcome of redress procedures.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 572 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – title
Safeguards regarding the use and implementation of proactive measurescontent removal
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 575 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. Where hosting service providers use automated toolmeasures that go beyond their obligations pursuant to this Regulation in respect of content that they store, they shall provide effective and appropriate safeguards to ensure that decisions taken concerning that content, in particular decisions to remove or disable content considered to be terrorist content, are accurate and well-founded and do not lead to the removal of or disabling access to legal content.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 583 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. Safeguards shall consist, in particular, of human oversight and verifications where appropriate and, in any event, where a detailed assessment of the relevant context is required in order to determine whether or not the content is to be considered terrorist content, and of easily accessible complaint mechanisms.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 585 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Content providers, whose content has been removed or access to which has been disabled following a removal order, shall have a right to an effective remedy. Member States shall put in place effective procedures for exercising this right.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 587 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. Hosting service providers shall establish effective and easily accessible mechanisms allowing content providers whose content has been removed or access to it disabled as a result of a referralspecific additional measures pursuant to Article 56, or of proactive measures pursuant to Article 6a referral by Europol within the meaning of Article 4(1) (m) of Regulation (EU) 2016/794, to submit a complaint against the action of the hosting service provider requesting reinstatement of the content.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 592 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
2. Hosting service providers shall promptly examine every complaint that they receive and reinstate the content without undue delay where the removal or disabling of access was unjustified. They shall inform the complainant about the outcome of the examination within two weeks from the receipt of the complaint, with a clear explanation in cases where hosting service providers decide not to reinstate the content. A reinstatement of content shall not preclude further judicial measures against the decision of the hosting service provider or of the competent authority.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 597 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2, the complaint mechanism of the hosting service providers shall be complementary to the applicable laws and procedures of the Member State in regard to the right to judicial review.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 600 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Where hosting service providers removed terrorist content or disable access to it, they shall make available to the content provider comprehensible and concise information on the removal or disabling of access to terrorist content. , including the reasons for the removal or disabling of access, including the legal basis establishing the unlawfulness of the content and possibilities to contest the decision. Where applicable, they shall also provide the content provider with a copy of the removal order pursuant to Article 4.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 603 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2
2. Upon request of the content provider, the hosting service provider shall inform the content provider about the reasons for the removal or disabling of access and possibilities to contest the decision.deleted
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 608 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3
3. The obligation pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply where the competent authority decides that there should be no disclosure for reasons of public security, such as the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of terrorist offences, for as long as necessary, but not exceeding [four] weeks from that decision. In such a case, the hosting service provider shall not disclose any information on the removal or disabling of access to terrorist content.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 611 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that their competent authorities have the necessary capability and sufficient resources to achieve the aims and fulfil their obligations under this Regulation, with strong guarantees of independence.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 614 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 a (new)
Article 12 a Judicial Redress Member States shall ensure that in cases where content has been removed or access to it has been disabled as a result of a removal order pursuant to Article 4 of this Regulation, a referral pursuant to Article 4(1) (m) of Regulation (EU) 2016/794, or additional measures pursuant to Article 6 of this Regulation, the content provider concerned can initiate judicial proceedings at any time requesting re- instatement of the content. Initiation of judicial proceedings shall not be conditional on the initiation of complaint mechanisms referred to in Article 10.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 620 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Competent authorities in Member States shall inform, coordinate and cooperate with each other and, where appropriate, with relevant Union bodies such as Europol with regard to removal orders and referrals to avoid duplication, enhance coordination and avoid interference with investigations in different Member States.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 627 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) the processing and feedback relating to referrals pursuant to Article 5;deleted
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 638 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Hosting service providers shall establish a point of contact allowing for the receipt of removal orders and referrals by electronic means and ensure their swiftexpeditious processing pursuant to Articles 4 and 5. They shall ensure that this information is made publicly available.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 643 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall specify the official language or languages (s) of the Union, as referred to in Regulation 1/58, in which the contact point can be addressed and in which further exchanges in relation to removal orders and referrals pursuant to Articles 4 and 5 shall take place. This shall include at least one of the official languages of the Member State in which the hosting service provider has its main establishment or where its legal representative pursuant to Article 16 resides or is established.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 645 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall establish a point of contact to handle requests for clarification and feedback in relation to removal orders and referrals issued by them. Information about the contact point shall be made publicly available.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 650 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. Where a hosting service provider which does not have its main establishment within one of the Member States fails to designate a legal representative, all Member States shall have jurisdiction.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 653 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
3. Where an authority of another Member State has issued a removal order according to Article 4(1), that Member State has jurisdiction to take coercive measures according to its national law in order to enforce the removal order.deleted
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 656 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. An appeal as referred to in Article 4(9) shall be lodged with the court of the Member State where the hosting provider has its main establishment or where the legal representative designated by the hosting service provider pursuant to Article 16 resides or is established.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 658 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1
1. A hosting service provider which does not have an establishment in the Union but offers services in the Union, shall designate, in writing, a legal or natural person as its legal representative in the Union for the receipt of, compliance with and enforcement of removal orders, referrals, requests and decisions issued by the competent authorities on the basis of this Regulation. The legal representative shall reside or be established in one of the Member States where the hosting service provider offers the services.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 661 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2
2. The hosting service provider shall entrust the legal representative with the receipt, compliance and enforcement of the removal orders, referrals, requests and decisions referred to in paragraph 1 on behalf of the hosting service provider concerned. Hosting service providers shall provide their legal representative with the necessary powers and resource to cooperate with the competent authorities and comply with these decisions and orders.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 667 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Each Member State shall designate the judicial authority or authorities competent to
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 670 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) detect, identify and refer terrorist content to hosting service providers pursuant to Article 5;deleted
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 677 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) oversee the implementation of proactiveadditional measures pursuant to Article 6;
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 686 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) Article 5(5) and (6) (assessment of and feedback on referrals);deleted
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 692 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) Article 6(2) and (4) (reports on proactive measures and the adoption of measures following a decision imposing specific proactiveadditional measures);
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 695 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) Article 9 (safeguards in relation to proactive measurescontent removal);
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 703 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 3 – point d
(d) the financial strength of the legal person held liable; , and any gainful interest when breaching this Regulation;
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 707 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 3 – point e a (new)
(ea) the nature and size of the hosting service providers, in particular for microenterprises or small-sized enterprises within the meaning of Commission recommendation 2003/361/EC.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 713 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that a systematic and ongoing failure to comply with obligations pursuant to Article 4(2) is subject to financial penalties of up to 4% of the hosting service provider’s global turnover of the last business year.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 715 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – title
Technical requirements, criteria for assessing significance, and amendments to the templates for removal orders
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 716 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 20 in order to complement this Regulation with criteria and figures to be used by competent authorities for determining what corresponds to a significant number of uncontested removal orders as referred to in this Regulation.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 717 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) information about the number of removal orders and referrals issued, the number of pieces of terrorist content which has been removed or access to it disabled, including the corresponding timeframes pursuant to Articles 4, and 5;information on the number of corresponding cases of successful detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 722 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) information about the specific proactiveadditional measures taken pursuant to Article 6, including the amount of terrorist content which has been removed or access to it disabled and the corresponding timeframes;
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 723 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) information about the number of access requests issued by national competent authorities regarding content preserved by the hosting service providers pursuant to Article 7;
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 725 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) information about the number of redress procedures initiated pursuant to Article 12a and decisions taken by the competent authority in accordance with national law.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 728 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1
No sooner than [three years from the date of application of this Regulation], the Commission shall carry out an evaluation of this Regulation and submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Regulation including the functioning of the effectiveness of the safeguard mechanisms. The report shall also cover the impact of this Regulation on freedom of expression and information, on media and journalism, on the arts, and on academic research. Where appropriate, the report shall be accompanied by legislative proposals. Member States shall provide the Commission with the information necessary for the preparation of the report.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 733 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 2
It shall apply from [612 months after its entry into force].
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 735 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – paragraph 1
Under Article 4 of Regulation (EU)….16 the addressee of the removal order shall remove terrorist content or disable access to it, within one hour fromas soon as possible after receipt of the removal order from the competent authority. _________________ 16Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online (OJ L …).
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 736 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – paragraph 2
In accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EU) ….17 , addressees must preserve content and related data, which has been removed or access to it disabled, for six months or longer upon request from the competent authorities or courts. Addressees must delete the content and related data immediately thereafter. _________________ 17Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online (OJ L …).
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 737 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – section A – paragraph 7
Member State of jurisdiction of addressee: [if different to issuing state] …………………………………………… …………………………………….……… ……..deleted
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 738 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – section B – title
B Content to be removed or access to it disabled within one houras soon as possible:
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 739 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – section B – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Reason(s) explaining why the content is considered terrorist content, in accordance with Article 2 (5) of the Regulation (EU) xxx. The content (tick the relevant box(es)):
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 740 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – section B – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
[ ] incites, advocates or glorifies the commisison of terrorist offences (Article 2 (5) a)deleted
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 741 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – section B – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
[ ] encourages the contribution to terrorist offences (Article 2 (5) b)deleted
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 742 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – section B – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
[ ] promotes the activities of a terrorist group, encouraging participation in or support of the group (Article 2 (5) c)deleted
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 743 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – section B – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 4
[ ] provides instructions or techniques for committing terrorist offences (Article 2 (5) d)deleted
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 744 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – section B – paragraph 4
Additional information on the reasons why the content is considered terrorist content (optional): …………………………………………… …………………… …………………………………………… …………………………………………… ……….. …………………………………………… …………………………………………… ……….deleted
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 745 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – section C – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
[ ] for reasons of public security,(tick relevant box) □ ongoing criminal investigations □ preventing terrorist offences the addressee must refrain from informing the content provider whose content is being removed or or to which access has been disabled.
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 746 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – section C – paragraph 2
Otherwise: Details and deadlines of possibilities to contest the removal order in the issuing Member State (which canshall be passed to the content provider, if requested) under national law; see Section G below:
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 747 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – section D
D Informing Member State of jurisdiction [ ] Tick if the state of jurisidiction of the addressee is other than the issuing Member State: [ ] a copy of the removal order is sent to the relevant competent authority of the state of jurisdictiondeleted
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 748 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – section E – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
[ ] judge, [ ] court, or [ ] investigating judge
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 749 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – section E – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
[ ] law enforcement authoritydeleted
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 750 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – section E – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
[ ] other competent authority→ please complete also Section (F)deleted
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 751 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – section F – paragraph 3
Contact details of the authority of the state of jurisdiction of the addressee [if different to the issuing Member State]deleted
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 753 #

2018/0331(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – section B – point i – paragraph 3 a (new)
[ ] the removal order does not sufficiently establish the illegality of the content
2019/02/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 22 #

2018/0194(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
(3) Actions with the aim of promoting exchanges of information and staff, technical and scientific assistance and specialised training help significantly to protect the Union’s single currency against counterfeiting and related fraud and therefore to attain a high and equivalent level of protection across the Union, whilst demonstrating the Union’s ability to tackle serious organised crime. Such actions also help addressing the common challenges and links with money laundering and organised crime.
2019/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 29 #

2018/0194(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
(7) The advice contained in the mid- term evaluation was that actions financed under the Pericles 2020 Programme should be continued, taking into account possibilitieswhile addressing the need to simplify the submitting of applications, to encourage differentiation of beneficiaries and the participation of a maximum of competent authorities from various countries in the activities of the Programme, to continue focusing on emerging and recurrent counterfeiting threats and to streamline the key performance indicators.
2019/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 37 #

2018/0194(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
To prevent and combat counterfeiting and related fraud, thus enhancing the competitiveness oftrust in the Union’s economy and securing the sustainability of public finances.
2019/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 39 #

2018/0194(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. The Programme shall be implemented by the Commission in cooperation with the Member States, through regular consultations at different stages of the implementation of the Programme, taking into accountwhile avoiding overlap with relevant measures undertaken by other competent entities, in particular the European Central Bank and Europol. To this effect, when preparing the work programmes pursuant to Article 10, the Commission shall take into account ECB and Europol activities against euro counterfeiting and fraud.
2019/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 41 #

2018/0194(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. Where eligible actions are organised jointly by the Commission and the ECB, Eurojust, Europol or Interpol, the ensuing expenses shall be divided among them. In any event, each of them shall bear the travel and accommodation costs of its own guest speakerparticipants.
2019/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 42 #

2018/0194(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a – indent 3
— use of detection tools with computer back-up;
2019/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 43 #

2018/0194(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b – indent 4
— support for cooperation in operations involving at least two States when such support is not available from other programmes of European institutions and bodies;
2019/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 45 #

2018/0194(COD)

3. The groups referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article may include participants from third countries if that is important for the fulfilment of the objectives provided for in Article 2.
2019/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 47 #

2018/0194(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission shall provide annual information on the results of the Programme to the European Parliament and to the Council, the Council, the European Central Bank, Europol, Eurojust, and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), taking into account the quantitative and qualitative indicators set out in the Annex to this proposal.
2019/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 50 #

2018/0194(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission shall communicate the conclusions of the evaluations accompanied by its observations, to the European Parliament, the Council and, the European Central Bank, Europol, Eurojust, and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.
2019/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 54 #

2018/0194(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) Number of counterfeit euros detected as a proportion of the estimated amount of counterfeit euros circulating;
2019/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 23 #

2018/0170(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4) In view of their common goal to preserve the integrity of the Union budget, the Office and the EPPO should establish and maintain a close relationship based on sincere cooperation and aimed at ensuring the complementarity of their respective mandates and coordination of their action, in particular as regards the scope of the enhanced cooperation for the establishment on the EPPO. Ultimately, the relationship should contribute to ensuring that all means are used to protect the financial interests of the Union and avoiding unnecessary duplication of efforts. To foster good cooperation, the EPPO and the Office are encouraged to meet on a regular basis, in particular to get an overview of ongoing investigations, so as to identify trends and possible links between cases.
2018/12/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 28 #

2018/0170(COD)

(6) Elements pointing to possible criminal conduct falling within the competence of the EPPO may, in practice, be present in initial allegations received by the Office or may emerge only in the course of an administrative investigation opened by the Office on the grounds of suspicion of administrative irregularity. In order to comply with its duty to report to the EPPO, the Office should therefore, as the case may be, report criminal conducimmediately notify any criminal conduct and send a report without undue delay. Both the notification and the report should be sent at any stage before or during an investigation.
2018/12/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 43 #

2018/0170(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22 a (new)
(22 a) Persons reporting crimes and infringements related to the EU’s financial interests to the Office should be fully protected, in particular through the relevant EU provisions on the protection of whistleblowers.
2018/12/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 78 #

2018/0170(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 – point a a (new)
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013
Article 10 – paragraph 5 a (new)
(a a) the following paragraph 5a is added: "Persons reporting crimes and infringements related to the EU’s financial interests to the Office shall be fully protected, in particular through European legislation regarding the protection of persons reporting on breaches of Union law."
2018/12/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 89 #

2018/0170(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013
Article 12c – paragraph 1
1. The Office shall report to the EPPOimmediately notify and report without undue delay to the EPPO any criminal conduct in respect of which the EPPO could exercise its competence in accordance with Article 22 and Article 25(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939. The notification and the report shall be sent at any stage before or during an investigation of the Office.
2018/12/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 92 #

2018/0170(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013
Article 12c – paragraph 2
2. The report shall contain, as a minimum, a description of the facts all the relevant facts and information known by the Office, including an assessment of the damage caused or likely to be caused the possible legal qualification and any available information about potential victims, suspects and any other involved persons.
2018/12/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 102 #

2018/0170(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013
Article 12e – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. The standards of the procedural guarantees stipulated in Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 shall also apply to evidence collected by the Office in these cases. The Court of Justice of the European Union remains competent to review procedural acts conducted by OLAF on behalf of the EPPO, if those acts are intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties.
2018/12/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 105 #

2018/0170(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013
Article 12f – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Within 310 days after receipt of this information the EPPO may object to the opening of an investigation or to the performance of certain acts pertaining to the investigation, where necessary to avoid jeopardising its own investigation or prosecution, and for as long as these grounds persist. The EPPO shall notify to the Office without undue delay when the grounds for the objection cease to apply.
2018/12/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 111 #

2018/0170(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013
Article 12g – paragraph 2
2. The Office shall have indirect access to information in the EPPO's case management system on the basis of a hit/no hit system. Whenever a match is found between data entered into the case management system by the Office and data held by the EPPO, the fact that there is a match shall be communicated to both the EPPO and the Office. The Office shall take appropriate measures to enable the EPPO to have indirect access to information in its case management system on the basis of a hit/no-hit system.;
2018/12/03
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 41 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
(1) Persons who work for an organisation or are in contact with it in the context of their work-related activities are often the first to know about threats or harm to the public interest which arise in this context. The purpose of this Directive is to create a climate of trust that enables whistleblowers to report observed or suspected breaches of law, wrongdoing and threats to the public interest. By ‘blowing the whistle’ they play a key role in exposing and preventing breaches of the law and in safeguarding the welfare of society. However, potential whistleblowers are often discouraged from reporting their concerns or suspicions for fear of retaliation.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 51 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
(3) In certain policy areas, bBreaches of Union law may cause serious harm to the public interest, in the sense of creating significant risks for the welfare of society. Where weaknesses of enforcement have been identified in those areas, and whistleblowers are in a privileged position to disclose breaches, it is necessary to enhance enforcement by ensuring effective protection of whistleblowers from retaliation and introducing effectiveto ensure that there are effective and confidential reporting channels.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 59 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
(14) The protection of privacy and personal data is another area where whistleblowers are in a privileged position to disclose breaches of Union law which can seriously harm the public interest. Similar considerations apply for breaches of the Directive on the security of network and information systems45 , which introduces notification of incidents (including those that do not compromise personal data) and security requirements for entities providing essential services across many sectors (e.g. energy, health, transport, banking, etc.) and providers of key digital services (e.g. cloud computing services). Whistleblowers' reporting in this area is particularly valuable to prevent security incidents that would affect key economic and social activities and widely used digital services. It helps as well as to prevent misuses of personal data and infringements of the Union data protection legislation. It helps protecting the fundamental rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data and ensuring the continuity of services which are essential for the functioning of the internal market and the wellbeing of society. _________________ 45 Directive (EU) 2016/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016 concerning measures for a high common level of security of network and information systems across the Union.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 65 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
(19) Each time a new Union act for which whistleblower protection is relevant and can contribute to more effective enforcement is adopted, consideration should be given to whether to amendit should be added to the Annex to the present Directive in order to place it under its scope.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 67 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
(20) This Directive should be without prejudiceis a complement to the protection afforded to employees when reporting on breaches of Union employment law. In particular, in the area of occupational safety and health, Article 11 of Framework Directive 89/391/EEC already requires Member States to ensure that workers or workers' representatives shall not be placed at a disadvantage because of their requests or proposals to employers to take appropriate measures to mitigate hazards for workers and/or to remove sources of danger. Workers and their representatives are entitled to raise issues with the competent national authorities if they consider that the measures taken and the means employed by the employer are inadequate for the purposes of ensuring safety and health.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 69 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
(21) This Directive should be without prejudice to the protection of national security and other classified information which Union law or the laws, regulations or administrative provisions in force in the Member State concerned require, for security reasons, to be protected from unauthorised access. In particular, Moreover, the provision of this Directive should not affect the obligations arising from Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/444 of 13 March 2015 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information or Council Decision of 23 September 2013 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 70 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 a (new)
(21 a) Persons who report information related to national security (i.e. State security), defence, public security, and the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences are often met with severe penalties and prosecutions. Such persons may be members of the military or the security and intelligence community of the Member States, or any other persons having come across sensitive information. While it is necessary to protect national security and state secrets, there are often situations where reporting persons are the only way to uncover breaches of Union law and violations of fundamental rights by Member State authorities. Member States should therefore apply the protections offered by this Directive to persons reporting information linked to national security and other public security issues by drawing on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and on the principles developed by the Council of Europe in its 2014 Recommendation on Protection of Whistleblowers, in particular Principle 5, as well as on the Global Principles on National Security and the Right to Information (Tshwane Principles).
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 74 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
(22) Persons who report information particularly about threats or harm to the public interest obtained in the context of their work- related activities make use of their right to freedom of expression. The right to freedom of expression, enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), encompasses freedom of information as well as media freedom and pluralism.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 75 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
(24) Persons need specific legal protection where they acquire the information they report through their work- related activities and therefore run the risk of work-related retaliation (for instance, for breaching the duty of confidentiality or loyalty). The underlying reason for providing them with protection is their position of economic vulnerability vis-à- vis the person on whom they de facto depend for work. When there is no such work-related power imbalance (for instance in the case of ordinary complainants or citizen bystanders) there is no need for protection against retaliation.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 78 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
(25) Effective enforcement of Union law requires that protection is granted to the broadest possible range of categories of persons, who, irrespective of whether they are EU citizens or third-country nationals, by virtue of work-related activities (irrespective of the nature of these activities,whether they are paid or not), have privileged access to information about breaches that would be in the public’s interest to report and who may suffer retaliation if they report them. Member States should ensure that the need for protection is determined by reference to all the relevant circumstances and not merely by reference to the nature of the relationship, so as to cover the whole range of persons connected in a broad sense to the organisation where the breach has occurred.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 85 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
(28) Effective whistleblower protection implies protecting also further categories of persons who, whilst not relying on their work-related activities economically, may nevertheless suffer retaliation for exposing breaches. Retaliation against volunteers and unpaid trainees may take the form of no longer making use of their services, or of giving a negative reference for future employment or otherwise damaging their reputation. Retaliation against investigators or reporters could take the form of strategic litigation suits, for example regarding libel or defamation.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 90 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
(30) Effective prevention of breaches of Union law requires that protection is also granted to persons who provide information about potential breaches, which have not yet materialised, but are likely to be committed. For the same reasons, protection is warranted also for persons who do not provide positive evidence but raise reasonable concerns or suspicions. At the same time, protection should not apply to the reporting of information which is already in the public domain or of unsubstantiated rumours and hearsayunsubstantiated rumours and hearsay. Protection should be given to individuals working in institutions within the Union, but also to individuals working in European entities located outside Union territory. It should also apply to officials as well as other employees and interns working at the institutions, agencies and bodies of the Union.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 109 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 42
(42) Provided the anonymity or confidentiality of the identity of the reporting person is ensured, it is up to each individual private and public legal entity to define the kind of reporting channels to set up, such as in person, by post, by physical complaint box(es), by telephone hotline or through an online platform (intranet or internet). However, reporting channels should not be limited to those amongst the tools, such as in-person reporting and complaint box(es), which do not guarantee anonymity nor confidentiality of the identity of the reporting person.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 112 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 43
(43) Third parties may also be authorised to receive reports on behalf of private and public entities, provided they offer appropriate guarantees of respect for independence, anonymity, confidentiality, data protection and secrecy. These can be external reporting platform providers, external counsel or auditors or trade union representatives.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 113 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 44
(44) Internal reporting procedures should enable private legal entities to receive and investigate in full confidentiality and with respect of anonymity, if appropriate, reports by the employees of the entity and of its subsidiaries or affiliates (the group), but also, to any extent possible, by any of the group’s agents and suppliers and by any person who acquires information through his/her work-related activities with the entity and the group.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 116 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 47
(47) Persons who are considering reporting breaches of Union law should be able to make an informed decision on whether, how and when to report. Private and public entities having in place internal reporting procedures shall provide information on these procedures as well as on procedures to report externally to relevant competent authorities. They should also provide information on rights guaranteed to whistleblowers, particularly their right to disclosure guaranteed by this Directive, and their right to turn to civil society organisations involved in whistleblower protection to this end, in particular those who provide strategic and legal advice to whistleblowers. Such information must be easily understandable and easily accessible, including, to any extent possible, also to other persons, beyond employees, who come in contact with the entity through their work-related activities, such as service-providers, distributors, suppliers and business partners. For instance, such information may be posted at a visible location accessible to all these persons and to the web of the entity and may also be included in courses and trainings on ethics and integrity.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 117 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 48
(48) Effective detection and prevention of breaches of Union law requires ensuring that potential whistleblowers can easily and in full confidentiality and anonymity bring the information they possess to the attention of the relevant competent authorities which are able to investigate and to remedy the problem, where possible.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 127 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 59
(59) The regular review of the procedures of competent authorities and the exchange of good practices between them and competent civil society organisations should guarantee that those procedures are adequate and thus serving their purpose.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 138 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 65
(65) Reporting persons should be protected against any form of retaliation, whether direct or indirect, taken by their employer or customer/recipient of services and by persons working for or acting on behalf of the latter, including co-workers and managers in the same organisation or in other organisations with which the reporting person is in contact in the context of his/her work-related activities, where retaliation is recommended or tolerated by the concerned person. Protection should be provided against retaliatory measures taken vis-à-vis the reporting person him/herself but also those that may be taken vis-à-vis the legal entity he/she represents, such as denial of provision of services, blacklisting or business boycotting. Protection against retaliation should also be granted to natural or legal persons closely linked to the reporting person, irrespective of the nature of the activities, and whether they are paid or not. Indirect retaliation also includes actions taken against relatives of the reporting person who are also in a work-related connection with the latter’s employer or customer/recipient of services and workers’ representatives who have provided support to the reporting person.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 140 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 67
(67) Potential whistleblowers who are not sure about how to report or whether they will be protected in the end may be discouraged from reporting. Member States should ensure that relevant information is provided in a user-friendly way and is easily accessible to the general public and should support the work of civil society organisations providing this information. Individual, impartial and confidential advice, free of charge, should be available on, for example, whether the information in question is covered by the applicable rules on whistleblower protection, which reporting channel may best be used and which alternative procedures are available in case the information is not covered by the applicable rules (‘signposting’). Access to such advice can help ensure that reports are made through the appropriate channels, in a responsible manner and that breaches and wrongdoings are detected in a timely manner or even prevented.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 145 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 75
(75) A significant cost for reporting persons contesting retaliation measures taken against them in legal proceedings can be the relevant legal fees. Although they could recover these fees at the end of the proceedings, they might not be able to cover them up front, especially if they are unemployed and blacklisted. Assistance for criminal legal proceedings, particularly in accordance with the provisions of Directive (EU) 2016/1919 of the European Parliament and of the Council59 and more generally support to those who are in serious financial need might be key, in certain cases,is key for the effective enforcement of their rights to protection. _________________ 59 Directive (EU) 2016/1919 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings (OJ L 297 4.11.2016, p. 1).
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 147 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 77
(77) Any person who suffers prejudice, whether directly or indirectly, as a consequence of the reporting or disclosure of inaccurate or misleading information should retain the protection and the remedies available to him or her under the rules of general law. Where sufficient evidence has been produced demonstrating that such inaccurate or misleading report or disclosure was made deliberately and knowingly, the concerned persons should be entitled to compensation in accordance with national law.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 148 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 77 a (new)
(77 a) Following an individual assessment, any third country national who reports information falling within the scope of this directive and suffers from a well-founded fear of persecution or would face a real risk of suffering serious harm because of the report and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country of residence, can be considered as qualifying as a refugee or beneficiary of subsidiary protection in accordance with Directive 2011/95/EU.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 151 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 80
(80) This Directive introduces minimum standards and Member States should have the power and be encouraged to introduce or maintain more favourable provisions to the reporting person, provided that such provisions do not interfere with the measures for the protection of concerned persons.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 162 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. With a view to enhancing the enforcement of Union law and policies in specific areas, this Directive lays down common minimum standards for the protection of persons reporting on the following unlawful activities or, abuse of law or threats to the public interest, including:
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 168 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a – introductory part
a) breaches falling within the scope of the Union acts set out in the Annex (Part I and Part II) as regardsincluding but not limited to the following areas:
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 170 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a – point x a (new)
(x a) employment and working conditions
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 171 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a – point x b (new)
(x b) tax fraud, tax evasion and tax optimisation
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 172 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a – point x c (new)
(x c) violations of human rights or of the rights enshrined in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights;
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 173 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a – point x d (new)
(x d) company law
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 174 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a – point x e (new)
(x e) asylum and migration law
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 175 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point b
b) Competition law, especially breaches of Articles 101, 102, 106, 107 and 108 TFEU and breaches falling within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and Council Regulation (EU) No 2015/1589;
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 176 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d
d) breaches relating to the internal market, as referred to in Article 26(2) TFEU, particularly as regards acts which breach the rules of corporate tax or arrangements whose purpose is to obtain a tax advantage that defeats the object or purpose of the applicable corporate tax law.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 177 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
d a) breaches related to national security (i.e. State security), defence, public security, and the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 184 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. This Directive shall apply to reporting persons working in the private or public sector who acquired information on breaches in a work-related context including, at least, the following:
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 187 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
a) persons having the status of worker, with the meaning of Article 45 TFEU, regardless of whether they are paid or unpaid;
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 197 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2
2. This Directive shall also apply to reporting persons whose work-based relationship is yet to begin in cases where information concerning a breach has been acquired during the recruitment process or other pre-contractual negotiation and to work-based relationships that have terminated.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 198 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Without prejudice to Articles 22a, 22b and 22c of Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), this Directive shall also apply to the officials and the other servants of the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community who report information on any of the breaches referred to in Article 1.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 205 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1
(1) ‘breaches’ means actual or potential unlawful activities, omissions or abuse of law relating to the Union acts andnotably in areas falling within the scope referred to in Article 1 and in the Annex;
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 208 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3
(3) ‘abuse of law’ means acts or omissions falling within the scope of Union law which do not appear to be unlawful in formal terms but defeat the object or the purpose pursued by the applicable rules or represent a danger or a potential danger to the public interest;
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 212 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 5
(5) ‘report’ means the provision of information relating to a breach which has occurred or is likely to occur in the organisation at which the reporting person works or has worked or in another organisation with which he or she is or was in contact through his or her work;
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 214 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 8
(8) ‘disclosure’ means making information on breaches acquired within the work-related context available to the public domain;
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 218 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9
(9) ‘reporting person’ means a natural or legal person who reports or discloses information on breaches acquired in the context of his or her work-related activitior who contributes, assists or aids to reveal or make public information on breaches;
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 224 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 12
(12) ‘retaliation’ means any threatened or actual act or omission prompted by the internal oreporting, external reporting which occurs in a work-related context andor disclosure and which causes or may cause unjustified detriment to the reporting person, suspected reporting person or their family members, relatives and facilitators;
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 228 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 13
(13) ‘follow-up’ means any action taken by the recipient of the report, made internally or externally, to assess the accuracy of the allegations made in the report and, where relevant, to address the breach reported, including actions such as internal enquiry, investigation, prosecution, action for recovery of funds and closure as well as any other appropriate remedial or mitigation action;
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 229 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 14
(14) ‘competent authority’ means any nationallegally responsible Union or Member State authority entitled to receive reports in accordance with Chapter III and designated to carry out the duties provided for in this Directive, in particular as regards the follow up of reports. These include but are not limited to: a) Competent agencies; b) Law enforcement, including investigative authorities, such as police and prosecution authorities; c) Oversight agencies including for example inspection bodies and state auditors; d) Elected officials including Members of Parliament, parliamentary committees; or e) Any other specialised agencies or commissions, such as ombudspersons, data protection authorities or any other body established to receive complaints.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 240 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 6 – point d a (new)
d a) European Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies set up by, or on the basis of, the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or the Euratom Treaty;
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 247 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d
d) a reasonable timeframe, not exceeding three month30 days following the report, to provide feedback to the reporting person about the follow-up to the report;
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 251 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) written reports in electronic or paper format and/or oral report through telephone lines, whether recorded or unrecorded; in case the phone conversation is recorded, the prior consent of the reporting person is necessary;
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 254 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) physical meetings with the person or department designated to receive reports accompanied, if the reporting person requests it, by a union representative, by a representative of civil society or his/her legal representative.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 255 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b a (new)
(b a) Reporting channels, including digital mechanisms, and institutional arrangements shall provide for safe, secure, confidential and anonymous disclosures.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 258 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point a
a) establish independent and autonomous external reporting channels, which are both secure and ensure confidentiality, for receiving and handling information provided by the reporting person and allow for anonymous reporting;
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 261 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b
b) acknowledge receipt of the report within 5 working days, give feedback to the reporting person about the follow-up of the report within a reasonable timeframe not exceeding threewo months or six months in duly justified cases;
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 265 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Reporting channels, including digital mechanisms, and institutional arrangements shall provide for safe, secure, confidential and anonymous disclosures.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 266 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that any authority which has received a report but does not have the competence to address the breach reported transmits it to the competent authority and that the reporting person is informed. Member States shall ensure that competent authorities receiving reports they do not have competence to address have clear procedures for handling all disclosed information securely with due regard to confidentiality or anonymity.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 271 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
c a) they guarantee free and independent advice and legal support for reporting persons and intermediaries.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 273 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point c
c) physical meeting with dedicated staff members of the competent authority accompanied, if the reporting person requests it, by a union representative, by a representative of civil society or by his/her legal representative.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 275 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 4
4. Member States and EU institutions, agencies and bodies shall establish procedures to ensure that, where a report being initially addressed to a person who has not been designated as responsible handler for reports that person is refrained from disclosing any information that might identify the reporting or the concerned person.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 292 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)
g a) contact information of civil society organisations where legal advice can be obtained free of charge.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 293 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that competent authorities keep records of every report received. The records may be used only for the purpose referred to in Article 1 and shall be deleted as soon as the follow-up procedure is completed and closed. Records may be kept longer if they are required for monitoring procedures that are already under way.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 319 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point e
e) he or she had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of internal reporting channels could jeopardiseresult in retaliation or jeopardise the effectiveness of investigative actions by competent authorities or when use of the internal channel has previously resulted in retaliation or jeopardised the effectiveness of investigative actions by competent authorities;
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 344 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point g
g) coercion, intimidation, harassment or ostracism at the workplace, discrimination or ostracism;
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 347 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point k
k) damage, including to the person’s reputation and particularly on social media, or financial loss, including loss of business and loss of income;
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 361 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 8
8. In addition to providing legal aid to reporting persons in criminal and in cross- border civil proceedings in accordance with Directive (EU) 2016/1919 and Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council63 , and in accordance with national law, Member States may provide for further measures of legal and financial assistance and support for reporting persons in the framework of legal proceedings, including legal advice from a lawyer, trade union representative or other relevant person or body. _________________ 63 Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 136, 24.5.2008, p. 3).
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 364 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Member States shall ensure that, following an individual assessment, any third country national who reports information falling within the scope of this directive and suffers from a well- founded fear of persecution or would face a real risk of suffering serious harm because of the report and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country of residence, shall be considered as qualifying as a refugee beneficiary of subsidiary protection in accordance with Directive 2011/95/EU.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 368 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 a (new)
Article 16 a Rights of Persons Implicated Member States shall ensure that any findings or reports resulting from an assessment or an investigation of, or prompted by, one or more protected disclosure(s) does not unjustly prejudice any individual, whether directly or indirectly. The right to a fair hearing or trial shall be fully respected.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 375 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point d
d) breach the duty of maintaining the confidentiality or the anonymity of the identity of reporting persons.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 384 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. When transposing this directive, Member States may consider the establishment of an independent whistleblower protection authority.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 386 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission shall, by 15 May 2027, taking into account its report submitted pursuant to paragraph 1 and the Member States’ statistics submitted pursuant to paragraph 2, submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council assessing the impact of national law transposing this Directive. The report shall evaluate the way in which this Directive has operated, the possible impact on fundamental rights such as privacy, the right to the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, and consider the need for additional measures, including, where appropriate, amendments with a view to extending the scope of this Directive to further areas or Union acts.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 387 #

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 22 a (new)
Article 22 a Updating the Annexes Whenever a new EU legal act falls into the material scope laid down in Article 1 (1) (a) or Article 1 (2), the Commission shall update the Annexes accordingly via a delegated act.
2018/09/18
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 20 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
(2) In order to enhance security and prosecution of financial crimes in the Member States and across the Union, it is necessary to improve access to information by Financial Intelligence Units and public authorities responsible for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of serious forms of crimes, to enhance their ability to conduct financial investigations and to improve cooperation between them.
2018/11/07
Committee: ECON
Amendment 22 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
(6) Immediate and direct access to the information held in centralised bank account registries is often indispensable for the success of a criminal investigation or for the timely identification, tracing and freezing of the related assets in view of their confiscation. Direct access is the most immediate type of access to the information held in centralised bank account registries. This Directive should therefore lay down rules granting direct access to information held in centralised bank account registries to designated Member States' authorities and other bodies competent for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences.
2018/11/07
Committee: ECON
Amendment 29 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
(16) In order to prevent and combat money laundering, the associated predicate offences and terrorist financing more effectively and to reinforce its role in providing financial information and analysis, a Financial Intelligence Unit should be empowered to exchange information or analysis already in its possession or which can be obtained from obliged entities at the request of another Financial Intelligence Unit or of a competent authority in its Member State. This exchange should not hamper a Financial Intelligence Unit's active role in disseminating its analysis to other Financial Intelligence Units where that analysis reveals facts, conduct or suspicion of money laundering and terrorist financing of direct interest to those other Financial Intelligence Units. Financial analysis covers operational analysis which focuses on individual cases and specific targets or on appropriate selected information, depending on the type and volume of the disclosures received and the expected use of the information after dissemination as well as strategic analysis addressing money laundering and terrorist financing trends and patterns. However, this Directive should be without prejudice to the organisational status and role conferred to Financial Intelligence Units under the national law of Member States. In particular, FIUs should be under no obligation to comply with the request for information where there are objective grounds for assuming that the provision of such information would have a negative impact on ongoing investigations or analyses, or, in exceptional circumstances, where disclosure of the information would be clearly disproportionate to the legitimate interests of a natural or legal person or irrelevant with regard to the purposes for which it has been requested. Any refusal to comply with a request for information from another Financial Investigation Unit or from a competent authority in its Member State should be appropriately explained.
2018/11/07
Committee: ECON
Amendment 31 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 16 a (new)
(16a) In order to enhance trust and cooperation between FIUs and competent authorities, as well as to improve the efficiency of the fight against money laundering and serious criminal offences, it is essential that FIUs are provided with feedback from competent authorities as regards to the use made of the financial information provided and about the outcome of the investigation or prosecution relating to such information. Member States should therefore require that competent authorities provide regular feedback to the Financial Intelligence Unit and should put in place appropriate mechanisms to allow for such exchanges of information and follow-ups.
2018/11/07
Committee: ECON
Amendment 33 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
(17) Time limits for exchanges of information between Financial Intelligence Units are necessary to ensure quick, effective and consistent cooperation. Sharing information necessary to solve cross-border cases and investigations should be carried out with the same celerity and priority as for a similar domestic case. Time limits should be provided to ensure effective sharing of information within reasonable time or to meet procedural constraints, as well as to harmonise practices of exchange of information between FIUs across the Union. Shorter time limits should be provided in duly justified cases, where the requests relate to specific serious criminal offences, such as terrorist offences and offences related to a terrorist group or activities as laid down in Union law.
2018/11/07
Committee: ECON
Amendment 35 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
(19) Given the sensitivity of financial data that should be analysed by Financial Intelligence Units and the necessary data protection safeguards, this Directive should specifically set out the type and scope of information that can be exchanged between Financial Intelligence Units and with designated competent authorities. This Directive should not bring any changes to currently agreed methods of data collection and should not derogate from the existing Union data protection law.
2018/11/07
Committee: ECON
Amendment 37 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
(20) Under its specific competences and tasks as laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council16 , Europol provides support to Member States’ cross- border investigations into the money laundering activities of transnational criminal organisations. According to Regulation (EU) 2016/794, the Europol National Units are the liaison bodies between Europol and the Member States' authorities competent to investigate criminal offences. To provide Europol with the information necessary to carry out its tasks, Member States should provide that their Financial Intelligence Unit areplies able to reply to requests for financial information and financial analysis made by Europol through the respective Europol National Unit. Member States should also provide that their Europol National Unit areplies able to reply to requests for information on bank accounts by Europol. Requests made by Europol have to be duly justified. They have to be made on a case-by case basis, within the limits of Europol's responsibilities and for the performance of its tasks.
2018/11/07
Committee: ECON
Amendment 39 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
(22) To achieve the appropriate balance between efficiency and a high level of data protection, Member States should be required to ensure that the processing of sensitive financial information that could reveal a person's race or ethnic origin, political opinions, religion or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, health, sexual life or sexual orientation should be allowed only to the extent that it is strictly necessary and relevant to a specific investigation, and in accordance with Directive (EU) 2016/680.
2018/11/07
Committee: ECON
Amendment 41 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
(25) Personal data obtained under this Directive should only be processed by competent authorities where it is necessary and proportionate for the purposes of prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of serious crime and in accordance with Directive (EU) 2016/680.
2018/11/07
Committee: ECON
Amendment 42 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 27 a (new)
(27a) In order to overcome the current cooperation difficulties which exist between national FIUs, a European FIU should be set up in order to coordinate, assist and support Member States FIUs in cross-border cases. It would also be particularly suited to an integrated EU financial market and effective in combating money laundering and terrorist financing in the internal market. The Member States FIU would still be primarily responsible for receiving suspicious transaction reports, analysing them and disseminate them to the national competent authority. The EU FIU would lend support to those Member States especially in maintaining and developing the technical infrastructure for ensuring the exchange of information, assisting them in joint analysis of cross- border cases and strategic analysis, and coordinate the work of Member States FIUs for cross-border cases.
2018/11/07
Committee: ECON
Amendment 45 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
(2) In order to enhance security and prosecution of financial crimes in the Member States and across the Union, it is necessary to improve access to information by Financial Intelligence Units and public authorities responsible for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of serious forms of crimes, to enhance their ability to conduct financial investigations and to improve cooperation between them.
2018/10/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 47 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
(6) Immediate and direct access to the information held in centralised bank account registries is often indispensable for the success of a criminal investigation or for the timely identification, tracing and freezing of the related assets in view of their confiscation. Direct access is the most immediate type of access to the information held in centralised bank account registries. This Directive should therefore lay down rules granting direct access to information held in centralised bank account registries to designated Member States' authorities and other bodies competent for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences.
2018/10/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 50 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. Subject to national procedural safeguards, each Member State shall ensure that its national Financial Intelligence Unit is requiredable to reply to requests for financial information or financial analysis by its designated competent authorities referred to in Article 3(2), where that financial information or financial analysis is necessary, on a case- by-case basis, for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of serious criminal offences.
2018/11/07
Committee: ECON
Amendment 51 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Where there are objective grounds for assuming that the provision of such information would have a negative impact on ongoing investigations or analyses, or, in exceptional circumstances, where disclosure of the information would be clearly disproportionate to the legitimate interests of a natural or legal person or irrelevant with regard to the purposes for which it has been requested, the FIU shall be under no obligation to comply with the request for information. Any refusal shall be appropriately explained.
2018/11/07
Committee: ECON
Amendment 53 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Member States shall require that competent authorities referred to in Article 3(2) provide regular feedback to the Financial Intelligence Unit on the use made of the financial information provided in accordance with this Article and about the outcome of the investigation or prosecution relating to such information. Member States shall put in place appropriate mechanisms to allow for swift and secure exchanges of information and follow-ups on investigations and prosecutions between Financial Investigation Units and competent authorities referred to in Article 3(2).
2018/11/07
Committee: ECON
Amendment 55 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Subject to national procedural safeguards, each Member State shall ensure that its designated national competent authorities are required to reply in a timely manner to requests for law enforcement information by the national Financial Intelligence Unit, on a case-by- case basis, where the information is necessary for the prevention and combating of money laundering, associate predicate offences and terrorist financing.
2018/11/07
Committee: ECON
Amendment 58 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall ensure that its Financial Intelligence Unit is enabled to exchange financial information or financial analysis with any Financial Intelligence Unit in the Union where that financial information or financial analysis is necessary for the prevention and combating of money laundering, associate predicate offences and terrorist financing.
2018/11/07
Committee: ECON
Amendment 59 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. A Financial Investigation Unit may refuse to exchange information only in exceptional circumstances where the exchange could be contrary to fundamental principles of its national law. Those exceptions shall be specified in a way which prevents misuse of, and undue limitations on, the free exchange of information for analytical purposes. Any refusal shall be appropriately explained.
2018/11/07
Committee: ECON
Amendment 60 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that where a Financial Intelligence Unit is requested pursuant to paragraph 1 to exchange financial information or financial analysis, it shall do so as soon as possible and in any case no later than three days after the receipt of the request. In exceptional, duly justified cases, this time limit may be extended by a maximum of 10 days. The same time limits apply for sending an appropriate explanation in case of refusals based on Article 9(1a).
2018/11/07
Committee: ECON
Amendment 63 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall ensure that its Europol National Unit is able to repliesy to duly justified requests related to bank account information made by the Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation established by Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Europol') on a case-by-case basis within the limits of its responsibilities and for the performance of its tasks.
2018/11/07
Committee: ECON
Amendment 65 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2
2. Each Member State shall ensure that its Financial Intelligence Unit is able to repliesy to duly justified requests related to financial information and financial analysis made by Europol through the Europol National Unit within the limits of its responsibilities and for the performance of its tasks.
2018/11/07
Committee: ECON
Amendment 67 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Where there are objective grounds for assuming that the provision of such information would have a negative impact on ongoing investigations or analyses, or, in exceptional circumstances, where disclosure of the information would be clearly disproportionate to the legitimate interests of a natural or legal person or irrelevant with regard to the purposes for which it has been requested, the FIU shall be under no obligation to comply with the request for information. Any refusal shall be appropriately explained.
2018/11/07
Committee: ECON
Amendment 70 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
(16) In order to prevent and combat money laundering, the associated predicate offences and terrorist financing more effectively and to reinforce its role in providing financial information and analysis, a Financial Intelligence Unit should be empowered to exchange information or analysis already in its possession or which can be obtained from obliged entities at the request of another Financial Intelligence Unit or of a competent authority in its Member State. This exchange should not hamper a Financial Intelligence Unit's active role in disseminating its analysis to other Financial Intelligence Units where that analysis reveals facts, conduct or suspicion of money laundering and terrorist financing of direct interest to those other Financial Intelligence Units. Financial analysis covers operational analysis which focuses on individual cases and specific targets or on appropriate selected information, depending on the type and volume of the disclosures received and the expected use of the information after dissemination as well as strategic analysis addressing money laundering and terrorist financing trends and patterns. However, this Directive should be without prejudice to the organisational status and role conferred to Financial Intelligence Units under the national law of Member States. In particular, FIUs should be under no obligation to comply with the request for information where there are objective grounds for assuming that the provision of such information would have a negative impact on ongoing investigations or analyses, or, in exceptional circumstances, where disclosure of the information would be clearly disproportionate to the legitimate interests of a natural or legal person or irrelevant with regard to the purposes for which it has been requested. Any refusal to comply with a request for information from another Financial Investigation Unit or from a competent authority in its Member State should be appropriately explained.
2018/10/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 72 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. The processing of information revealing a person's race or ethnic origin, political opinions, religion or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, health, sexual life or sexual orientation may only be allowed to the extent that it is strictly necessary and relevant in a specific case and in accordance with Article 10 of Directive (EU)2016/680.
2018/11/07
Committee: ECON
Amendment 73 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 16 a (new)
(16a) In order to enhance trust and cooperation between FIUs and competent authorities, as well as to improve the efficiency of the fight against money laundering and serious criminal offences, it is essential that FIUs are provided with feedback from competent authorities as regards to the use made of the financial information provided and about the outcome of the investigation or prosecution relating to such information. Member States should therefore ensure that competent authorities provide regular feedback to the Financial Intelligence Unit and should put in place appropriate mechanisms to allow for such exchanges of information and follow-ups.
2018/10/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 74 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Member States shall adopt legislative measures restricting, in whole or in part, the data subject's right of access to personal data relating to him or her processed under this Directive in accordance with Article 15(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/680 and in order to:
2018/11/07
Committee: ECON
Amendment 75 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 a (new)
Article 15a European Financial Intelligence Unit The Commission shall set up a European Financial Intelligence Unit (EFIU) to facilitate coordination, including the exchange of information between FIUs within the Union. The EFIU shall coordinate, assist and support Member Sates FIUs in cross-border cases. The EFIU shall lend support to those Member States especially in maintaining and developing the technical infrastructure for ensuring the exchange of information, assisting them in joint analysis of cross border cases and strategic analysis, and coordinate the work of Member States FIUs for cross-border cases. The Commission shall provide the EFIU with adequate financial, human and technical resources in order to fulfil its tasks.
2018/11/07
Committee: ECON
Amendment 75 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
(17) Time limits for exchanges of information between Financial Intelligence Units are necessary to ensure quick, effective and consistent cooperation. Sharing information necessary to solve cross-border cases and investigations should be carried out with the same celerity and priority as for a similar domestic case. Time limits should be provided to ensure effective sharing of information within reasonable time or to meet procedural constraints, as well as to harmonise practices of exchange of information between FIUs across the Union. . Shorter time limits should be provided in duly justified cases, where the requests relate to specific serious criminal offences, such as terrorist offences and offences related to a terrorist group or activities as laid down in Union law.
2018/10/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 79 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
(19) Given the sensitivity of financial data that should be analysed by Financial Intelligence Units and the necessary data protection safeguards, this Directive should specifically set out the type and scope of information that can be exchanged between Financial Intelligence Units and with designated competent authorities. This Directive should not bring any changes to currently agreed methods of data collection and should not derogate from the existing Union data protection law.
2018/10/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 85 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
(20) Under its specific competences and tasks as laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council16 , Europol provides support to Member States’ cross- border investigations into the money laundering activities of transnational criminal organisations. According to Regulation (EU) 2016/794, the Europol National Units are the liaison bodies between Europol and the Member States' authorities competent to investigate criminal offences. To provide Europol with the information necessary to carry out its tasks, Member States should provide that their Financial Intelligence Unit is able to repliesy to requests for financial information and financial analysis made by Europol through the respective Europol National Unit. Member States should also provide that their Europol National Unit is able to repliesy to requests for information on bank accounts by Europol. Requests made by Europol have to be duly justified. They have to be made on a case-by case basis, within the limits of Europol's responsibilities and for the performance of its tasks. _________________ 16 Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council Decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA, OJ L 135, 24.5.2016, p. 53.
2018/10/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 90 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
(22) To achieve the appropriate balance between efficiency and a high level of data protection, Member States should be required to ensure that the processing of sensitive financial information that could reveal a person's race or ethnic origin, political opinions, religion or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, health, sexual life or sexual orientation should be allowed only to the extent that it is strictly necessary and relevant to a specific investigation, and in accordance with Directive (EU) 2016/680.
2018/10/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 96 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
(25) Personal data obtained under this Directive should only be processed by competent authorities where it is necessary and proportionate for the purposes of prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of serious crime and in accordance with Directive (EU) 2016/680.
2018/10/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 99 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 27 a (new)
(27a) In order to overcome the current cooperation difficulties which exist between national FIUs, a European FIU should be set up in order to coordinate, assist and support Member Sates FIUs in cross-border cases. It would also be particularly suited to an integrated EU financial market and effective in combatting money laundering and terrorist financing in the internal market. The Member States FIU would still be primarily responsible for receiving suspicious transaction reports, analysing them and disseminate them to the national competent authority. The EU FIU would lend support to those Member States especially in maintaining and developing the technical infrastructure for ensuring the exchange of information, assisting them in joint analysis of cross- border cases and strategic analysis, and coordinate the work of Member States FIUs for cross-border cases.
2018/10/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 143 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. Subject to national procedural safeguards, each Member State shall ensure that its national Financial Intelligence Unit is requiredable to reply to requests for financial information or financial analysis by its designated competent authorities referred to in Article 3(2), where that financial information or financial analysis is necessary, on a case- by-case basis, for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of serious criminal offences.
2018/10/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 145 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Where there are objective grounds for assuming that the provision of such information would have a negative impact on ongoing investigations or analyses, or, in exceptional circumstances, where disclosure of the information would be clearly disproportionate to the legitimate interests of a natural or legal person or irrelevant with regard to the purposes for which it has been requested, the FIU shall be under no obligation to comply with the request for information. Any refusal shall be appropriately explained.
2018/10/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 151 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Member States shall require that competent authorities referred to in Article 3(2) provide regular feedback to the Financial Intelligence Unit on the use made of the financial information provided in accordance with this Article and about the outcome of the investigation or prosecution relating to such information. Member States shall put in place appropriate mechanisms to allow for swift and secure exchanges of information and follow-ups on investigations and prosecutions between Financial Investigation Units and competent authorities referred to in Article 3(2).
2018/10/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 156 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Subject to national procedural safeguards, each Member State shall ensure that its designated national competent authorities are required to reply in a timely manner to requests for law enforcement information by the national Financial Intelligence Unit, on a case-by- case basis, where the information is necessary for the prevention and combating of money laundering, associate predicate offences and terrorist financing.
2018/10/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 163 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall ensure that its Financial Intelligence Unit is enabled to exchange financial information or financial analysis with any Financial Intelligence Unit in the Union where that financial information or financial analysis is necessary for the prevention and combating of money laundering, associate predicate offences and terrorist financing.
2018/10/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 164 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. A Financial Investigation Unit may refuse to exchange information only in exceptional circumstances where the exchange could be contrary to fundamental principles of its national law. Those exceptions shall be specified in a way which prevents misuse of, and undue limitations on, the free exchange of information for analytical purposes. Any refusal shall be appropriately explained.
2018/10/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 165 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that where a Financial Intelligence Unit is requested pursuant to paragraph 1 to exchange financial information or financial analysis, it shall do so as soon as possible and in any case no later than three days after the receipt of the request. In exceptional, duly justified cases, this time limit may be extended by a maximum of 10 days. The same time limits apply for sending an appropriate explanation in case of refusals based on Article 9(1a).
2018/10/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 182 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall ensure that its Europol National Unit is able to repliesy to duly justified requests related to bank account information made by the Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation established by Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Europol') on a case-by-case basis within the limits of its responsibilities and for the performance of its tasks.
2018/10/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 188 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2
2. Each Member State shall ensure that its Financial Intelligence Unit is able to repliesy to duly justified requests related to financial information and financial analysis made by Europol through the Europol National Unit within the limits of its responsibilities and for the performance of its tasks.
2018/10/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 189 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Where there are objective grounds for assuming that the provision of such information would have a negative impact on ongoing investigations or analyses, or, in exceptional circumstances, where disclosure of the information would be clearly disproportionate to the legitimate interests of a natural or legal person or irrelevant with regard to the purposes for which it has been requested, the FIU shall be under no obligation to comply with the request for information. Any refusal shall be appropriately explained.
2018/10/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 206 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. The processing of information revealing a person's race or ethnic origin, political opinions, religion or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, health, sexual life or sexual orientation may only be allowed to the extent that it is strictly necessary and relevant in a specific case and in accordance with Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680.
2018/10/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 212 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Member States shall adopt legislative measures restricting, in whole or in part, the data subject's right of access to personal data relating to him or her processed under this Directive in accordance with Article 15(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/680 and in order to:
2018/10/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 216 #

2018/0105(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article –16 (new)
Article -16 European Financial Intelligence Unit The Commission shall set up a European Financial Intelligence Unit (EFIU) to facilitate coordination, including the exchange of information between FIUs within the Union. The EFIU shall coordinate, assist and support Member States Financial Information Units in cross-border cases. The EFIU shall lend support to those Member States especially in maintaining and developing the technical infrastructure for ensuring the exchange of information, assisting them in joint analysis of cross border cases and strategic analysis, and coordinate the work of Member States Financial Information Units for cross-border cases. The Commission shall provide the EFIU with adequate financial, human and technical resources in order to fulfil its tasks.
2018/10/29
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 85 #

2018/0104(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 a (new)
(9 a) Biometric data collected for the purpose of this Regulation, be it for identity cards or residence cards holders, should not be stored in centralised European nor national databases as the creation of national dactyloscopic databases of all identity and residence cards holders would constitute a grave interference with the Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter.
2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 87 #

2018/0104(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 b (new)
(9 b) Once stored in the chip, biometric data collected should be immediately deleted and should not be able to be further processed for purposes other than those explicitly set out in this Regulation.
2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 89 #

2018/0104(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10 a (new)
(10 a) The compulsory storage of biometric identifiers should be limited to facial images, as this would be sufficient to achieve the purpose of security of identity cards of Union citizens and of residence documents issued to Union citizens and their family members exercising their right of free movement.
2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 91 #

2018/0104(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
(11) The procedure for taking fingerprints and a facial imagebiometric identifiers should take into account the specific needs of children, should be undertaken in a child-sensitive and in a gender-sensitive manner and be applied in accordance with the safeguards laid down in Article 24 the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 95 #

2018/0104(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)
(11 a) Any match concerning children and people age 70 or older carried out with biometric identifiers taken more than five years prior to the matching should be subject to a compulsory manual check by dactyloscopic expert.
2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 98 #

2018/0104(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
(13) TWhe Regulation shalln implementing this Regulation, Member States should respect the obligations set in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ratified by all Member States and the Union37 and in Article 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Therefore, the integration of additional features that render identity cards more accessible and user-friendly to people with disabilities, such as visually impaired persons, should be encouraged. _________________ 37 OJ L 23, 26.11.2009
2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 101 #

2018/0104(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
(18) With regard to the personal data to be processed in the context of the application of this Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)40 applies. It is necessary to further specify safeguards applicable to the processed personal data, and in particular to sensitive data such as biometric identifiers. Data subjects should be made well aware of the existence in their documents of the storage medium containing their biometric data including its contactless accessibility as well as of all instances where the data contained in their identity cards and residence documents are used. In any case, data subjects should have access to personal data processed in their identity cards and residence documents and have them rectified. The storage medium should be highly secure and protect personal data stored on it from hacking. _________________ 40 OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1.
2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 103 #

2018/0104(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
(19) It is necessary to specify in this Regulation the basis for the collection and storage of data on the storage medium of identity cards and residence documents. In accordance with their national legislation or Union law and respecting the necessity and proportionality principles, Member States mayshould store other datanly data essential to the identification on a storage medium for electronic services or other purposes relating to the identity card or residence document. The processing of such data including their collection and the purposes for which they can be used should be authorised by national or Union law. All national data should be physically or logically separated from biometric data referred to in this Regulation.
2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 109 #

2018/0104(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
(21) The Commission should report on the implementation of this Regulation after three years after its date of application, including on the appropriateness of the level of security. In accordance with paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making41 the Commission should carry out an evaluation of this Regulation on the basis of information collected through specific monitoring arrangements in order to assess the actual effects of the Regulation and the need for any further action and should examine whether the implementation is compliant with the data collection purposes listed in Article 10 (3). _________________ 41 Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016; OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1–14.
2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 110 #

2018/0104(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
(23) This RegulationWhen implementing this Regulation Member States shall respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union including human dignity, the right to the integrity of the person, the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment, the right to equality before the law and non-discrimination, the rights of children, the rights of the elderly, the respect for private and family life, the right to the protection of personal data, the right to free movement and the right to an effective remedy.
2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 122 #

2018/0104(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3
(3) Identity cards shall include a highly secure storage medium which shall contain a facial image of the holder of the card and two fingerprints in interoperable formats.
2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 126 #

2018/0104(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4
(4) The storage medium shall have sufficient capacity and capability to guarantee the integrity, the security, the authenticity and the confidentiality of the data. The data stored shall be accessible contactless and secured as provided for in the Commission Implementing Decisions adopted in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) 1030/2002.
2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 128 #

2018/0104(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5
(5) The following persons shall be exempt from the requirement to give fingerprints: (a) children under the age of 12 years; (b) persons whose fingerprinting is physically impossible.deleted
2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 138 #

2018/0104(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 6
(6) When necessary and proportionate to the aim to be achieved, Member States may enter details and observations for national use as required in the light of their national provisions.
2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 152 #

2018/0104(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2
(2) Where difficulties are encountered in the collection of biometric identifiers, Member States shall ensure that appropriate procedures are in place to guarantee the dignity of the person concerned.deleted
2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 169 #

2018/0104(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article –9 (new)
Article -9 Collection of biometric identifiers (1) The procedure for taking biometric identifiers shall take into account the specific needs of children and shall be undertaken in a child-sensitive and in a gender-sensitive manner and be applied in accordance with the safeguards laid down in Article 24 the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. (2) The following persons shall be exempt from the requirement to give fingerprints: (a) children under the age of 14 years; (b) people above the age of 70 years; (c) persons whose fingerprinting is physically impossible; (3) Any match concerning children and people age 70 or older carried out with biometric identifiers taken more than five years prior to the matching shall be subject to a compulsory manual check by dactyloscopic expert. (4) Where difficulties are encountered in the collection of biometric identifiers, Member States shall ensure that appropriate procedures are in place to guarantee the dignity of the person concerned.
2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 176 #

2018/0104(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
(1) Without prejudice to the application of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, pRegulation (EU) 2016/679 applies to the processing of personal data under this Regulation, in particular to Chapter III on rights of data subjects. Persons to whom an identity card or residence document is issued shall have the right to verify the personal data contained in the documents and, where appropriate, to ask for rectification or erasure.
2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 183 #

2018/0104(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 a (new)
(3 a) Once stored in the chip, biometric data collected shall immediately be deleted and may not be further processed for purposes other than those set out in this Regulation.
2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 186 #

2018/0104(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 b (new)
(3 b) Storage in centralised European or national databases of the biometric data collected for the purpose of this Regulation shall be prohibited.
2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 190 #

2018/0104(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
(1) Four years after its date of application, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the implementation of this Regulation. The report shall in particular examine whether the implementation is compliant with the data collection purposes listed in Article 10 (2).
2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 198 #

2018/0104(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
(2) No sooner than six years after the date of application of this Regulation, the Commission shall carry out an evaluation of this Regulation and present a report on the main findings to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. The evaluation shall assess the fundamental rights impacts of this Regulation. The evaluation shall be conducted according to the Commission's better regulation Guidelines.
2018/10/11
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 40 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
(1) The global economy is rapidly becoming digital and, as a result, new ways of doing business have emerged. Digital companies are characterised by the fact that their operations are strongly linked to the internet. In particular, digital business models rely to a large extent on the ability to conduct activities remotely and with limited or no physical presenceor taxable presence in a given country, on the contribution of end-users to value creation, and on the importance of intangible assets.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 41 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
(2) The current corporate taxation rules were mainly developed during the 20th century for traditional businesses. They are based on the idea that taxation should take place where value is created. However, the application of the current rules to the digital economy has led to a misalignment between the place where profits are taxed and the place where value is created, notably in the case of business models heavily reliant on user participation. Digitalisation has changed the role of users, allowing them to become increasingly involved in the value creation process. It has therefore become evident that the current corporate tax rules for taxing the profits of the digital economy are inadequate andnot taking this new factor into account and urgently need to be reviewed.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 42 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2 a (new)
(2a) The objective is to close the gap between taxation of digital revenues and traditional revenues. Currently, on average, digital businesses face an effective tax rate of only 9.5%, compared to 23.2% for traditional business models1a. A taxation system must be fair and beneficial to society as a whole. There should be a level playing field for all companies operating in the Single Market. _________________ 1a Source: Computations from the Impact Assessment of the European Commission, based on ZEW (2016, 2017) and ZEW et al.(2017).
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 64 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6 a (new)
(6a) If this proposal for an interim solution does not result in an agreement and therefore fails to eliminate the risks of fragmentation of the Single Market and of distortion of competition, the European Commission should issue a new proposal based on Article 116 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, whereby the European Parliament and the Council act in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure to issue the necessary directives. This is essential to come to an agreement without delay in order to tackle this issue and to avoid the multiplication of unilateral national digital taxes by Member States. If necessary, a change of legal basis should therefore be envisaged.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 66 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
(7) That interim solution should establish the common system of a digital services tax ('DST') on revenues resulting from the supply of certain digital services by certain entities, whether or not these are freely accessible or paid digital services and online content. It should be an easy- to- implement measure targeting the revenues stemming from the supply of digital services where users contribute significantly to the process of value creation. Such factor (user value creation) also underpins the action with respect to corporate tax rules, as described in recital (5). On digital interfaces, it is very difficult to distinguish between a customer and a user, since both contribute significantly to the process of value creation in most cases. The term ‘user’ in this Directive is therefore referring to both consumers and users of digital services and online content.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 74 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
(9) DST should be applied to revenues resulting from the provision of certain digital services only. The digital services should be ones that are largely reliant on user value creation whereand on their ability to deliver services with no or a very limited physical presence. In such cases, the difference between the place where the profits are taxed and the place where the users are established is typically greatest allowing for decoupling market presence and physical presence in many sectors of the economy. It is the revenues obtained from the processing of user input that should be taxed, not the user participation in itself.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 75 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
(10) In particular, taxable revenues should be those resulting from the provision of the following digital services: (i) the placing on a digital interface of advertising targeted at users of that interface; (ii) the making available of multi-sided digital interfaces which allow users to find other users and to interact with them, and which may also facilitate the provision of underlying supplies of goods or services directly between users (sometimes referred to as "intermediation" services); and (iii) the exploitation, transmission and sale of data collected about users and generated from such users' activities on digital interfaces; (iv) the supply of online content such as video or audio via digital interfaces; and (v) the sale of goods and services on digital interfaces. If no revenues are obtained from the supply of such content, goods and services, there should be no DST liability. Other revenues obtained by the entity providing such services but not directly stemming from such supplies should also fall outside the scope of the tax.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 79 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
(12) Services provided by multi-sided digital interfaces should be defined by reference to their capacity to enable users to find other users and to interact with them. The differential aspect of multi-sided digital interfaces is that they allow a user interaction which could not take place without the interface matching users with each other (in other words, the interface allows users to get in touch with other users). Some services typically referred to as communication or payment services, such as instant messaging services, e-mail services or e-payment services, may also be seen as facilitating the interaction between users through a digital interface, but users cannot usually get in touch with each other unless they have already established contact by other means. The revenues resulting from the supply of communication or payment services should therefore remain outside the scope of the tax because such suppliers do not operate as a marketplace, but rather produce support software or other information technology instruments allowing customers to reach out to other persons with whom they already have a relationship in most cases. However, if these services, such as e-mail services, are creating further value thanks to the exploitation, transmission or sale of users’ data, these revenues should fall within the scope of DST.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 81 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
(13) For cases involvingThe revenues obtained from online transactions made through multi-sided digital interfaces that facilitate an underlying supply of goods or services directly between users of the interface, the underlying transactions and the revenues obtained by users from those transactions should remain outside should fall within the scope of the taxDST. The revenues resulting from retail activities consisting in the sale of goods or services which are contracted online via the website of the supplier of such goods or services, and where the supplier does not act as an intermediary, should also be outsidefall within the scope of DST because the value creation for the retailer lies with the goods or services provided and the digital interface is only used as a means of communication. Whether a supplier is selling goods or services online on his own account or providing intermediation services would be determined by taking into account the legal and economic substance of a transaction, as reflected in the arrangements between the relevant parties. For instance, a supplier of a digital interface where third-party goods are made available could be said to provide an intermediation service (in other words, the making available of a multi-sided digital interface) where no significant inventory risks are assumed, or where it is the third party effectively setting the price of such goodsprocessing and exploitation of data on such transactions creates further value and because the absence of physical presence may create opportunities for tax avoidance.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 86 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
(14) Services consisting in the supply of digital content by an entity through a digital interface should be exincluded fromin the scope of the tax, regardless of whether the digital content is owned by that entity or that entity has acquired the rights to distribute it. EGiven that there ifs some sort of interaction between the recipients of such digital content may be allowed and therefore the supplier of such services could be seen as making available a multi-sided digital interfaceand the supplier of such services, it is less clear that the user plays astill significantly ceontral role inibute to the creation of further value for the company supplying the digital content. Instead, the focus from the perspective of value creation is on the digital content itself which is supplied by the entity, in particular thanks to the exploitation and processing of users’ data. Therefore, the revenues obtained from such supplies should fall outsidewithin the scope of the tax, also because the absence of physical presence may create opportunities for tax avoidance.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 91 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
(16) The service described in recital (14) shcould be distinguished from a service consisting in the making available of a multi-sided digital interface through which users can upload and share digital content with other users, or the making available of an interface that facilitates an underlying supply of digital content directly between users. These latter services constitute a service of intermediation and should therefore also fall within the scope of DST, regardless of the nature of the underlying transaction.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 92 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
(17) Taxable services consisting in the exploitation, transmission or sale of data collected about users should cover only data which has been generated from such users' activities in digital interfaces, but not data which has been generated from sensors or other means and collected digitally. This is because the services within the scope of DST should be those using digital interfaces as a way to create user input which they monetise, rather than services using interfaces only as a way to transmit data generated otherwise. DST should therefore. These taxable services should be those using digital interfaces as a way to create user input which they monetise. DST is not be a tax on the collection of data, or the use of data collected by a business for the internal purposes of that business, or the sharing of data collected by a business with other parties for no consideration. What DST should as such. Instead, it target is the generation of revenues from the processing, exploitation, transmission or sale of data obtained from a very specific activity (users' activities on digital interfaces).
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 95 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
(22) Only certain entities should qualify as taxable persons for the purposes of DST, regardless of whether they are established in a Member State or in a non-Union jurisdiction. In particular, an entity should qualify as a taxable person only if it meets both of the following conditions: (i) the total amount of worldwide revenues reported by the entity for the latest complete financial year for which a financial statement is available exceeds EUR 750 000 000; and (ii) the total amount of taxable revenues obtained by the entity within the Union during that financial year exceeds EUR 50 000 000.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 98 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
(23) The first threshold (total annual worldwide revenues) should limit the application of DST to the companies of a certain scale, which are the ones mainly able to provide those digital services for which user contribution plays a fundamental role, and which heavily rely on extensive user networks, large user traffic, and the exploitation of a strong market position. Such business models, which depend on user value creation for obtaining revenues and are only viable if carried out by companies with a certain size, are the ones responsible for the higher difference between where their profits are taxed and where value is created. Moreover, the opportunity of engaging in aggressive tax planning lies with larger companies. That is why the same threshold has been proposed in other Union initiatives30 . Such a threshold is also intended to bring legal certainty, given that it would make it easier and less costly for companies and tax authorities to determine whether an entity is liable to DST. It also excludes small enterprises and start-ups for which the compliance burdens of the new tax would be likely to have a disproportionate effect. _________________ 30 See Article 2 of the Proposal for a Council Directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) (COM(2016) 683 final).deleted
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 100 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
(24) The second threshold, relating to (total annual taxable revenues in the Union), should limit the application of the tax to cases where there is a significant digital footprint at Union level in relation to the type of revenues covered by DST. It should be set at Union level in order to disregard differences in market sizes which may exist within the Union. This unique threshold is intended to bring more simplicity, legal certainty and fairness. The objective is to capture companies that heavily rely on revenues generated from digital services as described above. This threshold also allows to exclude small enterprises and start-ups for which the compliance burdens of the new tax would be likely to have a disproportionate effect.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 104 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 26
(26) Special rules shcould be set out for entities belonging to a consolidated group for financial accounting purposes. The revenues obtained by an entity from supplies to other entities belonging to the same group for financial accounting purposes should be excluded from the scope of the new tax. For the purposes of determining whether an entity is above the applicable thresholds and thus qualifies as a taxable person, the thresholds should be applied in respect of total consolidated group revenues.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 108 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
(32) As regards the exploitation, sale or transmission of data collected about users, the allocation of taxable revenues in a tax period to a Member State should take into account the number of users from whom data exploited, sold or transmitted in that tax period has been generated as a result of such users having used a device in that Member State.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 110 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
(34) Any processing of personal data carried out in the context of DST should be conducted in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council31 , including that which may be necessary in relation to Internet Protocol (IP) addresses or other means of geolocation. In particular, regard should be given to the need to provide appropriate technical and organisational measures to comply with the rules relating to the lawfulness and security of processing activities, especially with the principles of necessity and proportionality, the provision of information and the rights of data subjects. Whenever possible, personal data should be rendered anonymous. _________________ 31 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 114 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
(35) The taxable revenues should be equal to the total gross revenues obtained by a taxable person, net of value added tax and other similar taxes. Taxable revenues should be recognised as obtained by a taxable person at the time when they become due, regardless of whether they have actually been paid by then. DST should be chargeable in a Member State on the proportion of taxable revenues obtained by a taxable person in a tax period that is treated as obtained in that Member State, and should be calculated by applying the DST rate to that proportion. There should be a single DST rate at Union level in order to avoid distortions in the Single Market. The DST rate should be set at 35%, which achieves an appropriate balance between revenues generated by the tax and accounting for the differential DST impact for businesses with different profit margins.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 117 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 35 a (new)
(35a) A single DST rate at Union level constitutes a first step towards further harmonisation of corporate taxation at Union level. In order to create a level playing field and to eliminate tax competition and the resulting race to the bottom as regards corporate taxation levels, a minimum effective corporate tax rate should also be introduced at Union level in the near future.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 121 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 40 a (new)
(40a) The DST is conceived as a temporary measure in order to address the current distortion of competition between digital and non-digital businesses. This situation would however be best addressed by a more comprehensive solution involving a fundamental change in corporate taxation rules at Union level. The best solution to tackle the problem of tax avoidance by digital companies and, more generally, by all companies, resides in the adoption of the Council Directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base including the digital permanent establishment as proposed in the legislative resolution of the European Parliament of 15 March 2018 on the proposal for a Council Directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, together with the adoption of the Council Directive laying down rules relating to the corporate taxation of a significant digital presence. Therefore, this Directive should expire as soon as these two latter Directives enter into application.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 125 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 40 b (new)
(40b) Member States should regularly report to the Commission on the payment of the DST by entities, the functioning of the OSS and the cooperation with other Member States for tax collection and payment.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 126 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 40 c (new)
(40c) Three years after...[the date of entry into force of this Directive], the Commission should make an assessment of the application of this Directive and present a report to the European Parliament and the Council, accompanied, if appropriate, by proposals for its review. The report should assess, in particular, the entities covered by the scope of the DST (type of revenues, size, etc.), the amount of tax paid in each Member State, the functioning of the OSS and the re-allocation of DST between Member States, in addition to the potential tax planning practices that were developed by entities to avoid paying the DST.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 128 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 41
(41) The objectives of this Directive aim at protecting the integrity of the Single Market, ensuring its fair and proper functioning and avoiding distortion of competition. Since those objectives, by their very nature, cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States but can rather be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives,
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 132 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the transmissionexploitation, the transmission or the sale of data collected about users and generated from users' activities on digital interfaces.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 134 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) the making available to users of digital content on digital interfaces;
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 136 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)
(cb) the sale of goods and services on digital interfaces.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 137 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – point a
(a) the making available of a digital interface where the sole or main purpose of making the interface available is for the entity making it available to supply digital content to users or to supply communication services to users or to supply payment services to users, as long as no further revenues are generated thanks to the exploitation, transmission or sale of users’ data;
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 141 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 7
7. Revenues resulting from the provision of a service falling within paragraph 1 by an entity belonging to a consolidated group for financial accounting purposes to another entity in that same group shall not qualify as taxable revenues for the purposes of this Directive.deleted
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 142 #

2018/0073(CNS)

1. 'Taxable person', with respect to a tax period, shall mean an entity meeting both of the following conditions:whose total amount of taxable revenues obtained within the Union during the relevant financial year exceeds EUR 50 000 000.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 145 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the total amount of worldwide revenues reported by the entity for the relevant financial year exceeds EUR 750 000 000;deleted
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 146 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the total amount of taxable revenues obtained by the entity within the Union during the relevant financial year exceeds EUR 50 000 000.deleted
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 148 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. The rule in Article 5(1) shall apply in determining under paragraph 1(b) whether taxable revenues are obtained within the Union.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 149 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 6
6. If the entity referred to in paragraph 1 belongs to a consolidated group for financial accounting purposes, that paragraph shall be applied instead to the worldwide revenues reported by, and taxable revenues obtained within the Union by, the group as a whole.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 150 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
(ca) in the case of a service falling within Article 3(1)(ca), the digital content in question appears on the user's device at a time when the device is being used in that Member State in that tax period to access a digital interface;
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 151 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point c b (new)
(cb) in the case of goods and services falling within Article 3(1)(cb), the goods and services in question are delivered to users in that Member State in that tax period.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 155 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 6
6. The data that may be collected from users for the purposes of applying this Directive shall be limited to data indicating the Member State where the users are located, without allowing for the identification of those users. Any processing of personal data carried out for the purposes of applying this Directive shall fully comply with Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 162 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1
The DST rate shall be 35%.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 166 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. However, if the taxable person ceases to be liable to DST in that Member State of identification chosen under Article 10(3)(b), the taxable person shall change its Member State of identification in accordance with the requirements of Article 10, without prejudice to paragraph 2a.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 167 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. If the taxable person ceases to be liable to DST in the Member State of identification chosen under Article 10(3)(b), the taxable person may decide to keep the Member State of identification initially chosen, given that the taxable person may be liable to DST in that Member State again in the next tax period. If the taxable person is not liable to DST in that Member State for more than two consecutive tax periods, it shall change its Member State of identification in accordance with the requirements of Article 10.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 168 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. The DST return shall also show, with respect to the tax period, the total amount of worldwide revenues and total amount of taxable revenues within the Union applicable for the purposes of Article 4(1).
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 169 #

2018/0073(CNS)

2. The amendments referred to in paragraph 1 shall be submitted electronically to the Member State of identification within threewo years of the date on which the initial return was required to be submitted. Amendments after such period shall be governed by the rules and procedures applicable in each Member State respectively where DST is due.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 171 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 3
3. Member States mayshall adopt measures to prevent tax evasion, avoidance and abuse with respect to DST.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 178 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 24 a (new)
Article 24a Sunset clause This Directive shall cease to apply as soon as the two following Council Directives enter into application: (a) the Council Directive laying down rules relating to the corporate taxation of a significant digital presence; and (b) the Council Directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base including the digital permanent establishment as proposed in the legislative resolution of the European Parliament of 15 March 2018 on the proposal for a Council directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 179 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 24 b (new)
Article 24b Reporting obligations Member States shall report every year to the Commission relevant figures and information on the payment of the DST by entities, the functioning of the OSS and the cooperation with other Member States for tax collection and payment.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 180 #

2018/0073(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 24 c (new)
Article 24c Review Three years after...[the date of entry into force of this Directive], the Commission shall conduct an assessment of the application of this Directive and present a report to the European Parliament and the Council, accompanied, if appropriate, by proposals for its review. The report shall assess, in particular, the entities covered by the scope of this Directive, the amount of tax paid in each Member State and the functioning of the OSS.
2018/10/22
Committee: ECON
Amendment 20 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
(1) Rapid transformation of the global economy as a result of digitalisation is putting new pressures on corporate tax systems both at Union level and internationally, and calling into question the ability to establish where digital companies should pay their taxes and how much they should pay. Although the need to adapt corporate tax rules to the digital economy is recognised at international level by bodies such as the G20, reaching an agreement at global level is likely to be challenging and not taking place in a near future.
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 22 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 a (new)
(1a) Too often, multinational companies that heavily rely upon digital activities make arrangements to transfer their profits to tax havens or to countries with a lower corporate tax rate, which allows them to pay less or no taxes. The concept of digital significant presence will provide a precise and binding definition of the criteria according to which a multinational company is deemed to have a permanent establishment in a given country. This will force digital companies to pay their taxes where their real economic activity occurs.
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 28 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
(2) The Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action 1 report on "Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy" released by the OECD in October 2015 set out various different approaches for taxing the digital economy which were further examined in the OECD "Tax challenges Arising from Digitalisation – Interim Report 2018". As the digital transformation of the economy accelerates there is a growing and urgent need to find solutions to ensure a fair and effective taxation of digital companies. The European Union should not wait for the results of the OECD works to tackle this issue, as progress at international level to reach a consensus can be considered too slow. The Union should set the trend by already now adapting its corporate taxation system to the digital economy and then advocate for such measures to be adopted also at a global level.
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 35 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
(5) However, the rules should not apply to entities that are tax resident in a non-Union jurisdiction with which the Member State of the significant digital presence has a Double Tax Convention in force, unless the Convention includes provisions on a significant digital presence which creates similar rights and obligations in relation to the non-Union jurisdiction as are created by this Directive. This is to avoid any conflict with Double Tax Conventions with non-Union jurisdictions, given that non-Union jurisdictions are not generally bound by Union law. However, Member States are strongly encouraged to mandate the Commission to negotiate on their behalf a modification of these Double Tax Conventions, in order to uniformly adapt the definition of permanent establishment and the creation of a taxable nexus for a significant digital presence.
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 37 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
(6) In order to provide for a robust definition of a taxable nexus of a digital business in a Member State it is necessary that such a definition is based on the revenues generated from the supply of digital services, the number of users or the number of business contracts for digital services. The applicable thresholds should reflect the significance of the digital presence for different types of business models and accommodate the different degrees of contribution to the process of value creation. Furthermore, they should ensure a compatible treatment in different Member States, irrespective of their size, and leave out trivial cases. The sale of goods or services which is facilitated by using the internet or an electronic network should not be regarded as a digital service within the meaning of this DirectiveIn its review, the Commission should assess the appropriateness of the criteria set out in this Directive, in particular with regards to the pursuit of the latter objectives, and whether absolute figures should be complemented by relative numbers (in percentages).
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 39 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
(7) To enable an enterprise's significant digital presence to be taxed in another jurisdiction in accordance with the domestic law of that jurisdiction, it is necessary to establish the principles of attributing profits to that significant digital presence. The rules should be built on the current principles for profit attribution and be based on a functional analysis of the functions performed, assets used and risks assumed by a significant digital presence in performing its economically significant activities through a digital interface. Particular attention should be paid to the fact that a significant part of the value of a digital business is created where the users are based and where the data related to the users is collected and processed as well as to where the digital services are provided. Since economically significant activities performed by a significant digital presence contribute in a unique manner to value creation in digital business models, the profit split method should normally be used for arriving at a fair allocation of profits to the significant digital presence. However, this should not prevent a taxpayer from using an alternative method in line with internationally accepted principles if the taxpayer can prove that, based on the outcome of the functional analysis, an alternative method in line with internationally accepted principles is more appropriate. It is also essential that the profit splitting factors bear a strong correlation with the creation of value.
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 45 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
(8) A key objective of this Directive is to improve the resilience of the internal market as a whole in order to address the challenges of taxation of the digitalised economy. This objective cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States acting individually because digital businesses are able to operate cross-border without having any or having only a small physical presence in a jurisdiction and rules are therefore needed to ensure that they pay taxes in the jurisdictions where they make profits. Given this cross- border dimension an initiative at Union level adds value in comparison with what a multitude of national measures could attain. A common initiative across the internal market is required to ensure a harmonised application of the rules on a significant digital presence within the Union. Unilateral and divergent approaches by each Member State could be ineffective and fragment the Single Market by creating national policy clashes, distortions and tax obstacles for businesses in the Union. Since the objectives of this Directive can be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 46 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8 a (new)
(8a) If this proposal does not result in an agreement and therefore fails to eliminate distortions of competition and tax obstacles for businesses in the Union, the European Commission should issue a new proposal based on Article 116 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, whereby the European Parliament and the Council act in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure to issue the necessary directives.
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 50 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
(9) It is necessary that any processing of personal data carried out in the context of this Directive, should be conducted in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council17 , including obligations to provide appropriate technical and organisational measures to comply with the obligations imposed by that Regulation, in particular those relating to the lawfulness of the processing, the security of the processing activities, the provision of information and the rights of data subjects, data protection by design and by default, with due regard to the principles of necessity and proportionality. Whenever possible, personal data should be rendered anonymous. _________________ 17 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p.1).
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 54 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
(10) The Commission should evaluate the implementation of this Directive fivthree years after its entry into force and report to the European Parliament and to the Council thereon. Member States should communicate to the Commission all information necessary for this evaluation. An advisory DigiTax Committee should be established to examine questions on the application of the Directive. This Committee should publish its agendas, the minutes of its meetings and all relevant documents. Its participants should be cleared of any conflict of interest before their selection.
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 58 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 a (new)
(12a) In order to ensure legal certainty and to avoid situations of double taxation or double non-taxation as well as to limit tax avoidance opportunities, it is essential that Member States set out similar tax rules as regards to third countries, in particular when it comes to the definition of a significant digital presence. Therefore, Member States should authorise the Commission to negotiate on their behalf in order to either revise or adopt tax treaties with third countries in accordance with the rules set out in this Directive. It will allow to have a comprehensive global taxation environment for the digital economy.
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 61 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 b (new)
(12b) In order to create a level playing field and to eliminate tax competition and the resulting race to the bottom as regards corporate taxation levels, a minimum effective corporate tax rate should be proposed by the Commission three years after the date of implementation of the present Directive. The objective is to avoid transferring unfair competition on the tax base to unfair competition on the tax rates. The proposal of the Commission should set a minimum corporate tax rate of at least 20%.
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 69 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – paragraph 2
Digital services shall not include the services listed in Annex III or the sale of goods or other services which is facilitated by using the internet or an electronic network.
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 73 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) the proportion of total revenues obtained intotal amount of revenues of thate tax period andpayer resulting from the supply of those digital services to users located in that Member State in that tax period exceeds EUR 75 000 000;
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 80 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 6a in view of amending this Directive by adjusting the factors set out in points (a), (b), (c) of this paragraph, notably on the basis of its assessment report and of progress in international agreements.
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 82 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 7
7. The proportion of total revenues referred to in paragraph 3(a) shall be determined in proportion to the number of times that devices are used in that tax period by users located anywhere in the world to access the digital interface through which the digital services are supplied.deleted
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 86 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. A taxpayer shall be required to disclose to the tax authorities all information relevant to the determination of significant digital presence in accordance with this Article.
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 91 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point a
(a) the collection, storage, processing, analysis, exploitation, transmission, deployment and sale of user-level data;
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 93 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 6
6. In determining the attributable profits under paragraphs 1 to 4, taxpayers shall use the profit split method unless the taxpayer proves that an alternative method based on internationally accepted principles is more appropriate having regard to the results of the functional analysis. The splitting factors may include expenses incurred for research, development and marketing as well as the number of users and data collected per Member State.
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 100 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall evaluate the implementation of this Directive five years after its entry into forree years after...[the date of entry into force of this Directive], the Commission shall conduct an assessment of the application of this Directive and present a report to the European Parliament and the Council, accompanied, if appropriate, by proposals for its review. The report shall assess, in particular, the implementation of the significant digital presence rules in different Member States, the number and type of companies covered by the definition of significant digital presence, and report to the Council thereons well as the appropriateness of the criteria set out in Article 4 and whether or not absolute figures should be complemented by percentages.
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 104 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 a (new)
Article 6a Exercise of the delegation 1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article. 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 4 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from the date of entry into force of this Directive. 3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 4 may be revoked at any time by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force. 4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it to the Council. 5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 4 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed by the Council within a period of [two months] of notification of that act to the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the Council has informed the Commission that it will not object. That period shall be extended by [two months] at the initiative of the Council.
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 106 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 b (new)
Article 6b Informing the European Parliament The European Parliament shall be informed of the adoption of delegated acts by the Commission, of any objection formulated to them, and of the revocation of that delegation of powers by the Council.
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 108 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 c (new)
Article 6c Mandate to the European Commission to negotiate tax treaties with third countries Member States shall provide a delegation of powers to the Commission to negotiate on their behalf the revision or adoption of tax treaties with third countries in accordance with the rules set out in this Directive, in particular as regards to the inclusion of the definition of a significant digital presence for tax purposes.
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 109 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 d (new)
Article 6d Minimum EU effective tax rate Three years after the date of implementation of this Directive, the Commission shall present a proposal in view of harmonising corporate taxation at EU level by establishing a mandatory minimum effective corporate tax rate of at least 20%, whilst no upper limit shall be set.
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 111 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. The DigiTax Committee shall consist of representatives of the Member States and of the Commission. The chair of the Committee shall be a representative of the Commission. Secretarial services for the Committee shall be provided by the Commission. The European Parliament shall be represented with an observer.
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 115 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 4
4. The DigiTax Committee shall examine questions on the application of this Directive, as raised by the chair of the Committee, whether on the chair's own initiative or at the request of the representative of a Member State, and shall inform the European Parliament and the Commission of its conclusions.
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 117 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. The DigiTax Committee shall publish the agendas and minutes of its meetings, as well as all relevant documents.
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 119 #

2018/0072(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1
The data that may be collected from the users for the purposes of applying this Directive shall be limited to data indicating the Member State in which the users are located, without allowing for identification of the user. Any processing of personal data carried out for the purposes of applying this Directive shall fully comply with Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
2018/10/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1 #

2017/2216(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the agreement reached in November 2016 between Parliament and the Council, after four years of negotiations, on the proposal for a Directive on the fight against fraud to the EU’s financial interests by means of criminal law (the PIF Directive), which includes cross-border VAT fraud involving total damages of at least EUR 10 million; recalls, however, that this threshold will be subject to Commission assessment by 6 July 2022; calls on the Member States to adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive as soon as possible;
2018/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 7 #

2017/2216(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the progress made in the Council in 2016 on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), which led to the agreement between 20 Member States on the basis of the enhanced cooperation procedure provided for in Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; hopes that all Member States will eventually participate in this initiativcalls on all remaining Member States to participate in the EPPO as soon as possible; recalls that the role of the EPPO will be to investigate, prosecute and bring to court the perpetrators of criminal offences affecting the EU’s financial interests, as defined in the PIF Directive;
2018/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 9 #

2017/2216(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Highlights that, in the near future, an extension of the competences of the EPPO to other cross-border crimes affecting the Union such as terrorism or environmental crimes should be envisaged;
2018/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 12 #

2017/2216(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the participating Member States and the Commission to begin the preparatory work to launch the EPPO as soon as possible and to keep Parliament closely associated with the procedures, in particular the appointment of the Chief Prosecutor; calls on the Commission to designate the interim Administrative Director of the EPPO as soon as possible in line with Article 20 of the EPPO Regulation; insists that proper staff and resources should be allocated to the EPPO even before its official entry into force; reiterates that the EPPO must be independent;
2018/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 16 #

2017/2216(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for effective cooperation among EPPO, OLAF and Eurojust; recalls the pending negotiations on the Eurojust Regulation; stresses that the respective competences of Eurojust, OLAF and EPPO need to be clearly defined; insists that the EPPO should have the power to settle conflicts of competence on cases relevant to the performance of its tasks;
2018/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 27 #

2017/2216(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Calls on the Commission to publish an annual public report on the use of EU funds as well as European Investment Bank (EIB) and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development(EBRD) money transfers to offshore structures, including the number and nature of projects blocked, explanatory comments on the rationale for blocking projects and follow-up actions taken to ensure that no EU funds directly or indirectly contribute to damaging the EU’s financial interests;
2018/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 28 #

2017/2216(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Highlights the essential role performed by whistleblowers in shedding light on vital information in the public interest and in uncovering acts of fraud against the Union’s financial interests;
2018/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 29 #

2017/2216(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6 c. Welcomes the open public consultation carried out by the Commission between March and May 2017 to collect views on the issue of whistleblower protection at the national and EU level; urges the European Commission to propose a directive on the protection of whistleblowers as soon as possible, as recommended several times by the European Parliament;
2018/02/02
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 32 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
(3) Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JHA44 needs to be updated and complemented by further provisions on offences, penalties and, cross-border cooperation, prevention and assistance to victims. _________________ 44 Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JHA of 28 May 2001 on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non- cash means of payment (OJ L 149, 2.6.2001, p. 1).
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 44 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
(9) Effective and efficient criminal law measures are essential to protect non-cash means of payment against fraud and counterfeiting. In particular, a common criminal law approach is needed to the constituent elements of criminal conduct that contribute to or prepare the way for the actual fraudulent use of means of payment. Behaviour such as the collection and possession of payment instruments with the intention to commit fraud, through, for instance, phishing or skimming, and their distribution, for example by selling credit card information on the internet, should thus be made a criminal offence in its own right without being directly linked to the actual fraudulent use of means of payment. So such criminal conduct should also cover circumstances where possession, procurement or distribution does not necessarily lead to fraudulent use of such payment instruments, if the offender is aware of such a possibility (dolus eventualis). This Directive does not sanction the legitimate use of a payment instrument, including and in relation to the provision of innovative payment services, such as services commonly developed by fintech companies.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 51 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
(12) Jurisdictional rules should ensure that the offences laid down in this Directive are prosecuted effectively and according to a clear set of criteria. In general, offences are best dealt with by the criminal justice system of the country in which they occur. Member States should therefore establish their jurisdiction, by order of priority, over offences committed on their territory, over offences committed by their nationals and over offences that cause damage in their territory. Member States should be able to derogate from the order of priority on a case-by-case basis, if it is proved necessary for the efficiency of a particular investigation, for example if a specific Member State is more aware of the perpetrators of the offence or is more likely to identify them. It should be possible for Member States to have recourse to Eurojust to coordinate their action and resolve conflicts of jurisdiction that may arise.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 55 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
(15) Given the need for special tools to effectively investigate fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment, and their relevance for effective international cooperation between national authorities, investigative tools that are typically used for cases involving organised crime and other serious crime should be available to competent authorities in all Member States for the investigation of such offences. Taking into account the principle of proportionality, the use of such tools in accordance with national law should be commensurate with the nature and gravity of the offences under investigation. In addition, law enforcement authorities and other competent authorities should have timely access to relevant information in order to investigate and prosecute the offences laid down in this Directive. Adequate and sufficient human and financial resources should be allocated to competent authorities in order to properly investigate and prosecute the offences laid down in this Directive.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 58 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
(16) In many cases, criminal activities underlie incidents that should be notified to the relevant national competent authorities under Directive (EU) 2016/1148 of the European Parliament and the Council46 . Such incidents may be suspected to be of criminal nature even if the evidence of a criminal offence is not sufficiently clear from the outset. In this context, relevant operators of essential services and digital service providers should be encouraged to share the reports required under Directive (EU) 2016/1148 with law enforcement authorities and financial intelligence units so as to form an effective and comprehensive response and to facilitate attribution and accountability by the perpetrators for their actions. In particular, promoting a safe, secure and more resilient environment requires systematic reporting of incidents of a suspected serious criminal nature to law enforcement authorities. Moreover, when relevant, Computer Security Incident Response Teams designated under Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2016/1148 should be involved in law enforcement investigations with a view to providing information, as considered appropriate at national level, and also providing specialist expertise on information systems. _________________ 46 Directive (EU) 2016/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016 concerning measures for a high common level of security of network and information systems across the Union (OJ L 194, 19.7.2016, p. 1).
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 59 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
(17) Major security incidents as defined in Article 96 of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and the Council47 may be of criminal origin. Where relevant, payment service providers should be encouraged to share with law enforcement authorities and financial intelligence units the reports they are required to submit to the competent authority in their home Member State under Directive (EU) 2015/2366. _________________ 47 Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (OJ L 337, 23.12.2015, p. 35).
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 62 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
(18) A number of instruments and mechanisms exist at Union level to enable the exchange of information among national law enforcement authorities to investigate and prosecute crimes. To facilitate and speed up cooperation among national law enforcement authorities and make sure that those instruments and mechanisms are used to their fullest extent, this Directive should strengthen the importance of the operational points of contact introduced by Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JHA. Member States may decide to make use of the existing network of operational points of contact, such as that set up in Directive 2013/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council48 . They should provide effective assistance, for example facilitating the exchange of relevant information and the provision of technical advice or legal information. To ensure the network runs smoothly, each point of contact should be able to communicate quickly with the point of contact of another Member State. Given the significant trans-border dimension of this area of crime and in particular the volatile nature of the electronic evidence, Member States should be able to promptly deal with urgent requests from this network of points of contact and provide feedback within eightfour hours. _________________ 48 Directive 2013/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 August 2013 on attacks against information systems and replacing Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA (OJ L 218, 14.8.2013, p. 8).
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 65 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
(19) Reporting crime without undue delay to public authorities is of great importance in combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment, as it is often the starting point of the criminal investigation. Measures should be taken to encourage reporting by natural and legal persons, in particular financial institutions to law enforcement and judicial authorities. The measures should facilitate the immediate reporting of crime, including through the establishment of secure national online fraud-reporting platforms. These measures can be based on various types of action, including legislative ones, such as obligations to report suspected fraud, or non-legislative ones, such as setting up or supporting organisations or mechanisms favouring the exchange of information, or awareness raising. Any such measure that involves processing of the personal data of natural persons should be carried out in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council49 . In particular, any transmission of information regarding preventing and combating offences relating to fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment should comply with the requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) 2016/679, notably the lawful grounds for processing. _________________ 49 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 66 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19 a (new)
(19a) Investigation and prosecution of all types of fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment, including those involving small amounts of money, are particularly important in order to proactively combat this phenomenon. Reporting obligations, exchange of information and statistical reports are efficient ways to detect fraudulent activities, especially similar activities that involve small amounts of money when considered separately. Competent authorities should therefore be encouraged to use all available information, tools and instruments in order to launch investigations more systematically than is currently the case.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 67 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19 b (new)
(19b) It is essential that relevant information on fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment is transmitted in a timely manner to the national financial intelligence units in order to enable further analysis and detection of criminal financial flows. In addition, the creation of a European financial intelligence unit would help to ensure efficient exchange of information and to improve coordination and cooperation across the Union against such frauds.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 71 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 a (new)
(21a) Victims of fraud related to non- cash means of payment should also have the right to free legal aid, at least those who lack sufficient resources to pay for legal assistance. Member States should be able to determine this lack of resources through a means test in which due account should be taken of all relevant and objective factors, such as the income, capital and family situation of the person concerned, the costs of legal assistance and the standard of living in the relevant Member State.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 72 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
(23) The Commission and the Member States should establish or strengthen policies to prevent fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment, and measures to reduce the risk of becoming victims of such offences, by means of information and awareness- raising campaigns and research and education programmes, in particular for the persons most vulnerable to fraud such as phishing, for example elderly and young persons.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 76 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
This Directive establishes minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area of fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment. It also aims to facilitate the prevention of such offences, to assist and support victims and to improve cooperation between judicial and other competent authorities.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 92 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) possession, procurement for use, import, export, sale, transport, distribution or otherwise making available of a stolen or otherwise unlawfully appropriated, or of a counterfeited or falsified payment instrument in order for it to be used fraudulently.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 93 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) possession of a stolen or otherwise unlawfully appropriated, or of a counterfeited or falsified, payment instrument in order for it to be used fraudulently, and knowing at the time of receipt that such instrument is derived from criminal activity or from an act of participation in such an activity.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 96 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that performing or causinghaving someone else perform a transfer of money, monetary value or virtual currencies in order to make an unlawful gain for the perpetrator or a third party is punishable as a criminal offence, when committed intentionally by:
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 119 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) temporary or permanent ban on entering into contracts with public authorities;
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 125 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the offence is committed in whole or in part in its territory; or
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 127 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the offender is one of its nationals; or
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 128 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the offence causes damage in its territory including damage resulting from the theft of the identity of a person.; or
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 129 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) the offender has his or her habitual residence in its territory, or;
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 130 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)
(cb) the offence is committed for the benefit of a legal person established in its territory, or;
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 131 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c c (new)
(cc) the offence is committed against one of its nationals or a person who is an habitual resident in its territory.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 134 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. When an offence referred to in Articles 3 to 7 falls within the jurisdiction of more than one Member State and when any of the Member State concerned can validly prosecute on the basis of the same facts, Member States shall take into account the following factors, listed by order of priority, to decide which of them will prosecute the offenders: (a) the territory of the Member State where the offence was committed; (b) the nationality or habitual residency of the offender; (c) the territory where damage was caused;(d) the nationality or habitual residency of the victims; (e) the territory of the Member State where the legal person benefitting from the offence is established; (f) the territory of the Member State where the offender was found. Member States may derogate from this order of priority if strictly necessary for the efficiency of the investigation on a particular case. If so, Member States shall inform the Commission and Eurojust.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 135 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 3
3. A Member State shall inform the Commission if it decides to establish jurisdiction over an offence referred to in Articles 3 to 7 committed outside its territory, including where: (a) the offender has his or her habitual residence in its territory; (b) the offence is committed for the benefit of a legal person established in its territory; (c) the offence is committed against one of its nationals or a person who is an habitual resident in its territory.deleted
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 139 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Member States may have recourse to Eurojust in order to facilitate cooperation between their judicial authorities and the coordination of their action.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 140 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – title
Effective investigations and cooperation
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 144 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Each Member State shall ensure that adequate and sufficient human and financial resources, as well as trainings, are allocated to investigate and prosecute the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 145 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, where national law oblige natural and legal persons to submit information regarding offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7, such information reaches the authorities investigating or prosecuting those offences without undue delay and that national authorities investigating or prosecuting offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 are empowered to cooperate with other national authorities and their counterparts in other Member States.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 148 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. For the purpose of exchanging information relating to the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7, Member States shall ensure that they have an operational national point of contact available 24 hours a day and seven days a week. Member States shall also ensure that they have procedures in place so that urgent requests for assistance are promptly dealt with and the competent authority replies within eightfour hours of receipt, at least indicating whether the request will be answered, and the form and estimated time of such an answer. Member States may decide to make use of the existing networks of operational points of contact.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 154 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that appropriate reporting channels, including via a secure national online fraud- reporting platform, are made available in order to facilitate reporting of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 to law enforcement authorities, financial intelligence units and other competent national authorities without undue delay.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 157 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to encouragesure that financial institutions and other legal persons operating in their territory to report without undue delay suspected fraud to law enforcement authorities, financial intelligence units and other competent authorities, for the purpose of detecting, preventing, investigating or prosecuting offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 162 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall ensure that natural persons who have suffered a prejudice from offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7, committed by the misuse of personal data, are offered free legal aid, at least those who lack sufficient resources to pay for legal assistance. Member States may apply a means test to determine whether natural persons have the right to free legal aid.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 168 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1
The Commission and Member States shall take appropriate action, including through the Internet, such as information and awareness-raising campaigns, research and education programmes, where appropriate in cooperation with stakeholders, aimed at reducing overall fraud, raising awareness and reducing the risk of becoming a victim of fraud, in particular for vulnerable persons. The Commission and Member States shall conduct such campaigns regularly. Member States shall ensure that sufficient funding is made available for such campaigns.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 170 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that a system is in place for the recording, production and provision of anonymised statistical data measuring the reporting, investigative and judicial phases concerning the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 173 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 3
3. The anonymised statistical data referred to in paragraph 2 shall, as a minimum, cover the number of offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 reported to the Member States, the number of cases investigated, the number of persons prosecuted for and convicted of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7, and data on the functioning of the reporting, investigative and judicial phases concerning these offences.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 178 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [124 months after entry into force]. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 179 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall, by [4836 months after entry into force], submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council, assessing the extent to which the Member States have taken the necessary measures in order to comply with this Directive. Member States shall provide the Commission with necessary information for the preparation of the report.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 181 #

2017/0226(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall regularly, by [9648 months after entry into force] and every 48 months thereafter, carry out an evaluation of this Directive on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment, as well as its impact on fundamental rights, and submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council.
2018/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 72 #

2017/0158(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13 a (new)
(13a) Customs authorities should be able to seize and temporarily retain cultural goods brought into the customs territory of the Union when the conditions laid down in this Regulation are not fulfilled. Appropriate safeguards should be in place, in particular proper information to the declarant, effective remedies, and a maximum period of retention of 6 months. The temporary seizure and retention of cultural goods should be limited in cases where it would represent undue hardship for natural persons, based on a proper assessment and on a case-by-case basis.
2018/05/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 73 #

2017/0158(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
(14) In order to take account of experience with the implementation of this Regulation and of changing geopolitical and other circumstances which place cultural goods at risk, while not impeding trade with third countries disproportionally, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of modifications to the minimum age threshold criterion for the different categories of cultural goods as well as to lay down the arrangements for the deployment, operation and maintenance of a new electronic system. That delegation should also allow the Commission to update the Annex following amendments to the Combined Nomenclature. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 201627 . In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. __________________ 27 OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1. OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1.
2018/05/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 95 #

2017/0158(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 12 in order to amend the second column of the table in the Annex following amendments in the Combined Nomenclature and to amend the minimum age threshold in the third column of the table in the Annex in the light of experience gathered during the implementation of this Regulation, as well as to lay down the arrangements for the deployment, operation and maintenance of the electronic system referred to in Article 9.
2018/05/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 134 #

2017/0158(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
The Commission shall publish the details of those competent authorities and any changes thereto in the 'C' series of the Official Journal of the European Union, as well as on the dedicated website referred to in Article 11.
2018/05/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 168 #

2017/0158(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
The Commission shall publish the details of the competent customs offices and any changes thereto in the 'C' series of the Official Journal of the European Union, as well as on the dedicated website referred to in Article 11.
2018/05/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 181 #

2017/0158(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. An electronic system may be developed for the storage and the exchange of information between the authorities of the Member States, in particular regarding importer statements and import licences. Any personal data stored or processed under such an electronic system shall respect the Union’s data protection legislation, in particular the principles of necessity, proportionality and purpose limitation as well as proper supervision by data protection authorities.
2018/05/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 185 #

2017/0158(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The arrangements for the deployment, operation and maintenance of the electronic system referred to in paragraph 2 shall be the subject of an appropriate legislative proposal by the Commission.
2018/05/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 187 #

2017/0158(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
The Commission may lay down, by means of implementingdelegated acts,
2018/05/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 189 #

2017/0158(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) the arrangements for the deployment, operation and maintenance of the electronic system referred to in paragraph 2;deleted
2018/05/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 192 #

2017/0158(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Those implementingdelegated acts shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 132.
2018/05/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 200 #

2017/0158(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Member States shall organise training and capacity building activities to ensure the effective implementation of this Regulation by the authorities concerned. They may also use awareness-raising campaigns to sensitise in particular buyers of cultural goods. The Commission shall host a dedicated website informing EU citizens and third-country nationals, as well as legal persons, about the objectives of this Regulation, the obligations under Articles 3, 4 and 5, the list of competent authorities, the possibility for temporary retention under Article 8, the penalties introduced in Article 10 and the rights to an effective remedy.
2018/05/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 210 #

2017/0158(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point e
(e) number of cases in which cultural goods have been retained and for how long and
2018/05/24
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2 #

2016/2224(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Aa. Whereas whistle-blowers who act in the public interest in order to expose misconduct, wrongdoing, fraud or illegal activity often take a very high personal risk as they may be dismissed, sued, boycotted, arrested, threatened or victimised and discriminated in a variety of other ways.
2017/07/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 12 #

2016/2224(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
Ca. Whereas in its Resolution of 23 October 2013 on ‘Organised crime, corruption and money laundering: recommendations on action and initiatives to be taken’ (P7_TA(2013)0444) , the European Parliament particularly called for the Commission, by the end of 2013, to submit a legislative proposal establishing an effective and comprehensive European whistle-blower protection programme in the public and in the private sector to protect those who detect inefficient management and irregularities and report cases of national and cross-border corruption relating to EU financial interests and to protect witnesses, informers, and those who cooperate with the courts, and in particular witnesses testifying against mafia-type and other criminal organisations, with a view to resolving the difficult conditions under which they have to live.
2017/07/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 15 #

2016/2224(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital C b (new)
Cb. Whereas in its resolution adopted on 25th November 2015 on 'Tax Rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect’ (P8_TA(2015)0408), the European Parliament called on the European Commission to propose EU legislation to protect whistle-blowers by June 2016 and condemned the fact that citizens and journalists can be subject to legal prosecution rather than legal protection when, acting in the public interest, they disclose information or report suspected misconduct, wrongdoing, fraud or illegal activity.
2017/07/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 16 #

2016/2224(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital C c (new)
Cc. Whereas in its Resolution adopted on 16th December 2015 on “Bringing transparency, coordination and convergence to corporate tax policies” (P8_TA(2015)0457), the European Parliament called on the European Commission to bring forward a legislative proposal offering Union-wide protection for whistle-blowers who report suspected misconduct, wrongdoing, fraud or illegal activity to national or European authorities or, in cases of persistently unaddressed misconduct, wrongdoing, fraud or illegal activity that could affect the public interest, to the public as a whole.
2017/07/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 17 #

2016/2224(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital C d (new)
Cd. Whereas in its Resolution of 14 February 2017 on the role of whistle- blowers in the protection of EU’s financial interests (P8_TA(2017)0022), the European Parliament urged the Commission to immediately submit a legislative proposal establishing an effective and comprehensive European whistle-blower protection programme which includes mechanisms for companies, public bodies and non-profit organisations and, in particular, called on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal before the end of 2017 protecting whistle-blowers as part of the necessary measures in the fields of the prevention of and fight against fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union, with a view to affording effective and equivalent protection in the Member States and in all the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies;
2017/07/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 18 #

2016/2224(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital C e (new)
Ce. Whereas there exists significant variation between the ways in which different Member States provide protection for whistle-blowers and as a result workers both in the public and private sector who hold vital information, which can also be of relevance in another Member State, are understandably reluctant to come forward and therefore that information will not be made available.
2017/07/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 25 #

2016/2224(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises that whistle-blowing plays a crucial role in the fight against corruption and other serious crime, fraud, tax fraud and tax evasion, mismanagement, oppression, discrimination and other wrongdoings and serious crimes; notes that whistleblowing is one of the most effective ways of halting and preventing wrongdoing from occurring or uncovering it if it already took place, and it is essential for protecting the public interest and for maintaining accountability and integrity in both the public and private sectors; points out that protection of whistle- blowers should not be limited only to cases where confidential information is revealed but to all cases of disclosure of misconduct, wrongdoing or involvement in illegal activities; points out that the existing Union legislation on protection of whistle- blowers is scattered and that the protection of whistle-blowers across the Member States is uneven, which often impacts negatively on EU policies;
2017/07/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 33 #

2016/2224(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that protection of whistle- blowers should be harmonised at EU level; is of the opinion that a horizontal EU legal instrument providing protection for whistle-blowers in the public and private sectors and complemented by sectoral rulesall fields of EU competence would be the most efficient approach in order to ensure comprehensive and genuine protection of whistle-blowers; emphasises that whistle-blowers who disclosure inaccurate information in honest error should still be protected and they should not have to prove that they acted in good faith: reiterates in this regard its call on the Commission to present by the end of 2017 a legislative proposal defining whistle- blowing and setting out common rules for the protection of whistle- blowers1 ; _________________ 1 Text adopted P8_TA(2016)0403.
2017/07/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 42 #

2016/2224(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Expresses its concern at retaliation against whistle-blowers in their personal and professional lives, and at the possibility of initiating criminal and civil judicial proceedings against whistle- blowers; calls for the creation of a clear horizontal legal framework that includes definitions, protection against different forms of reprisals, and exemptions from criminal and civil proceedings, according to criteria to be established; related to the disclosure as well as from other disciplinary measures or other forms of reprisal (including dismissal, demotion, withholding of promotion and others) according to criteria to be established; stresses that whistle-blowers should be able to report information anonymously and to have their identity kept secret and have the possibility, wherever it fits with the national legal system, to file for interim or injunctive relief in order to prevent dismissal until the outcome of the whistleblowing case has been established.
2017/07/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 51 #

2016/2224(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for the creation of legal and secur, confidential, secure and safe disclosure channels at national level to facilitate reporting to the competent authorities of information on threats to the public interest; emphasises that whistle-blowers should be free to report both internally, within the workplace, and externally to the competent authorities, parliamentarians and oversight agencies, trade unions and employers’ associations, and also to the public through the media or non-governmental organisations.
2017/07/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 57 #

2016/2224(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Notes that whistle-blowers should have access to independent legal advice on their case and to an attorney, and they should be given psychological support and/or treatment if needed; emphasises that actions taken to harass whistle- blowers, their family or colleagues as a result of the protected disclosure should be prohibited and sanctioned; stresses that whistle-blowers, their family and colleagues should also be able to claim compensation for any harassment suffered or the loss of current or future livelihood, if the damage occurred in retaliation for a protected disclosure.
2017/07/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 64 #

2016/2224(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Stresses that investigations into the issues raised by whistle-blowers should be conducted independently and within the shortest time frame possible, protecting also the rights of individuals that might be implicated by a disclosure. Both the whistle-blower and any person implicated by a disclosure should be able to provide additional arguments and evidence throughout the investigation, and they should be kept informed of the handling of the disclosure.
2017/07/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 72 #

2016/2224(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Emphasises that the right of citizens to report wrongdoing is a natural extension of the right of freedom of expression and information, as well as the strong substrate component of civic morality, must be taken into account when assessingenshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and it is essential to ensure the principles of transparency and integrity and the protection of the public interest.
2017/07/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 4 #

2016/2206(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the solid outputflexibility of all agencies in the area of freedom, security and justice; welcomes their flexibility to adapt to evolving political priorities and to respond to unforeseen events; regrets, however, the lack of effective indicators reflecting their impact onf the maintenance of internal security, control of externalir work on security, migration, borders, management of migration flows and respect ofand fundamental rights development;
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 14 #

2016/2206(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the commitment of all JHA Agencies to continue to further fine- tune budgetary procedures but stresses, however, that their priority should be to improve operational efficiency on the ground and to address the rather structural issues identified by the Court of Auditors and the IAS; requests that FRONTEXrontex streamline its financial management procedures by obtaining rights of using “simplified cost options” for the reimbursement of Member States’ expenditure and by using “other funding mechanisms” in addition to grants; requests that EUeu-LISA better address the risks involved with the implementation of high cost infrastructure projects by fully adopting the financial regulation of the Union; requests that EUROJUSTurojust avoid sub- optimal budget management due to uncertainties as to the availability of funds in order to implement its on-going projects and to procure its essential services; regrets that judicial cooperation does not receive as much financial support as police cooperation in the Union;
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 7 #

2016/2193(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes efforts to keep JHA systems aligned with evolving political priorities and unforeseen events through the year; acknowledges the growing importance of the agency for the functioning of the Schengen area; cCalls for the agency to closely monitor its financial and human resources and, if needed, to submit timely and justified requests for adjustments;
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 10 #

2016/2193(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Regrets that two data breach incidents were reported in 2015; welcomes the strengthening of data protection and data security in the Agency by additional awareness sessions, trainings for staff and by the production of Data Breach Policy and Procedures, Action Plan and Work Programme;
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 13 #

2016/2193(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Encourages the agency to develop appropriate key performance indicators better reflecting the effects and impact of its actionWelcomes the adoption by the Management Board in March 2015 of a set of performance indicators for the work of the Agency; looks forward to seeing the results onf the maintenance of security within the Union, the control of Union external borders and the management of migration flowsimplementation of such indicators for the year 2016.
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 7 #

2016/2192(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Notes with concern the high number of outstanding issues and ongoing corrective measures in answer to the Court of Auditors' comments in 2012, 2013 and 2014 related to recruitment procedures, late payments, high staff turnover and reimbursement of costs; calls on EASO to complete as many corrective actions as possible during the year 2017;
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 8 #

2016/2192(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Regrets EASO's policy of reimbursement of costs for participants in meetings, with different categories of participants (A, B and C) being reimbursed different amounts (from travel and daily subsistence costs to nothing); calls on EASO to streamline the reimbursements and distinguish only between persons who warrant reimbursement of travel or accommodation costs (such as speakers) and persons who do not (participants);
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 9 #

2016/2192(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that in 2015, a record number of more than 1 392 155 applications for international protection were made; recognises that the EASO invested significant efforts in implementing the activities assigned to it in the European Agenda on Migration, in particular as part of the development of the ‘hotspots’ approach;deleted
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 5 #

2016/2184(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Notes with concern the use by Europol of the controversial private database WorldCheck, which often links individuals and organisations to terrorism only on the basis of public resources, without any proper investigation, transparency or provision of effective ways of redress; calls on Europol to explain to the LIBE Commitee the way the Agency uses this private database in its work in order to assess the relevance of the use of public funds for acquiring licences for WorldCheck;
2017/01/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 7 #

2016/2184(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Agrees with the Management Board that Europol is effectively and efficiently delivering the expected products and services by the competent law enforcement authorities of the Member States and cooperation partners; acknowledges that over 732 000 operational messages were processed through the Secure Information Exchange Network Application (SIENA) and that almost 40 000 related cases were initiated, that the Europol Information System (EIS) processed over 633 000 searches, that the Agency supported 812 operations, produced over 4 000 operational reports and coordinated 98 joint actions;deleted
2017/01/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 14 #

2016/2184(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights that, in response to terrorist attacks and the migration crisis and in light of the Commission’s Agenda on Security and Migration, Europol’s mandate was strengthened and its staff reinforced; welcomes the successful efforts of the agency in setting up the EU Internet Referral Unit, the European Migrant Smuggling Centre (EMSC) and the European Counter Terrorism Centre (ECTC) Europol’s mandate was strengthened and its staff reinforced;
2017/01/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 17 #

2016/2184(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Encourages Europol to streamline the processes concerning the Analysis Work Files and the establishment of the new Europol Analysis System and devote the necessary resources to ensure a high level of data security, privacy and data protection;
2017/01/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 20 #

2016/2184(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Encourages Europol to continue to improve information sharing among its partners for the purposes of counter- terrorism while fully respecting data protection and privacy rules, including the purpose limitation principle.
2017/01/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 5 #

2016/2179(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Recalls that Frontex should provide its Fundamental Rights Officer with adequate resources and staff for setting up the complaint mechanism and for further developing and implementing the Agency's strategy to monitor and ensure the protection of fundamental rights;
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 9 #

2016/2179(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Notes with concern the high number of ongoing corrective measures in answer to the Court of Auditors' comments in 2012, 2013 and 2014 related to recruitment procedures, headquarters agreement, expenditures claimed by cooperating countries and contributions from Schengen associated countries; calls on the Agency to complete as many corrective actions as possible during the year 2017;
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 10 #

2016/2179(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Regrets the conclusions of the European Court of Auditors in its Special Report No 12/20161a that the Agency does not have quantitative objectives and targets for its joint operations, which hampers the measurement of the joint operations' effectiveness in the long term; notes the Agency's reply that quantification of objectives may not be possible in the field of irregular migration; calls on the Agency to develop and implement quantitative objectives with specific target values as soon as possible and where applicable; _________________ 1aEuropean Court of Auditors, Special Report No 12/2016: Agencies’ use of grants: not always appropriate or demonstrably effective, p. 26.
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 11 #

2016/2179(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3 c. Regrets the conclusions of the European Court of Auditors in its Special Report No 12/20161a that the Agency has not established an appropriate conflict of interest policy for the staff members of the bilateral negotiation teams; calls on the Agency to establish formal conflict of interest policies for external experts, internal staff and governing board members involved in the selection and award process of grants, taking into account the accumulated effect of several minor conflict of interest and defining effective mitigating measures; _________________ 1aEuropean Court of Auditors, Special Report No 12/2016: Agencies’ use of grants: not always appropriate or demonstrably effective, p. 30.
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 13 #

2016/2179(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the contribution of the Agency to saving more than 250 000 people at sea in 2015; welcomes the increase of the Agency’s search and rescue capacity following the tragic events of spring 2015; wbelcomes the signature of an important agreement with CSDP Mission EUNAVFOR Med regarding maritime surveillanceieves nevertheless that a coherent Union response to search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean must be independent from border management and control missions, and designed as a stand-alone mission;
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 16 #

2016/2179(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the support provided to national authorities in hotspot areas in relation to identification and registration of migrants, return-related activities and Union internal security; welcomes the signature of an operational cooperation agreement with Europol to deter cross- border crime and migrant smuggling.deleted
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 3 #

2016/2178(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the high implementation rate of the 2015 budget that reached 95.5% out of which 79% has been paid; notes, however, that according to the Court of Auditors, the level of committed appropriations for administrative expenditure carried over from 2014 to 2015 reached 49 % at the end of 2015, which is relatively high, although lower than in 2014 (59%); understands that this is a direct result of the College's relocation from the UK to Hungary in September 2014 and the consequential need to initiate new service and supply contracts; welcomes, therefore, the commitment of CEPOL to continue to improve its budget management procedures and to better comply with the budgetary principle of annuity provided in the Financial Regulation;
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 9 #

2016/2178(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Regrets that, according to the Court of Auditors' report, the College's audited budgetary implementation report differs from the level of detail provided by most other agencies; notes that this difference results from the fact that CEPOL has outsourced the role of Accounting Officer to the Accounting Officer of the European Commission; questions the added-value of this outsourcing if the level of detail in the implementation reports is still lower than for other EU agencies;
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 10 #

2016/2178(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that in its initial proposal for a Regulation on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation and Training (Europol) and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JHA and 2005/681/JHA, published on 27th March 2013, the European Commission had estimated that the merging of Europol and CEPOL into a single agency situated at the current headquarters of Europol in The Hague would have created important synergies and efficiency gains, assessing savings of €17.2 million over the period 2015-2020 and the equivalent of 14 full time staff (FTE);deleted
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 18 #

2016/2178(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Notes the European Commission grant of 2 500 000 euros to implement a counter-terrorism training capacity building project in four countries in the MENA region; requests a thorough evaluation of the project and its added value for the security of the Union, and if beneficial, requests the continuation and extension of the project in the coming years.
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 3 #

2016/2170(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Encourages Eurojust to continue to treat terrorism, irregular migration and cybercrime as priorities; wWelcomes the fact that Member States increasingly made use of coordination meetings and coordination centres and that they value the increased involvement of third countries in joint investigation teams; acknowledges that the number of cases for which Member States requested Eurojust's assistance continues to grow and increased by 23 % compared to 2014; considers that its budget should be increased accordingly;
2017/01/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 7 #

2016/2170(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Notes that the Court of Auditors' report for the financial year 2010 identified an overlap of responsibilities between the Administrative Director and the College of Eurojust, currently resulting from the Council Decision 2002/187/JHA1a ; regrets that no corrective measures have been taken since then; calls on the Parliament and the Council to address this issue in the negotiations on the new Eurojust regulation; _________________ 1aCouncil Decision 2002/184/JHA of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime (OJ L 063, 6.3.2002, p.1).
2017/01/20
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 10 #

2016/2164(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Emphasises role of the Agency in detecting new trends and assessing threats posed by drugs to the health and security of young Europeans; welcomes the notification 98 new psychoactive substances (NPS); encourages sustained efforts to monitor the use of the internet as a vehicle for drug supply;deleted
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 8 #

2016/2163(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes that during 2015, the Agency strongly focused on fundamental rights challenges arising from the significant increase inincreasingly faced by refugees and migrants coming to the Union; acknowledges especially that the Agency considerably stepped up its activities in the area of immigration and integration of migrants, visa and border control and asylum procedures;
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 10 #

2016/2163(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Regrets that the Agency's mandate still limits its role in support of fundamental rights; underlines that the Agency should be able to offer opinions on legislative proposals on its own initiative and that its remit should extend to all areas of rights protected under the Charter, including, for instance, issues of police and judicial cooperation;
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 10 #

2016/2159(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Welcomes the requested appropriations to create in July 2015 of a task-force with the responsibility of assessing the necessary legal, operational and budgetary means for the creation of the European Data Protection Board established in Article 68 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679; underlines that the Board will be administratively attached to the EDPS, will go beyond an influential advisory role and will be entrusted with the task of ensuring a consistent application of the new Data Protection Regulation;
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 12 #

2016/2159(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes especially the advisory role played by the EDPS during the development of legislation in the data protection package (the General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Directive), Europol reform and the PNR Directivewith an impact on personal data;
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 7 #

2016/2151(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Regrets that the Commission's audits of a selection of Member States' management and control systems used for the SOLID programmes did not include tests of the effectiveness of internal controls over most key processes (selection and award procedures, project monitoring, payments and accounting), but were rather focused on the description of those processes; notes that there is a risk that some annual programmes with ineffective control systems might be considered by the Commission to provide reasonable assurance and will not be the focus of the Commission's ex post audits; calls on the Commission to ensure that audits cover tests of controls on most key processes;
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 9 #

2016/2151(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that 2015 was extraordinarily challenging for Union home affairs policies, particularly in the field of migration, with 1,8 million irregular arrivals at the Union’s borders, as well as in the field of security, with a series of terror attacks in several Member States; acknowledges the central role of DG-HOME in developing policy responsesAcknowledges the role of DG- HOME in developing policy responses in the fields of migration and security and in mobilising staff and emergency funding to support the most affected Member States;
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 23 #

2016/2151(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Shares the Court's assessment that the proliferation of financial mechanisms which are not directly funded by the EU budget nor audited by the Court poses risks both for accountability and the coordination of EU policies and operations1a; _________________ 1aEuropean Court of Auditors, Annual report on the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2015, together with the institutions' replies, p. 74
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 25 #

2016/2151(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Notes that the European Court of Auditors' Special Report No 9/2016: EU external migration spending in Southern Mediterranean and Eastern Neighbourhood countries until 20141a concludes that the total amount of expenditure charged to the EU budget could not be established in the course of the audit, and that it was unclear whether expenditure had been directed in line with the intended geographical and thematic priorities; questions whether this was still the case for the year 2015; calls on the Commission to develop quality and result- oriented indicators aimed at assessing the quality and results obtained through the use of funds spent in its external migration policies; _________________ 1aEuropean Court of Auditors, Special Report No 9/2016: EU external migration spending in Southern Mediterranean and Eastern Neighbourhood countries until 2014, p. 7
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 28 #

2016/2151(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6 c. Believes the positive impact of the EU migration funds relies on processes at national and EU level to ensure transparency, effective monitoring and accountability; calls for the introduction of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms in itinere and not only ex post which ensure effective expenditure and implementation of policy objectives; calls on the Commission to ensure that result indicators and measurable targets based on the activities undertaken are defined at policy and project levels; calls for the establishment of stable and comparable qualitative and quantitative indicators; believes the European Court of Auditors should be monitoring the use of funds throughout the project cycle and not only at the very end;
2017/01/23
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 12 #

2016/2097(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Calls on the Commission to take legislative action with the aim of setting up a European protection framework for whistle-blowers as soon as possible; considers that whistle-blowing plays a central role in the fight against fraud and corruption as it is one of the most effective ways of halting and preventing wrongdoing from occurring, or uncovering it if it already took place;
2016/10/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 9
– having regard to the ECOFIN conclusions on corpthe exchange of tax-related informate tax avoidanceion on the activities of multinational companies and on the code of conduct on business taxation of 8 March 2016, on corporate taxation, base erosion and profit shifting of 8 December 2015, on business taxation of 9 December 2014 and on taxation policy of 1 December 1997,
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 4 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 13
– having regard to the Commission's joint follow-up, as adopted by it on 16 March 2016, to the resolucommendations of Parliament with recommendations to the Commission's resolutions on bringing transparency, coordination and convergence to the corporate tax policies in the Union, and the resolution of Parliament on tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect,
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 5 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17
– having regard to the resolution of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 1 December 1997 on a code of conduct for business taxation12 7a, and to the regular reports to the Council of the Code of Conduct Group on Business Taxation Group, __________________ 127a OJ C 2, 6.1.1998, p. 2.
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 6 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 19
– having regard to the agreement signed between the EU and the Principality of Andorra on 12 February 2016 aiming at improving tax compliance by private savers,
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 7 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 24
– having regard to the Guernsey-UK Double Taxation Arrangement as amended by the 2009 Arrangement, signed 20 January 20109 and in force as from 27 November 2009, relating to exchange of information,
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 8 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 25
– having regard to the amendParliament's adopted by Parliamentlegislative position on 8 July 2015 to the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2007/36/EC as regards the encouragement of long-term shareholder engagement and Directive 2013/34/EU as regards certain elements of the corporate governance statement,
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 9 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 29
– having regard to the various parliamentary hearings and consecutive reports on tax avoidance and tax evasion held in national parliaments and in particular in the UK House of Commons, the US Senate and the French Assemblée Natio, the Australian Senate and the French National Assembly and Senalte,
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 10 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 32
– having regards to the state aid decisions of the Commission relating to Fiat16 , Starbucks17 , and the Belgian excess-profit rulings18 , and decisions to open state aid investigations on McDonalds, Apple and Amazon; __________________ 16 SA.38375 - State aid which Luxembourg granted to Fiat. 17 SA.38374 State aid implemented by the Netherlands to Starbucks. 18 C(2015)9837, Commission Decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium.
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 11 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1
Overall considerations and establishment of fact, facts and figures
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 27 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas the scale of tax evasion and avoidance is estimated by the Commission to be EUR 1 trillion19 a year, while the OECD estimates20 the revenue loss at global level to be between 4 % and 10 % of all corporate income tax revenue, representing between EUR 75 and EUR 180 billion annually, at 2014 levels; whereas these are only estimates and the actual figures might be even higher; whereas the costs to societynegative impacts of such practices on Member States' budgets and on citizens are evident; whereas tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning erode the tax base of Member States and thereby lead to loss of tax revenues; __________________ 19 http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxati on/tax_fraud_evasion/a_huge_problem/ind ex_en.htm, European Commission, 10 May 2016. 20 Measuring and Monitoring BEPS, Action 11 - 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project.
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 32 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the Panama Papers reminded us that the issue of tax avoidance goes beyond multi-national companies, is strongly liked to criminal activities and that offshore wealth is estimated to approximately $10 trillion; whereas more than two and a half trillion USD of offshore wealth is held in Switzerland;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 34 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas G20 Leaders took action in April 2009, especially requesting offshore jurisdictions to sign at least 12 information exchange treaties, with the objective to end the era of bank secrecy; whereas economists seriously questioned the effectiveness of these measures explaining that treaties have led to the relocation of bank deposits between tax havens but have not triggered significant repatriation of funds1a ; whereas there is no evidence that portfolio investments in offshore jurisdictions are on the decline at least until 2014 despite recent international efforts to increase financial transparency; whereas it is too early to assess whether the adoption of automatic exchange of tax information (Common Reporting Standard) will bring changes to this trend; __________________ 1ahttp://gabriel- zucman.eu/files/JohannesenZucman2014
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 35 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)
Bc. whereas according to information provided by the Bank for International Settlements, cross-border deposits in offshore centres between 2008 and 2015 have on average grown by 2.81% annually while they have grown by 1.24% only in the rest of the world1a; whereas the most important financial offshore centres in terms of foreign deposits are the Cayman Islands ($663 bn), Luxembourg ($360 bn), Switzerland ($137 bn), Hong Kong ($125 bn), Singapore ($95 bn), Bermuda ($77 bn), Panama ($67 bn), Jersey ($58 bn) and Bahamas ($55 bn); whereas cross-border deposits in European havens such as Andorra, Gibraltar, Liechtenstein and Switzerland have been declining or stagnating in the past few years, leading to the supposition of a shift of the offshore activities to other jurisdictions and a restructuring of the offshore's industry as a consequence of an increasing number of bilateral tax information agreements; __________________ 1a BIS 2016 - locational banking statistics
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 36 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B d (new)
Bd. whereas investment flows to offshore financial centres are estimated to $72 billion in 20151a and have risen in recent years by the growing flows from multinational enterprises located in developing and transition economies, sometimes in the form of investment round-tripping; whereas investment flows to special purpose entities represent the majority of offshore investment flows; whereas Luxembourg is the primary recipient of special purpose entities- related investment flows in 2015, whereas special purpose entities related inflows to the Netherlands are also especially high in 2015; whereas the persistence of financial flows routed through offshore financial mechanisms highlights the need to create greater coherence among tax and investment policies at the European and global level; __________________ 1a http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ webdiaeia2016d2_en.pdf
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 37 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B e (new)
Be. whereas the OECD has been mandated again in April 2016 to create a blacklist of non-cooperative jurisdictions; whereas criteria for identifying tax havens are being defined by the European Commission, which acknowledged the importance of not only looking at transparency and cooperation criteria but also to consider harmful tax regimes as well;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 41 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are the primary job creators in Europe, having created around 85 % of all new jobs in Europe21 during the last five years; whereas the CommissionOECD has stated that SMEs pay on average 30 % more in tax than multinational enterprises (MNEs); whereas this seriously distorts competition, leads to loss of jobs in the Union and hinders sustainable growth; __________________ 21 http://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/, European Commission, 10 May 2016.
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 42 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas aggressive tax planning is defined by the Commission as taking advantage of the technicalities of a tax system or of mismatches between two or more tax systems for the purpose of reducing tax liability; whereas the Commission recognises that aggressive tax planning can take a multitude of forms which leads to tax law not applied as intended by law makers; whereas the main forms of aggressive tax planning include debt shifting, location of intangible assets and intellectual property, strategic transfer pricing, hybrid mismatches and offshore loan structures; whereas companies heard by its Special Committee have mostly reiterated that they pay a lot of taxes and their behaviour is legal; whereas only a small percentage of companies have publicly admitted yet that corporate tax avoidance is a priority to be addressed;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 45 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas close to one third of allcross- border corporate investments are channelled through offshore financial constructions; whereas the Commission notes that 72% of profit shifting in the European Union makes use of transfer pricing and tax-effective location of intellectual property and that the remaining profit shifting schemes involve debt-shifting1a ; __________________ 1a https://polcms.secure.europarl.europa.eu/ cmsdata/upload/a0cf64ee-8e0d-4b5f- b145- 6ffbaa940e10/TheRoleFinancialSectorTa xPlanning_Draft_210316.pdf
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 47 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas bilateral tax treaties allocate taxing rights between source and residence countries; whereas source countries often are allocated the right to tax active business income provided a permanent establishment exists in the source countries and residence countries obtain taxing rights over passive income such as dividends, royalties and interest; whereas such division of taxing rights is essential to understand aggressive tax planning schemes;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 49 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas accounting practices consist in portraying the corporation's financial state by matching revenues and expenses, and gains and losses to the calendar period in which they arise, rather than to the period in which the cash flows actually take place; whereas if taxable income passes from one jurisdiction to another, and both treat it in a different manner, the opportunity to exploit mismatches arises; whereas though royalty payments can be justified for business purposes, without proper fiscal coordination, they can receive favourable tax treatment in one country leading to an erosion of the tax base in other countries;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 51 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E
E. whereas convergence of tax policies should also be accompanied by greater controls and more investigations of harmful tax practices; whereas the Commission has started new formal investigations regarding tax treatment of MNEs; whereas a number of investigations by the Commission in matters of state aid were still ongoing at the time of adoption of this report; whereas certain Member States have initiated recovery procedures against some MNEs but at this stage and to our knowledge, despite three decisions by the Commission of recovery for illegal tax state aids, only Luxembourg has recovered the amount due and all of them have appealed the decisions of the Commission;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 64 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2
Role of specificexternal tax jurisdictions
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 65 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital - F (new)
-F. whereas the Parliament held meetings with representatives of the Governments of Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Guernsey and Jersey; whereas the Cayman Islands have only appeared at a coordinators' meeting and not at a formal hearing of the Special Committee; whereas the Isle of Man declined to appear before the Special Committee but sent a written contribution instead;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 67 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas some specific tax jurisdictions actively contribute to designing aggressive tax policies on behalf offor MNEs who thereby avoid taxation; whereas the corporate tax rate in some jurisdictions is close or equal to zero per cent; whereas the complexity of different tax systems create a lack of transparency which is globally harmfulcan use these opportunities to avoid taxation; whereas despite commitments by these jurisdictions to automatically exchange tax information with other countries, the statutory or effective corporate tax rate in some jurisdictions is close or equal to zero per cent; whereas some of these jurisdictions are included in blacklists of several Member States; whereas specific tax regimes of some jurisdictions have been assessed by the Code of Conduct Group on business taxation, leading to reforms in these countries;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 74 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas these jurisdictions have all committed to automatic information exchange by 2017, except Andorra and Monaco in 2018; whereas it is important to monitor whether effective legislative changes are already being introduced to ensure effective automatic information exchange as of 2017;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 81 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G
G. whereas the lack of transparency and, more generally, non-compliance with control requirements, deficient knowledgelack of information ofn final beneficiaries and continued banking secrecy are obstacles to ending tax evasion and avoidance; whereas the opacity of such practices is used by some tax agents in the financial sector for aggressive tax practices; whereas there is no automatic exchange of information between countries, beyond the pre-existing bilateral tax conventions; whereas, without effective enforcement, the weaknesses of the systems will encourage tax evasion and avoidance;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 83 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H
H. whereas some specific tax jurisdictions are not willing to reform their tax systems, despite the ongoing global initiatives and despite the fact that some of them are involved in the work of the OECD; the "Panama Papers" clearly had an effect on some specific tax jurisdictions which were so far reluctant to commit to the OECD Common Reporting Standards for automatic information exchange and announced in May 2016 that they will commit to it; whereas the United States is therefore the only major economy not having committed yet to implement the OECD Common Reporting Standards and only applying its national legislation (FATCA);
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 87 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I
I. whereas the hearings organised with Andorra, Guernsey, Jersey, Liechtenstein and Monaco (see Annex 1) showed that the conditions for registration of offshore companies and the information to be provided in this regard vary from one jurisdiction to another; whereas full information on the final beneficiaries of trusts, foundations and companies by official tax authorities of some of these jurisdictions is not known to exist or collected nor is neverit made publicly available; whereas Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino and Switzerland have signed agreements for exchange of information with the EU; whereas the Channel Islands have signed agreements with the UK and have declared their readiness to enter into similar agreements with other Member States; whereas the Cayman Islands have only appeared at a coordinators’ meeting and not at a formal hearing of the Special Committee; whereas the Isle of Man declined to appear before the Special Committee but sent a written contribution instead;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 89 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J
J. whereas the existing legislation of some jurisdictions does not ensure good governance or respect of the highest international standards as regards final beneficiaries and, transparency and cooperation;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 90 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
Ja. whereas some of these jurisdictions are dependent or associate territories of Members States and therefore, even if self-governing, are partially subject to national and European laws; whereas Member States should therefore consider legislating to ensure that their associate and dependent territories comply with highest standards;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 93 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital K
K. whereas some Member States have prepared their own lists of uncooperative jurisdictions and/or substantive definitions of "tax havens" or "privileged tax jurisdiction"; whereas there are bsignificant differences between these lists as to how uncooperative jurisdictions or tax havens are defined or assessed; whereas the OECD's list of uncooperative jurisdictions has not proved effective; whereas a common Union-wide list of uncooperative jurisdictions is still lacking; the Commission announced the creation of a common European list of tax havens accompanied with counter-measures and this proposal has received unanimous political support by the member States in April 2016;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 103 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L
L. whereas some financial institutions and accounting or law firms have played a role as intermediaries in setting up complex legal structures leading to aggressive tax planning schemes used by MNEs, as evidenced in 'LuxLeaks' and the 'Panama Papers'; whereas legal loopholes and lack of coordination, cooperation and transparency between countries create an environment that facilitates tax evasion and avoidance; whereas banks cshould have played a positive role in combating the erosion of national tax bases by, for instance, using the means of exchange of information at their disposal in a more cooperative spiritax evasion and avoidance by, for instance, applying strong due diligence rules and by collecting information for tax authorities about their clients;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 104 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)
La. whereas several tax scandals involving banks became public during the timeframe of this investigation; whereas financial institutions can use several aggressive tax planning schemes to support their clients to evade or avoid taxes; whereas banks can act on the market on behalf of their clients and claim to be the beneficial owner of these transactions towards tax authorities, leading to clients unduly benefiting from tax advantages granted to banks by reason of their banking status or of their residence; whereas the role of banks (particularly those with investment banking operations) in designing and implementing aggressive tax planning should be considered as dual: first, in providing aggressive tax planning for use by clients - often using financial products such as loans, derivatives, repos or any equity-linked instruments - and second, in the use of aggressive tax planning themselves - through their own inter-bank and proprietary structured finance transactions;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 105 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L b (new)
Lb. whereas all banks appearing in front of the Special Committee officially denied advising their clients to evade or avoid taxes in any form whatsoever and denied having relations with accounting and law firms for that purpose; whereas however banks often seek legal opinions from accounting or consultancy firms to validate contracts they offer to their clients; whereas these paid legal opinions can be used to cover tax evasion operations and to avoid allegations of intentional fraud by the banks;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 106 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital M
M. whereas major financial institutions have set up an important number of subsidiaries in special tax jurisdictions or in jurisdictions with low or very low corporate tax rates in order to avoid taxes on behalf of their corporate and private clients or for their own benefit; whereas some financial institutions have recently closed down some of their branches in those jurisdictions; whereas several financial institutions have been prosecuted for tax evasion, avoidance or money laundering in the United States, leading to the payments of substantial fines but very few prosecutions have been started in the European Union;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 108 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital M a (new)
Ma. whereas banks are operating in a competitive market and are incentivised to promote tax attractive schemes in order to attract new clients and serve existing ones; whereas bank employees are often under enormous pressure to validate clients' contracts allowing for tax evasion and avoidance at the risk of being fired if they do not; whereas there are conflicts of interest and revolving door cases between banks top employees, consultancy firms and representatives of tax administrations; whereas tax administrations do not always have sufficient access to information or means to investigate banks and detect cases of tax evasion;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 110 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital M b (new)
Mb. whereas it is important to acknowledge that not all complex structured finance transactions (CSFTs) have a dominant tax motivation, and that predominantly tax-driven products are only a small part of overall CSFT business; whereas the amounts involved in aggressive tax planning transactions can however be very large, with single deals involving sometimes funding of €billions and tax advantages of €100s millions 1a ; whereas revenue authorities are concerned with the lack of transparency of CSFTs that are used for aggressive tax planning purposes, particularly where separate legs of these arrangements are executed in different jurisdictions; __________________ 1aOECD, 2008, "Study into the role of tax intermediaries"; OECD, 2008, "Study into the role of tax intermediaries"; http://www.oecd.org/tax/administration/39 882938.pdf
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 112 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital N
N. whereas the biggest European banks are already subject to public country-by-country reporting requirements; whereas none of the financial institutions which appeared in front of the Special Committee raised any significant objection with regard to the disclosure requirements; whereas some of them clearly said they were in favour of this requirement and would support it becoming a global standard; whereas the CRD IV reporting requirements for financial institutions leave room for improvement as the data reporting is inconsistent between various EU countries and the reporting requirements are differently interpreted by various financial institutions;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 119 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Q. whereas schemtax incentives linked to intellectual property, patents and research and development (R&D) are widely used across the Union and are multiplying; whereas these arecan be easily used by MNEs to artificially reduce their overall tax contribution; whereas the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) action plan (action No 5) refers to the ‘Modified Nexus Approach’; whereas the role of the Code of Conduct Group is also to analyse and effectively monitor such practices in Member States;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 120 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital R
R. whereas Member States could still grthe Code of Conduct Group analysed Europeant patent boxes until June 2016; whereas they are obliged to implement the OECD BEPS proposal for the mregimes but did not conclude its analysis on specific regimes; whereas in the meantime, the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) action plan (action No 5) refers to the 'Modified Nexus Approach' as the new standard for granting R&D incentives; whereas Member States agreed in the Code of Conduct Group to implement the Modified Nexus Approach’ on patent boxes until 2021 as agreed at Code of Conduct Group in their national legislation as of 2015; whereas they also agree that existing patent box schemes should be phased out by 2021 only; whereas Member States are seriously delayed in the implementation of the Modified Nexus Approach at national level;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 121 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital S
S. whereas several studies from the Commission have clearly shown that the link between the patent box and R&D is in most cases arbitrary and/or artificial; whereas this inconsistency may lead to the assumption that these schemes are in most cases set up for tax avoidance reasons; whereas tax incentives for incomes generated by R&D, chiefly patent boxes, often result in large decreases in tax revenue for all governments, including those engaging in such a policy; whereas the OECD and the IMF also confirmed several times that they do not believe patent boxes to be the right tool to promote R&D; whereas the IMF is calling for a rationalisation of tax incentives in advanced economies;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 127 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital T
T. whereas the central role of patent boxes in harmful tax practices schemes was initially observed in the fact-finding missions of Parliament's previous Special Committee (TAXE 1) in the Netherlands and the UK, and subsequently confirmed in its mission to Cyprus; whereas similar systems exist in other Member Statesor have been announced in other Member States (Belgium, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal and Spain (including Basque country and the region of Navarra));
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 132 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 5
Documents from the Code of Conduct Group documenton business taxation, the High Level Working Group on taxation and the Working Party on tax questions
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 133 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital V
V. whereas it was only five months after the beginning of the term of its Special Committee that some Rnon-redacted sensitive room documents and minutes of the Code of Conduct Group were made available to MEPs in camera on EP premises; whereas, while additional documents have been made available, some documents and minutes still remain undisclosed or missing; whereas the Commission stated at an informal meeting that it has made all the documents at its disposal available to the Special Committee and any further relevant meeting documents, should they ever have been in the Commission’s possession, must therefore have been lost;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 136 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital V a (new)
Va. whereas, while additional documents have been made available, some documents and minutes of the Code of Conduct Group still remain undisclosed or missing; whereas the Commission stated at an informal meeting that it has made all the documents at its disposal available to the Special Committee and any further relevant meeting documents, should they ever have been in the Commission's possession, must therefore have been lost; whereas additional room documents - originating from the member states or the council - have not been transmitted to the European Parliament, despite several requests; whereas several of the documents transmitted to the Parliament have also been made public, either on a Commission's website or through access to documents' requests; whereas documents from the High Level Working Group on taxation and the Working Party on tax questions have been made available at the end of the Special Committee's mandate; whereas the practice of regularly sending information from tax discussions in other institutions to Parliament should be institutionalised beyond the lifetime of the Special Committee;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 139 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital W
W. whereas Member States have given unsatisfactory answers to Parliament’s repeated requests for full disclosure of the documents concerned; whereas this practice has been going on for several months; whereas these documents have nonetheless recently been made available; whereas transparency and access to information are essential elements of parliamentary work;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 140 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital W a (new)
Wa. whereas specific issues have been examined within the Code of Conduct Group without leading to concrete reforms; whereas for example, discussions on rulings have been going one since 1999 at least and there are still difficulties in implementing recommendations agreed, even after the Luxleaks scandal; whereas examination of patent box regimes has never been fully concluded in 2014 and no other examination has started, despite member states being late in implementing the new Modified Nexus Approach;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 141 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital X
X. whereas the OECD, the UN and other international organisations are interested parties in the fight against corporate tax base erosion; whereas there is a need to ensure global harmonisation of practices and implementation of common standards such as those proposed by the OECD vis-à-vis the BEPS package; whereas the meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bank governors held in Washington on 14 and 15 April 2016 concluded in favour of initiating implementation of the BEPS measures, and has called for full financial transparency, especially as regards beneficial ownershipreiterated its calls for all countries and jurisdictions to implement the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards on transparency and beneficial ownership of legal persons and legal arrangements; whereas some G20 members have called for automatic information exchange of beneficial ownership information and requested FATF and the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes to make initial proposals to that effect by October 2016;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 146 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital Y
Y. whereas a Symposium on Taxation is planned for July 2016 with a view to achieving strong, sustainable and balanced economic growth; whereas the G20 has called on all international organisations, including the EU, to meet the challenges concerned;deleted
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 149 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital Z
Z. whereas the G20 members have reaffirmed their commitment to ensure that efforts are made to strengthen the capacities of developing countries’ economies and to encourage developed countries to abide by the principles of the Addis Tax Initiative as set out at the UN meeting of 27 July 2015; whereas developing countries’ views and priorities are essential to effective global coordination;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 156 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital AD
AD. whereas Parliament’s Special Committee TAXE 2, constituted on 2 December 2015, held 11 meetings, some of them jointly with the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on Development, at which it heard the Commissioner for Competition, Margrethe Vestager, the Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation and Customs, Pierre Moscovici, the Commissioner for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union, Jonathan Hill, the Dutch State Secretary for Finance, Eric Wiebes (representing the Council Presidency), experts in the field of taxation and development, representatives of multinational companies (MNCs), representatives of banks, and members of national parliaments of the EU; whereas it also held meetings with representatives of the Governments of Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Guernsey and Jersey, and received a written contribution from the Government of the Isle of Man (see Annex 1); whereas it also organised fact-finding missions to the US (Washington), to look into specific aspects of the third-country dimension of its mandate, and to Cyprus; whereas members of the Special Committee were personally invited to take part in the work of the high- level interparliamentary group ‘TAXE’ of the OECD; whereas the Special Committee held in camera meetings at coordinators’ level at which it heard representatives of the Government of the Cayman Islands, investigative journalists and Commission officials; whereas all these activities, which have provided a wealth of very useful information on practices and tax systems both inside and outside the Union, have helped to clarify some of the relevant issues, while others remain unanswered;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 159 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital AE
AE. whereas the work of the Special Committee was hindered to some extent by the fact that out of 7 MNCs invited, only 4 agreed on first invitation to appear before its members (see Annex 2);
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 167 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 9
Follow-up by the Commission and Member States
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 168 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Regrets that thirteen countries do not have proper rules to counter aggressive tax planning based on tax-free- flow-through of dividends and thirteen member states did not apply any beneficial-owner test when accepting a claim for a reduction or exemption of withholding tax; Regrets that so far, fourteen member states still have no controlled foreign company rules to prevent aggressive tax planning and that twenty-five member states have no rules to counter the mismatching tax qualification of a local company by another state; condemns that no single member state has called for a ban on aggressive tax planning structures so far;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 170 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Calls on Member States and the Commission to adopt further legislative proposals on corporate tax avoidance as scope exists for member states to tighten their anti-abuse rules to counter base erosion; strongly regrets that Member States did not discuss the Parliament's recommendations in any Council working group and did not reflect on the breach of their obligation of sincere cooperation under the Treaty through enabling aggressive tax avoidance and tax evasion in other member states;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 171 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Condemns that twenty-four Member States offer a general deductibility of interest costs without making it conditional on the creditor being taxed on the interest income and/or without imposing the full scale of thin- capitalisation or other interest-limitation rules, interest withholding tax or a beneficial-owner test as a condition for withholding tax exemptions in the context of group financing;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 175 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the Anti-tax Avoidance Package (ATAP) published by the Commission on 28 January 2016, as well as all legislative proposals and communications already undertaken afterwards; calls on the Council to reach a unanimous ambitious position on the ATAP and keep the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive as one single directiventi- Tax Avoidance Directive; strongly regrets that the current Council draft position has been weakened, especially with a grand- fathering clause on interest deduction or a narrowed approach on controlled foreign company rule; regrets that several member states, including Ireland, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg, Cyprus and Malta have not supported the compromise on May 25th; welcomes the initiative to create a common Union list of uncooperative jurisdictions in the External Strategy for Effective Taxation;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 190 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Urges the Commission to come forward with a proposal for a common corporate consolidated tax base (CCCTB) which would provide a comprehensive solution to harmful tax practices within the Union; believes that the consolidation of the CCCTB is essential and is becoming increasingly urgent; calls on the Member States to promptly reach an agreement on this and to swiftly implement it; reminds the Member States that different corporate tax rates can create an unlevelled playing field and unfair tax competition within the EU as well;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 198 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. WelcomNotes the Commission’s adoption on 12 April 2016 of a proposal for a directive amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure by companies, their subsidiaries and branches, of information relating to income tax and to increased transparency in company tax; regrets, however, that the proposed scope, criteria and thresholds are not in line with the previous positions adopted by Parliament; re-calls its support for the disclosure of full disaggregated data for third countries to ensure transparency on whether companies pay their taxes where their economic activity is taking place and its support for a lower threshold of EUR40 million annual turnover to be applied; welcomes the commitment by France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK to support public country by country reporting for large multinational enterprises;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 206 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the agreement in Council on 8 December 2015 on automatic exchange of information on tax rulings; stresseregrets that at the time of this report, several member states, despite the Luxleaks scandal, still have not put in place the necessary legislative framework to start automatically exchanging information on tax rulings; regrets that the Commission shoulddoesn't have full access to the new Union database of tax rulings; insists on the need for a comprehensive and efficient database of all rulings having potential cross-border effect; calls, therefore, on the Member States to grant the Commission full access to the new Union database of tax rulings in order to enable the Commission to effectively monitor the potentially harmful tax policy of Member States; strongly regrets that as of mid-2015, only eight member states (Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Slovakia) had completed the necessary administrative work to implement the guidance on the Model Instruction concerning rulings;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 213 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that the automatic exchange of information will result in a large volume of data needing to be treated, and that the issues relating to computer processing of the data concerned must be coordinated, as must the necessary human resources for analysing the data; calls for the strengthening of the Commission’s role in this work; calls on the Commission and Member States to carefully monitor the implementation of the Directive on Administrative Cooperation at national level, especially with the objective to verify how many member states request tax information through bilateral tax treaties rather than under this legal basis; calls on Member States to reinforce their tax administrations with adequate staff capacity; calls on Member States to integrate the information exchanged with fiscal authorities and the information exchanged with financial supervisors and regulators;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 216 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Welcomes the announcement by France, the Netherlands and the UK on May 12 to put in place public registers of beneficial owners of companies; applauds France for committing to create a public register for trusts; supports UK's commitment to make any foreign company either buying property in the country, or entering into a contract with the state to declare its beneficial owner; calls on all Member States to adopt similar initiatives;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 220 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that the Joint Transfer Pricing Forum has included in its work programme for 2014-2019 the development of good practices to ensure that the OECD guidelines on the subject correspond to the specificities of Member States; notes that the Commission is monitoring the progress of this work;deleted
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 222 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Insists that concrete legislative action needs to be takenCalls on the Commission to present a concrete legislative proposal on transfer pricing, since 70 % of profit shifting is done through transfer pricing; calls on Member States to grant tax rulings only if taxation of cross-border transactions is ensured;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 231 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Welcomes the fact that the Commissioner for Competition, Margrethe Vestager, has categorised transfer pricing as a particular focus area for state aid cases, as it is reported to be a common tool used by MNEs for tax evasionavoidance schemes such as inter-group loans;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 234 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Regrets that many multinational companies heard have not strongly condemned tax avoidance practices and aggressive tax planning; stresses that MNEs can easily grant artificial inter- group loans for aggressive tax planning purposes; stresses that the preference for such debt financing is to the detriment of the taxpayers as well as financial stability; calls, therefore, on the Member States to eliminate the debt-equity bias in their respective tax laws;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 239 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Strongly emphasises that the work of whistleblowers is crucial for revealing scandals of tax evasion and avoidance, and that, therefore, protection for whistleblowers needs to be legally guaranteed and strengthened EU-wide; notes that the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe have undertaken work on this issue; considers that courts and Member States should ensure the protection of legitimate business secrets while in no way hindering, hampering or stiflinge the capacity of whistleblowers and journalists to document and reveal illegal, wrongful and harmful practices where this is clearly and overwhelmingly in the public interest; regrets that the Commission has no plans for prompt action on the matterin the public interest;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 249 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Welcomes the communication External Strategy for Effective Taxation which called on the European Investment Bank (EIB) to transpose good governance requirements in their contracts with all selected financial intermediaries; calls on the EIB to establish a new responsible taxation policy, starting from the review of its non-cooperative jurisdictions policy in 2016 in close dialogue with civil society; calls on the EIB to make both direct funding and funding via intermediaries contingent upon disclosure of both country-by-country tax-relevant data along the lines of the CRD IV provision for credit institutions, and beneficial ownership information; reiterates that the EIB should reinforce its due diligence activities so as to improve the quality of information on ultimate beneficiaries and to more effectively prevent transactions with financial intermediaries with a negative record in terms of transparency, fraud, corruption, organised crime, money laundering and harmful social and environmental impacts or registered in offshore financial centres or tax havens which resort to aggressive tax planning;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 250 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Calls on the Commission to issue clear legislation on the definition of economic substance, value creation and permanent establishment, with a view to tackling, in particular, the issue of letterbox companies; calls on Member States to revise the burden of proof when it comes to re- collection of assets obtained through crimes or recovery of unlawful profits;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 254 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11b. Notes the Commission's answer to Parliament's recommendations on tax matters; Regrets that several initiatives recommended by the Parliament, such as mandatory notification of new tax schemes by tax advisory firms to tax authorities, proposal to change the EU state aid regime (as it relates to tax) or introducing withholding taxes to avoid profits leaving the EU untaxed, will not be followed up by the Commission; regrets that the Commission did not answer on some of the recommendations such as the issue of taxing royalty payments in the EU; calls again on the Commission to propose legislation in markets that are distorted through aggressive tax competition such as retail services and professional football;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 258 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Notes that so far, the only concrete initiatives taken by the Commission regarding uncooperative jurisdictions, including overseas territories, has beenincluding the External Strategy for Effective Taxation; observes that until now the criteria for listing of uncooperative jurisdictions by the OECD have not proved efficientective in tackling this issue and have not served as a deterrent; reminds the shortcomings and difficulties of a blacklisting exercise, often based on political considerations rather than objective criteria;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 265 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Commission to come up as soon as possible with a common Union list of uncooperative jurisdictions (i.e. a 'blacklist of tax havens'), based on sound and objective criteria, including full implementation of OECD recommendations, BEPS actions and Automatic Exchange of Information standards,level of secrecy and disclosure of legal and beneficial ownership information and structure of legal entities (companies, trusts, foundations, charity...), lack of commitment to implement the OECD common reporting standard on automatic information exchange, low or zero tax rates for non-residents; lack of requirement of economic substance; and welcomes the Commission's intention to reach an agreement on such a list within the next six months; calls on the Commission to assess Member States with the same established criteria; calls on the Member States to endorse that agreement by the end of 2016;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 279 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Calls for a concrete Union regulatory framework for sanctions against the blacklisted non-cooperative jurisdictions, including, but not limited to, the possibility of reviewing and, in the last resort, suspending free trade agreements and prohibiting access to Union funds; calls for the sanctions also to apply to companies, banks, and accountancy and law firms, and to tax advisers proven to be involved with those jurisdictions; calls on the European Commission to propose and Member States to agree on a European version of FATCA to impose a sanction (such as a 30% withholding tax on all EU-sourced payments) against any financial institution that does not apply a look-through approach and concentrates only on account holders or refuses to automatically exchange information about EU residents holding accounts abroad;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 289 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the Member States to renegotiate their bilateral tax treaties with third countries in order to introduce anti- abuse clauses and thus prevent 'treaty shopping’; stresses furthermore that this process would be expedited considerably if the Commission were mandated by Member States'; calls on Member States to revise their bilateral tax treaties with developing countries to redefine taxation rights and use the UN model treaty as the general standard; calls on Member States and the commission to dress a check list for free trade agreements of necessary criteria to protect the partner countries concerned against tax avoidance, evasion or money laundering activities; stresses furthermore that this process would be expedited considerably if the Commission were mandated by Member States to negotiate such tax treaties on behalf of the Union while fully respecting its obligation of policy coherence for development under the treaty; calls, therefore, on the Member States to mandate the Commission to negotiate such tax treaties on behalf of the Union;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 302 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Recommends introducingCalls on the Commission to present a legislative proposal for an EU- wide withholding tax, in order to ensure that profits generated within the Union no matter of their qualification are taxed at least once before leaving it; notes that such a proposal should include a refund system to prevent double taxation;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 309 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Regrets that Andorra and Monaco have committed to automatic information exchange by 2018 instead of 2017; points out that some non-cooperative jurisdiction such as Andorra comply with exchange of information standards but are moving towards becoming low-tax jurisdictions; is concerned that the double taxation agreement between Andorra and Spain does not currently ensure effective automatic exchange of information; calls on the Commission to closely monitor the effective application of the automatic exchange of information included in the Member States’ agreements signed with former or actual non-cooperative jurisdictions;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 315 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Notes that until now, patent, knowledge and R&D boxes have not proven effective in fostering innovation in the Union, but are, rather, used by MNEs for profit-shifting through aggressive tax planning schemes, such as the well-known ‘double Irish with a Dutch sandwich’; considers that patent boxes are an ill-suited tool for achieving economic objectivespromoting R&D; insists that R&D can be promoted through subsidies which should be given preference over patent boxes, as subsidies are less at risk of being abused by tax avoidance schemes; observes that the link between patent boxes and R&D activities is often arbitrary and that current models lead to a race to the bottom with regard to the effective tax contribution of MNEs; calls on Member States to phase out existing and prohibit new patent boxes by 2021 at the latest;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 320 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Observes that so far, Member States, in particular within the framework of the Code of Conduct Group, have been neglecting this issue and have yet to come up with a proper time-frame to tackle it; regrets that barely any progress has been made by Member States in implementing into national law the modified nexus approach agreed by Ministers in December 2014; calls on Member States to implement these changes as soon as possible as they are already behind schedule; calls on the Commission to do an assessment of these legislative changes by mid-2016 and to inform the European Parliament about progress;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 326 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the Commission to put forward proposals for binding Union legislation on patent boxes that goes beyond the OECD Modified Nexus Approach and calls for prohibition of tax exemption on income from intellectual property, so as to prohibit the misuse of patent boxes for tax avoidance purposes and to ensure that if and when used they are linked to genuine economic activity; calls in the meantime on all Member States to publicly disclose which companies benefit from a patent box regime in their country;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 333 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Calls on the Member States to integrate a Minimum Effective Taxation (MET) clause in the Interests and Royalties Directive and to ensure that no exemptions are granteds well as in the Parent- Subsidiary Directive and to ensure that no exemptions are granted; calls on Member States to consider greater harmonisation of tax rates at the European level in order to avoid competition on rate and a race to the bottom in the European Union;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 337 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. ObserveRegrets that some banks, tax advisers, law and accounting firms and other intermediaries have played a key role in designing aggressive tax planning schemes for their clients and also help national governments design their tax codes and laws, creating a significant conflict of interest;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 343 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Is concerned about the lack of transparency and adequate documentation within financial institutions and law firms pertaining to the specific models of company ownership and control recommended by tax and legal advisors, as confirmed by the recent ‘Panama Papers’ scandal; calls on the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal to ensure necessary complementary information should be provided by banks as part of their public country by country reporting obligation; calls on the Commission to ensure that accounting firms have to confirm in the Group Audit Report that the figures in respect of taxes, turnovers, number of employees and profit made are also in line with the "true and fair view" particularly allocated/shown per country;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 349 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Calls on the Commission to come forward with a Union Code of Conduct for legislative proposals for the separation of accounting firms and financial or tax service providers as well as for all advisory services, including a Union incompatibility regime for tax advisers, in order to prevent them from advising both public and private sectorevenue authorities and taxpayers and to prevent other conflicts of interest; calls on the Commission to launch an inquiry in order to assess the state of concentration in the sector and to suggest a cap of no one firm covering more than 10% of the market;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 363 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Stresses again the importance of clear separation between tax advising services and auditing services within accountancy firms; askscalls on the Commission to study the possibility of revising the Accounting Directive and Regulationrevise relevant legislative texts to this effect;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 367 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
25. Stresses the need for concrete sanctions, includingCalls on Member States to adopt effective and dissuasive sanctions, including criminal sanctions on financial institutions and companies' managers involved in tax evasion and the possibility of revoking business licences for professionals and companies proved to be involved in designing, advising on the use of, or utilising aggressive tax planning and evasion schemes; requests that the Commission explore the feasibility of introducing proportional financial liability for tax advisers engaged in unlawful tax practices;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 373 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
27. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the requirements on banks to report to the Member States’ tax authorities transfers to and from jurisdictions included on the common Union list of tax havens and uncooperative tax jurisdictions; calls on Member States to ensure that banks and other financial institutions provide similar information to regulating and tax authorities; calls on Member States to strengthen the capacity of their tax administrations to investigate cases of tax evasion and avoidance;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 376 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Calls on the Commission to conduct constant screening and monitoring of derivatives and securities financing transactions - using data held in trade repositories (TRs) in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 and Regulation (EU) 2015/2365 - with the aim of identifying transactions structured to potentially produce significant tax benefits; insists that the Commission automatically provides Member States tax authorities concerned with all information, including data1a; __________________ 1a See Article 18 (Professional secrecy), paragraph 3 of REGULATION (EU) 2015/2365 on transparency of securities financing transactions and of reuse and amending Regulation (EU) : http://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:3201 5R2365&from=FR
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 377 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 b (new)
27b. Calls on the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal to ensure that both credit institutions established in a Member State and undertakings admitted to trading on a regulated market or on a multilateral trading facility within the Union include in their annual financial reports a description of their use of securities financing transactions (SFTs) and of their re-use of collateral, as well as comprehensive and detailed data on the contribution of SFTs to their earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) and earnings after taxes (EAT);
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 378 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 c (new)
27c. Calls on the Commission1a to introduce specific common minimum anti-abuse rules aimed at denying benefits arising from certain hybrid asset transfers2a , whose effect is often the deduction of the income in one State without inclusion in the tax base of the other or the generation of abusive foreign tax credit transactions; __________________ 1aThe Commission Services confirmed indeed that Article 10 ("Hybrid mismatches") of the Commission's proposal on the ATAD of 28 January 2016 "was based on a mutual recognition approach aimed at resolving differences in the legal qualification of hybrid entities and hybrid financial instruments but did not cover hybrid asset transfers which do not concern legal qualification mismatches". 2a The OECD defines "hybrid transfers" as "arrangements that are treated as transfer of ownership of an asset for one country's tax purposes but not for tax purposes of another country, which generally sees a collateralised loan" in OECD, March 2012, "Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements: Tax Policy and Compliance Issues", http://www.oecd.org/
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 379 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 d (new)
27d. Calls on the Commission to explore the possibility of introducing common rules aimed at curbing tax avoidance on EU-source income achieved through interposition; stresses furthermore that such rules could be similar to those applied in the US1a; __________________ 1asee for example the « qualified intermediaries » (QI) and « qualified derivatives dealers » (QDD) regimes, as well as Section 871(m) regulations of the US Internal Revenue Code which impose US withholding tax on certain amounts arising in derivative transactions over US equities when those amounts are paid to a non-US person
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 382 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
28. Reiterates the crucial role of whistleblowers in revealing misconduct and illegal and wrongful practices; considers that such revelations, which shine a light on the magnitude of tax evasion and avoidance, are clearly in the public interest, as demonstrated in Luxleaks and the recent 'Panama papers' leak; welcomes that Antoine Deltour, one of the whistleblowers at the origin of the Luxleaks received the European citizen price, honouring exceptional Europeans;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 390 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
29. ObserveRegrets that the Commission is limiting its action to monitoring developments in different areas of Union competences, without planning to take any concrete steps to tackle the issue; notesis concerned that this lack of ambition could endanger the publication of new revelations, thereby potentially leading to European tax authoritand other countries losing legitimate tax revenue; regrets that the Commission has not provided a satisfactory response to the demands contained in paragraphs 144 and 145 of Parliament's resolution of 25 November 2015;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 396 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
31. NoteRegrets, that despite the fact that its first and second Special Committees (TAXE 1 and TAXE 2) have both on repeated occasions requested full access to Code of Conduct Group documents and minutes, only a limited number of new documents have been made available for in camera consultation by MEPSs, and that this was only achieved five months after the beginning of the mandate of TAXE2; notes furthermore that the condemns the unwillingness of the Council to satisfy thisour request remains unsatisfactoryto access to documents;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 401 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
33. Notes the continuing lack of transparency of the working methods of the Code of Conduct Group, which is preventing any concrete potential improvement in terms of tackling harmful tax practices; regrets not having received several room documents from the Code of Conduct Group emanating from the Council or the Member States which are critical to the good implementation of the Special committee's mandate;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 409 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
33a. Determines from public information that the Code of Conduct Group looked at 421 measures between 1998 and 2014 and considered 111 of them harmful (26%) but two-third of these measures were actually examined during the first five years of existence of the Group; notes that the scrutiny of measures by Member States has decreased over the years with only 5% of the total measures been examined in 2014 and regrets that no harmful tax measures have been found by the Group since November 2012; concludes that the Code of Conduct Group hasn't been fully working over the past decade and that its governance and mandate needs urgent revision;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 421 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
34. UrgesStresses that it has become clear that the self-notification of potentially harmful measures by Member States, the criteria for identifying harmful measures as well as the unanimity principle for reaching decisions on harmfulness are outdated; regrets that several Member States are opposing a needed reform of the Code of Conduct Group; urges therefore the Member States to reform, as soon as possible, the criteria and governance aspects of the Code of Conduct Group, in order to increase its transparency, effectiveness and accountability and ensure the strong involvement of Parliament;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 425 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)
34a. Notes that a pattern of systematic obstruction by some Member States in achieving any progress on fighting tax avoidance became clear to the Special Committee; notes that discussions on administrative practices (rulings) were going on in the Code of Conduct for nearly two decades; condemns that several Member States were reluctant to agree on exchanging information about their ruling practices before Luxleaks and are still reluctant to implement in national law the model instruction developed in the Code of Conduct Group despite their commitments after the Luxleaks revelations;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 426 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 b (new)
34b. Concludes that, therefore, Member States violated their obligation for sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union and that the Commission was aware of the non- compliance of certain Member States with the principle of sincere cooperation; stresses that the violation of Union law by Member States as well as non-action of the Commission against the violation of Union law by Member States need a follow-up;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 427 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 c (new)
34c. Calls on the Commission to grant Parliament permanent, timely and regular access to the room documents and minutes of the Council groups working on tax matters, including the Code of Conduct on Business Taxation, the High Level Working Group and the Working Party on Tax Questions; suggests to the Commission to use the agreement reached with the Parliament on access to SSM/ECB minutes as an example for that purpose;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 434 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
35. Calls on the Commission, in case of an unsatisfactory response on the part of the Member States, to present a legislative proposal under Article 116 of TFEU to incorporate the Code of Conduct Group into the Community method;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 472 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
40. Calls on the Union, the G20, the OECD and the UN to cooperate further to promote global guidelines that will also be beneficial to developing countries; calls on the Commission and Member States to support the creation of a Global Tax Body under the auspices of the UN, as recommended by the Parliament in a resolution in July 2015;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 480 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
41. Calls on the Commission to include in all trade and partnership agreements good governance clauses, including an effective and comprehensive implementation of BEPS measures and global automatic exchange of information standardand ensure that trade and partnership agreements cannot be misused by companies or intermediaries to avoid and evade taxes or launder revenues from illegal activities;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 483 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
42. Calls on the OECDinternational instances to start working on an ambitious BEPS II project, to be based primarily on minimum standards and concrete objectives for implementation; calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure that all countries interested in participating is granted participation on equal footing in all phases of the project;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 488 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
43. Calls, in this regard, for the creation of a parliamentary monitoring group at OECD level to observe and scrutinise the formulation and implementation of this initiative;deleted
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 496 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
44. Calls for the establishment of a Union public register of both legal and beneficial ownership, which would form the basis of a global initiative in this regard; stresses the vital role of institutions such as the OECD and the UN in this connection;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 506 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
46. Stresses the need for a comprehensive EU/US approach on the implementation of OECD standards and on beneficial ownership; stresses furthermore that good governance clauses and the full BEPS action plan should be included in the Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership (TTIP) in order to ensure a level playing field, create more value for society as a whole and combat tax fraud and avoidance;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 517 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
47. Calls on all national parliaments to work together to ensure proper control and coherence of tax systems between Member States; calls for national parliaments to remain vigilant as to the decisions of their governments in this matter and to increase their own commitment to the work of interparliamentary forums on tax matters; regrets that its Special Committee could not invite former or current Ministers of Finance, as done for the Special Committee TAXE, especially Mr Juncker as former Minister of Finance of Luxembourg and Mr Dijsselbloem as current Minister of Finance of the Netherlands; calls on the Parliament to create a sub-committee on taxation within its economic and monetary affairs committee to ensure proper follow-up of TAXE and TAX2's recommendations;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 519 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 a (new)
47a. Calls on the Commission to investigate all cases of illegal state aid brought to its attention in order to ensure equality of treatment before the law in the Union; calls on the Commission to issue decision with recovery in all cases where the alleged tax advantage is considered illegal state aid; is concerned by allegations that Luxembourg could be granting oral rulings in order to circumvent its obligation to share information under the directive on administrative cooperation; calls on the Commission to carefully monitor and report whether Member States are replacing one harmful practice by another after legislative progress has been achieved in the Union; calls on the Commission to monitor and report any case of market distortion due to the granting of specific tax advantage;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 525 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
48. Regrets deeply that the timeframe for the present report has not allowed for a thorough examination of the 'Panama Papers' case; stresswelcomes the Eurgent need for a full and proper follow-up by Parliament in this regardopean Parliament decision to set-up an inquiry committee in this regard and to continue working on tax evasion, tax avoidance and money laundering; underlines the immense political importance of analysing the modus operandi of the companies and private citizens involved with the Panama papers scandal with a view to tackling legislative loopholes;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 528 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
49. Notes that the Panama Papers scandal has documented systematic use of shell companies by private citizens in order to conceal taxable assets, although this specific issue could not be dealt with sufficiently within the mandate or timeframe of the Special Committee; is of the firm conviction that this subject must be addressed swiftly by Parliamentthe upcoming inquiry committee; is concerned that some Member States have very low requirements for the establishment of companies and calls, therefore, on the Commission to make proposals for minimum standards for the establishment of companies; calls on the Commission to withdraw its proposal on single-member private limited liability companies;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 533 #

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
50. Notes, that further work is needed on access to documents of the Member States, the Commission and the Code of Conduct Group; reiterates that further analysis of the documents already made available to Parliament is needed in order to adequately gauge the need for further political action and policy initiatives; calls on the upcoming inquiry committee to continue this work and adopt a different format to the Special Committee, which follows more closely an interrogative committee, such as the Public Accounts Committee in the UK;
2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2
Amendment 8 #

2016/2033(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Calls onUrges the Council - while acknowledging the progress made by the co-legislators in negotiations for the adoptionto include VAT in the scope of the Directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law (the ‘PIF Directive’) - to renew its effortsin order to find agreement on the matter by including VAT in the scope of that directivas soon as possible;
2016/06/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 19 #

2016/2033(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Deems it crucial to ensure the establishment of a single, strong and independent European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) that is able to investigate, prosecute and bring to court the perpetrators of criminal offences affecting the Union’s financial interests, as defined in the above-mentioned PIF Directive, and; insists on the need to empower the European Public Prosecutor's Office with clear competencies on VAT fraud; believes that any weaker solution would represent a cost to the Union budget.
2016/06/09
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 62 #

2016/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 36 a (new)
- having regard to its resolutions on the use of torture by the CIA, in particular the latest dated 8 June 2016,
2016/09/21
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 151 #

2016/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas acts of terrorism constitute one of the most serious violations of fundamental rights and freedoms; whereas it is necessary to have adequate tools in place to protect EU citizens and residents and to respond properly to such violations within the framework of the rule of law and fundamental rights;
2016/09/21
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 423 #

2016/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the Commission initiatives to strengthen security cooperation between Member States and fully supports allcertain proposed measures to pave the way towards an effective Security Union, in particular the directive on combatting terrorism; stresses the importance of fully respecting the rule of law and fundamental rights in the fight against terrorism, in particular the freedom of movement, the freedom of expression and communication, as well as the right to data protection and privacy; insists on the need for democratic and judicial oversight of counter-terrorism; stresses that measures that in retrospect were not necessary, effective or proportionate need to be repealed, violations of fundamental rights investigated and redressed and new forms of democratic scrutiny developed; insists on the inclusion of sunset or periodic reauthorisation clauses in such measures and agreements; rejects the use of national security as a pretext to undermine fundamental rights;
2016/09/21
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 451 #

2016/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Believes that a European early warning and responsive system should be set up to identify groupindividuals that are at high risk of radicalisation; calls on the EU and the Member States to make greater efforts to prevent radicalisation via the Internet and social media, in particular among young people, and to assist the families of those who are at risk; encouragesregrets that Member States to exchange best pdo not use existing instruments of cooperation at their full extent; stresses that a closer cross-border cooperactices and to use intelligence-sharing mechanismson among the competent national and European authorities is needed with regard to exchange of information in order to fight terrorist networks more efficiently;
2016/09/21
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 459 #

2016/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Believes that a comprehensive policy to prevent the radicalisation and recruitment of citizens of the Union by terrorist organisations can only be successful if accompanied by long-term proactive de-radicalisation processes in the judicial sphere; stresses the need to develop strategies on social inclusion, education, employment and housing and policies tackling discrimination and exclusion in order to prevent vulnerable individuals from joining violent extremist organisations;
2016/09/21
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 467 #

2016/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Reiterates its resolve to ensure accountability for massive violations of fundamental rights, in particular, in the context of transportation and illegal detention of prisoners in European countries by the CIA, by means of open and transparent investigations; calls for a protection of those revealing such violations, such as journalists and whistleblowers;
2016/09/21
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 471 #

2016/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Deplores the conditions in the prisons of numerous Member States; calls on the Commission to propose through legislative action minimum and enforceable standards which guarantee that the recommendations of the European Committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment (CPT) and the judgments of the ECtHR are implemented both in the context of pre-trial detention and criminal punishment;
2016/09/21
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 3 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
(1) Money laundering and the associated financing of terrorism and organised crime remain significant problems at the Union level, thus damaging the integrity, stability and reputation of the financial sector and threatening the internal security and the internal market of the Union. In order to tackle those urgent problems and also reinforce the application of Directive 2015/849/EU34, this Directive aims to tackle money laundering by means of criminal law, allowing for better cross- border cooperation between competent authorities. _________________ 34 Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p.73).
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 8 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
(6) Tax crimes relating to direct and indirect taxes should be included in the definition of criminal activity, in line with the revised FATF Recommendations. Given that different tax offences may in each Member State constitute a criminal activity punishable by means of the sanctions referred to in this Directive, definitions of tax crimes may diverge in national law. However no harmonisation of the definitions of tax crimes in Member States' national law is soughttax crimes should be understood as including at least tax fraud, aggravated tax fraud and tax evasion offences and any fraudulent behaviour involving concealment of income or profits or the organisation of one’s insolvency which aims at reducing or suppressing tax liability. The definitions of tax crimes should not include thresholds requiring the existence of a significant amount of unpaid taxes or the systematic use of fraudulent manoeuvres in national law.
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 13 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
(9) In order for money laundering to be an effective tool against organised crime, it should not be necessary to identify the specifics of the crime that generated the property, let alone require a prior or simultaneous conviction for that crime. Prosecutions for money laundering should also not be impeded by the mere fact that the predicate offence was committed in another Member State or third country, provided it is a criminal offence in that Member State or third country. Member States mayshould also be able to establish as a prerequisite the fact that the predicate offencelevant conduct would have been a crimpredicate offence in its national law, had it been committed there. However, insofar as the relevant conduct constitutes terrorism, organised crime, corruption, trafficking in human beings, environmental crimes, sexual exploitation or tax crimes, Member States should not require that the relevant conduct be a criminal offence in the Member State or country where that conduct took place.
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 16 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
(11) In order to deter money laundering throughout the Union, Member States should lay down minimum types and levels of penalties when the criminal offences defined in this Directive are committed. WMinimum types and levels of penalties should also be laid down with respect to inciting, aiding and abetting the commission of such criminal offences. Member States should provide for aggravating circumstances in accordance with the applicable rules established by their legal systems, in the following circumstances: where the offence is committed within a criminal organisation within the meaning of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA37 8 or; where the perpetrator abused their professional position to enable money laundering, Member States should provide for aggravating circumstances in accordance with the applicable rules established by their legal systems; where the money or property being laundered is derived from terrorist activities as defined in Directive 2017/541 or illicit arms trafficking; or where the offender is a Politically Exposed Person as defined by Directive 2015/849 or involved in corruption of elected officials. Member States should calculate the amount of fines in accordance with the gross principle, i.e. based on the profit stemming from the criminal action without deducting any costs incurred, so as to ensure that the sanction is higher than the economic value of the crime. _________________ 37 Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime, (OJ L 300, 11.11.2008, p. 42)
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 23 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point p a (new)
(pa) tax crimes relating to direct taxes and indirect taxes, including evading taxes by concealing income, earned either legally or illegally, from detection and collection by the tax authorities;
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 24 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point v
(v) all offences, including tax crimes relating to direct taxes and indirect taxes as defined in the national law of the Member States, which are punishable by deprivation of liberty or a detention order for a maximum of more than one year or, as regards Member States that have a minimum threshold for offences in their legal system, all offences punishable by deprivation of liberty or a detention order for a minimum of more than six months;
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 26 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the acquisition, possession or use of property, knowing at the time of receipt, that such property was derived from criminal activity or from an act of participation in such an activity.
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 29 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) whether the criminal activity that generated the property was carried out in the territory of another Member State or in that of a third country, when the relevant conduct iswould constitute a criminal offenceactivity under the national law of the Member State or the thirimplementing or applying this Article had it been carried country where the conduct was committed and would bet there. Member States may, however, require that the relevant conduct, insofar as it does not fall within the categories referred to in Article 2, paragraph 1, points (a), (b), (c), (d), (h) (l) and (pa), constitutes a criminal offence under the national law of the other Member State implementing or applying this Article had it been committed there; or of that of the third country;
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 30 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
(ca) whether the criminal activity that generated the property was carried out in the territory of a third country mentioned in the list of countries at high risk of money laundering as referred to in Directive 2015/849, when the relevant conduct would constitute a criminal activity under the national law of the Member State implementing or applying this Article had it been carried out there;
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 35 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall ensure that the conduct referred to in Articles 3 and 4 shall be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties, including criminal or non- criminal fines, based on the gross value of the total amount stemming from criminal activity.
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 37 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. Each Member State shall ensure that the offences referred to in Article 3 shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least fourive years, at least in serious cases.
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 42 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Each Member State shall ensure that the offences referred to in Article 4 shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least three years.
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 43 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Each Member State shall ensure that the offences referred to in Article 3 and 4 may also be punishable, at the judge’s discretion, by complementary, temporary or permanent sanctions including: (a) a ban on entering into contracts with public authorities; (b) a disqualification from the practice of certain commercial activities; and (c) a ban to run for elected offices.
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 44 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) the money or property being laundered is derived from terrorist activities as defined in Directive 2017/541 or illicit arms trafficking;
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 46 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b b (new)
(bb) the offender is a Politically Exposed Person as defined by Directive 2015/849 or involving corruption of elected officials;
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 51 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Each Member State shall ensure that a legal person held liable for offences pursuant to Article 67 shall be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, which shall include criminal or non-criminal fines and may include other, based on the gross value of the total amount stemming from criminal activity, and may, at the judge’s discretion, include other temporary or permanent sanctions, such asincluding:
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 54 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)
(1a) the exclusion of that person from entitlement to Union funds;
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 55 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point 1 b (new)
(1b) a ban on entering into contracts with public authorities;
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 57 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the offence is committed in whole or in part in its territory or;
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 58 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the offender is one of its nationals. or;
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 59 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 are committed outside its territory but the offender is a habitual resident in its territory or;
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 60 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b b (new)
(bb) the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 are committed outside its territory but the offence is committed for the benefit of a legal person established in its territory.
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 61 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. When an offence falls within the jurisdiction of more than one Member State and when any of the Member States concerned can validly prosecute on the basis of the same facts, Member States shall take into account the following factors, listed in order of priority, to decide which of them will prosecute the offenders: (a) the territory of the Member State where the offence was committed; (b) the nationality or residency of the offender; (c) the country of origin of the victims; (d) the territory of the Member State where the offender was found.
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 62 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Member States may have recourse to Eurojust in order to facilitate cooperation between their judicial authorities and the coordination of their action.
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 63 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. A Member State shall inform the Commission where it decides to establish further jurisdiction over the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 committed outside its territory where: (a) the offender is a habitual resident in its territory; (b) the offence is committed for the benefit of a legal person established in its territory.deleted
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 64 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – title
Investigative tools and cooperation
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 66 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall ensure that effective investigative tools, such as those used in countering organised crime or other serious crimes are available to persons, units or services responsible for investigating or prosecuting the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4.
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 67 #

2016/0414(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Each Member State shall ensure that adequate and sufficient human and financial resources, as well as trainings are allocated to investigate and prosecute the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4.
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 68 #

2016/0414(COD)

1b. Each Member State shall ensure that their national authorities investigating or prosecuting offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 are empowered to cooperate with other national authorities and their counterparts in other Member States.
2017/09/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 84 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 a (new)
(2a) Criminals smuggle cash in the Union but there are no clear estimates on the scale and value of sums smuggled across borders. Responsibility for detecting, recording and investigating cash movements is fragmented among Member States and national authorities may face legal barriers preventing customs from controlling or reporting on cash movements leaving or entering the EU. Some high value bearer instruments other than cash, such as gold, diamonds, pre-paid cards, digital wallets, bearer shares etc. are rarely reported on, due to the difficulty of detecting them or because they currently fall outside of the scope of cash regulations for most member states.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 87 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
(6) Directive (EU) 2015/849 identifies and describes a number of criminal activities the proceeds of which may be subject to money laundering or used for the financing of terrorism. Often, the proceeds of those criminal activities are, for the purpose of their being laundered or used for terrorism financing, transported across the external border of the Union. This Regulation should take this into account and lay down a system of rules that, apart from contributing to the prevention of money laundering including predicate offences such as tax crimes, and terrorism financing as such, facilitate the detection and investigation of the criminal activities identified in Directive (EU) 2015/849.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 91 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
(11) Considering their presence at the external borders of the Union, their expertise in carrying out controls on passengers and freight crossing the external border and experience gained in the application of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005, customs authorities should continue to act as the competent authorities for the purposes of this Regulation. At the same time, the Member States should continue to be able also to designate other national authorities present at the external border to act as competent authorities. Resources from custom authorities and other national authorities should receive specific training on how to identify cash- based money laundering and Member States should allocate resources according to a risk analysis, and not disregard necessary controls of private aircrafts and yachts entering and leaving their territories.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 120 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
(23) Considering that the movements of cash that are subject to controls under this Regulation take place across the external border, and given the difficulty of acting once the cash has left the point of entry or exit and the associated risk if even small amounts are used illicitly, the competent authorities should be able to seize and retain cash temporarily in certain circumstances, subject to checks and balances: first, where the obligation to declare or to disclose has not been met and, secondly, where there are indications of criminal activity, irrespective of the amount or whether the cash is carried by a natural person or is unaccompanied. In view of the nature of such temporary seizure and retention and the impact that it may have on the freedom of movement and the right to property, the period of retention should be limited to the absolute minimum time that other competent authorities require to determine whether there are grounds for further intervention, such as investigations or seizure of the cash based on other legal instruments. Also, natural persons impacted by the temporary seizure and retention of their cash should be offered the possibility to keep a minimum amount of cash, where possible given the type of cash seized and retained, in order to be able to afford food, water and shelter. A decision to retain cash temporarily under this Regulation should be accompanied by a statement of reasons and adequately describe the specific factors that have given rise to the action. If at the end of the time limit no decision concerning the further intervention is taken or if the competent authority decides that there are no grounds to further retain the cash, it should immediately be made available to the declarant.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 121 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
(24) It is essential that competent authorities that collect information pursuant to this Regulation transmit it in a timely manner to the national Financial Intelligence Unit, in order to enable it to further analyse and compare them with other data as foreseen in Directive 2015/849 [. In addition, the creation of a European Financial Intelligence Unit would help to ensure efficient exchange of information and to improve coordination and cooperation between competent authorities across the Union.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 125 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
(28) For the purposes of the analysis carried out by the Financial Intelligence Units and in order to enable authorities in other Member States to control and enforce the obligation to declare, particularly with respect to declarants who have previously committed infractions against that obligation it is necessary that the declaration data is stored for a sufficiently long period so as to enable the competent authorities to effectively conduct investigations. Processing of personal data under this Regulation serves the same purposes as that under Directive (EU) 2015/849. Under this Directive, the Financial Intelligence Units retain data provided to them by "obliged entities" for five years. In order to control and enforce the obligation to declare effectively, the period of retention of declaration data should be aligned with that provided for under Directive (EU) 2015/849In line with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, such as Opinion 1/15 of 26 July 2017 on the EU-Canada PNR, a distinction should be made between personal data of suspicious persons and personal data of non-suspicious persons. When there is no suspicion that the cash may be linked to criminal activity after a risk analysis, personal data should not be kept for more than one year. When there is such a suspicion, personal data should be retained for up to three years to allow proper criminal investigations.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 132 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30 a (new)
(30a) In order to ensure their uniform application by competent authorities, controls should be based primarily on a risk analysis, with the purpose of identifying and evaluating the risks and developing the necessary countermeasures, and should be performed within a common risk management framework, as defined in Regulation (EU) No952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, which should take into account the risk assessment analysis carried out under Directive (EU) 2015/849. The Commission should be empowered to adopt, by means of delegated acts, the definition of the criteria of this common risk management framework.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 135 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31 a (new)
(31a) In order to remedy the current situation whereby many travellers are not aware of their obligation to declare cash, the Commission, in cooperation with Member States, should launch regular information campaigns directed towards EU citizens and third country nationals as well as legal persons. The Commission should also make available information related to competent authorities and penalties in place at the level of Member States on its website.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 149 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) 'bearer-negotiable instrument' means an instrument other than currency which entitles its holder to claim a financial amount upon presentation of the instrument without having to prove his/her identity or entitlement to that amount;
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 165 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. The information shall be provided in writing or electronically using the form laid down pursuant to Article 15(a). An endorsed copy shall be delivered to the declarant upon request.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 176 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The information shall be provided in writing or electronically using the form laid down pursuant to Article 15(a). An endorsed copy shall be delivered to the declarant upon request.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 183 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. The controls shall be based primarily on risk analysis, with the purpose of identifying and evaluating the risks and developing the necessary counter- measures, and shall be performed within a common risk management framework in accordance with the criteria laid down in a delegated act pursuant to Article 15(b). 4. This shall not prevent competent authorities to proceed with spontaneous controls or controls based on specific information obtained by another authority. Competent authorities shall be equipped with adequate control tools, such as possible card readers in the case of pre-paid cards to ascertain the sums being effectively carried.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 185 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. The powers conferred on the competent authorities by this Article shall also extend to Article 6.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 192 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. When implementing paragraph 1, the competent authorities shall, where possible, allow natural persons to keep a minimum amount of cash with them for purposes such as covering subsistence expenses. Such minimum amount of cash shall be defined according to national law, taking into account the minimum income in the Member State where the cash is retained.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 195 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. The period of temporary retention shall be strictly limited to the time required for competent authorities to determine whether the circumstances of the case warrant further retention. The maximum period of temporary retention shall be laid down by national law; it mayshall not be longer than 30 days. If no determination is made regarding further retention of the cash within that period or if a determination is made that the circumstances of the case do not warrant further retention, the cash shall immediately be made available to the declarant or the person affected.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 200 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be communicated as soon as possible, and no later than one monthby electronic means and no later than three working days after the date on which it was collected.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 205 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. Where there are indications that the cash is related to criminal activity which could adversely affect the financial interests of the Union, the information referred to in paragraph 1 shall also be transmitted to the Commission, OLAF, Eurojust, Europol and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 211 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4
4. The information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be communicated as soon as possible, and no later than one monththree working days after the date on which it was collected.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 215 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. The competent authorities shall act as controllers of the personal data they obtained in accordance with Articles 3, 4, 5(3) and 6.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 216 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. The processing of personal data on the basis of this Regulation shall take place only for the purposes of the prevention and fight against criminal activities. , investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties. This processing falls under the scope of Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 217 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3
3. The personal data obtained in accordance with Articles 3, 4, 5(3) and 6 shall be accessed only by duly authorised staff of the competent authorities and be adequately protected against unauthorized access or communication. Unless otherwise provided for in Articles 8, 9 and 10, it may not be disclosed or communicated without the express authorisation of the competent authority which originally obtained the information. However, that authorisation shall not be necessary where the competent authorities are required to disclose or communicate that information pursuant to legal provisions in force in the Member State in question, particularly in connection with legal proceedings.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 218 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4
4. Personal data obtained in accordance with Articles 3, 4 and 6 shall be stored by the competent authorities and the Financial Intelligence Unit for a period of fivup to one years after the date on which it was collected. At the expiry of this period it shall be, the personal data obtained shall be automatically deleted, or rendered anonymous only for the purpose of providing anonymised statistical information pursuant to Article 15(e).
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 221 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. If there are indications that the cash is related to a criminal activity, personal data obtained in accordance with Articles 3, 4, 5(3) and 6 shall be stored by the competent authorities and the Financial Intelligence Unit for a period of up to three years after the date on which it was collected. At the expiry of this period, the personal data obtained shall be automatically deleted, or rendered anonymous only for the purpose of providing anonymised statistical information pursuant to Article 15(e).
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 222 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Member States may allow further retention that shall not exceed three additional years, after having carried out a thorough assessment of the necessity and proportionality of such further retention and consider it to be justified and necessary for the fulfilment of their tasks and investigations with respect to the fight against money laundering or terrorist financing and the Financial Intelligence Unit determines that further retention is required.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 237 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the criteria of the common risk management framework referred to in Article 5(4);deleted
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 244 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
The information referred to in point (c) of paragraph 1 shall be provided to the Commission at least every six months. The Commission shall publish an annual report on the statistical information to estimate the scale and sums of smuggled cash.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 245 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The Commission shall publish the information referred to in paragraph 1a and 1b on its website and inform readers, in a clear way, about the controls with respect to cash entering or leaving the Union.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 246 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 a (new)
Article 17a Information campaigns At the start of application of this Regulation, the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States and the European Data Protection Supervisor, shall carry out a campaign informing EU citizens and third-country nationals, as well as legal persons, about the objectives of this Regulation, the obligations under Articles 3 and 4, the data stored, the list of competent authorities, the possibility for temporary retention under Article 7, the penalties introduced pursuant to Article 13 and the rights to an effective remedy. The Commission and Member States shall repeat such campaigns regularly. Member States shall devise and implement the necessary policies to inform their citizens and residents about this Regulation. Member States shall ensure that sufficient funding is made available for such information policies.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 248 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1
The Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the application of this Regulation fivthree years after its entry into force and every five years thereafterthree years thereafter. That report shall evaluate whether the disclosure procedure for unaccompanied cash fits the purpose or whether the introduction of a mandatory declaration would be a more viable option and shall present, if appropriate, a legislative proposal. It shall also evaluate whether other assets should be included within the scope of this Regulation.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 250 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 a (new)
Article 18a European Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) By end of 2019, the Commission shall present a legislative proposal to create a European Financial Intelligence Unit that will facilitate coordination, including the exchange of information between FIUs within the Union, and generally assist and support Member Sates’ FIUs. This European Unit shall be empowered to assist national FIUs in joint analysis of cross border cases and produce its own case analysis and coordinate the work of Member States FIUs for cross border cases.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 259 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) other precious metals, including iridium, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhodium, ruthenium, or silver, having a level of purity of 500 or more parts per thousand; and an alloy containing 500 or more parts per thousand, in the aggregate, of two or more of the metals listed above;
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 260 #

2016/0413(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point 2 – point b b (new)
(bb) precious stones, including substances with gem quality market- recognised beauty, rarity, and value, and including diamond, corundum(including rubies and sapphires), beryl (including emeralds and aquamarines), chrysoberyl, spinel, topaz, zircon, tourmaline, garnet, crystalline and cryptocrystalline quartz, olivine peridot, tanzanite, jadeite jade, nephritejade, spodumene, feldspar, turquoise, lapis lazuli, opal or natural pearls.
2017/10/26
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 32 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
(12) It is important to facilitate the mutual recognition and execution of orders to freeze and to confiscate property by establishing rules obliging a Member State to recognise and execute in its territory freezing and confiscation orders issued by another Member State within the framework of criminal proceedingsand administrative proceedings in relation to criminal activities. Some Member States and third country jurisdictions have national provisions allowing freezing and confiscation orders both within and outside the framework of 'criminal proceedings' in the strict sense of the word.
2017/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 34 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
(13) This Regulation should apply to all confiscation orders imposed by a court or by a competent authority following proceedings in relation to a criminal offenceactivities and all freezing orders issued with a view to possible subsequent confiscation. It should therefore cover all types of orders covered by Directive 2014/42/EU, as well as other types of orders issued without final conviction within the framework of criminal proceedings. This Regulation should not apply to freezing and confiscation orders issued within the framework of civil proceedings or administrative proceedings not related to criminal activities.
2017/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 35 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
(14) This Regulation should cover confiscation and freezing orders related to offences covered by Directive 2014/42/EU, as well as orders related to other offences. The offences should therefore not be limited to the areas of particularly serious crimes with a cross-border dimension, as Article 82 TFEU does not require such limitation for measures laying down rules and procedures for ensuring mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters. Tax fraud, aggravated tax fraud and tax evasion, for example, constitute particularly important cross-border offences which should be included in the list of offences covered by this Regulation. However, given that in certain Member States such offences are not punishable by a custodial sentence of a maximum of at least three years, the maximum custodial sentence should be lowered to two years for those specific offences.
2017/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 36 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
(18) This Regulation should be applied taking into account Directives 2010/64/EU30 , 2012/13/EU31 , 2013/48/EU32 , 2016/34333 , 2016/80034 and 2016/1919 of the European Parliament and of the Council35 , which concern procedural rights in criminal proceedings. Where non-conviction based confiscations constitute preventive confiscations following proceedings in relation to criminal activities, it is extremely important to ensure that the following strict conditions are met: non- conviction based confiscations should only be imposed against a finite list of possible targets identified by law, such as suspects of organised crime or of terrorism; the prosecution should prove that the property provenance cannot be justified and that the property to be confiscated is either disproportionate with regard to the declared income or the activity carried out or is of illicit origin or the result of reinvestment of the proceeds of crime; and effective procedural safeguards should be in place in order to ensure that the targets of non-conviction based confiscations have the right to a fair trial and the right to an effective remedy and that their presumption of innocence is respected. _________________ 30 Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (OJ L 280, 26.10.2010, p. 1). 31 Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ L 142, 1.6.2012, p. 1). 32 Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty (OJ L 294, 6.11.2013, p. 1). 33 Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ L 65, 11.3.2016, p. 1). 34 Directive (EU) 2016/800 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings (OJ L 132, 21.5.2016, p. 1). 35 Directive (EU) 2016/1919 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings (OJ L 297, 4.11.2016, p.1).
2017/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 41 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1
(1) ‘confiscation order’ means a final penalty or measure imposed by a court or a competent authority following proceedings in relation to a criminal offenceactivities, resulting in the final deprivation of property from a natural or legal person;
2017/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 43 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
(4) 'proceeds' means any economic advantage derived directly or indirectly from a criminal offenceactivity; it may consist of any form of property and includes any subsequent reinvestment or transformation of direct proceeds and any valuable benefits;
2017/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 45 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5
(5) 'instrumentalities' means any property used or intended to be used, in any manner, wholly or in part, to commit a criminal offence or criminal offencactivities ;
2017/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 47 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6
(6) 'issuing State' means the Member State in which a freezing order or a confiscation order is issued within the framework of criminal and administrative proceedings;
2017/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 49 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a – point 2
(2) any other competent authority as defined by the issuing State which has competence in criminal or administrative proceedings to order the freezing of property or to execute a freezing order in accordance with national law. In addition, before it is transmitted to the executing authority the freezing order shall be validated, after examination of its conformity with the conditions for issuing such an order under this Regulation, in particular the conditions set out in Article 13(1), by a judge, court, investigating judge or a public prosecutor in the issuing State. Where the order has been validated by such an authority, that authority may also be regarded as an issuing authority for the purposes of transmission of the order;
2017/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 51 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b
(b) in respect of a confiscation order, a competent authority as defined by the issuing State which, in criminal or administrative proceedings, has competence to enforce a confiscation order issued by a court in accordance with national law;
2017/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 55 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. A freezing order or confiscation order shall give rise to execution without verification of the double criminality of the acts if the acts giving rise to the freezing or confiscation order constitute one or more of the following offences, as defined by the law of the issuing State, and are punishable in the issuing State by a custodial sentence of a maximum of at least two years: – tax fraud, – aggravated tax fraud, – tax evasion.
2017/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 57 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point f
(f) if, in a case referred to in Article 3(2), the conduct on which the confiscation order is based does not constitute an offence under the law of the executing State; however, in relation to taxes or duties, customs and exchange, execution of the confiscation order shall not be refused on the ground that the law of the executing State does not impose the same kind of tax or duty or does not contain the same type of rules or offences as regards taxes, duties and customs and exchange regulations as the law of the issuing State;
2017/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 58 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. In the cases referred to in paragraph 1, before deciding not to recognise and execute the confiscation order, either in whole or in part, the executing authority shall consult the issuing authority by any appropriate means capable of producing a written record and shall, where appropriate, request the issuing authority to supply any necessary information without delay.
2017/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 71 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) if the amount obtained from the execution of the confiscation order is more than EUR 10 000, 50 %EUR 10 000 shall accrue to the executing State and the rest of the amount shall be transferred by the executing State to the issuing State.
2017/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 80 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
(14) This Regulation should cover confiscation and freezing orders related to offences covered by Directive 2014/42/EU, as well as orders related to other offences. The offences should therefore not be limited to the areas of particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension, as Article 82 TFEU does not require such limitation for measures laying down rules and procedures for ensuring mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters. Tax crimes for example constitute particularly important cross-border offences to include in the list of offences covered by this Regulation, but given that some countries do not punish them by a maximum of at least three years imprisonment, the threshold is being lowered to two years for these specific offences.
2017/10/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 81 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall regularly collect and maintain comprehensive statistics from the relevant authorities. The statistics collected shall be sent to the Commission each yearvery six months and shall include, in addition to those foreseen in Article 11(2) of Directive 2014/42/EU:
2017/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 82 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The Commission shall submit an annual report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee compiling statistics received and accompanied with comparative analysis.
2017/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 83 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph -1 (new)
-1 By ... (one year from the date of application of this Regulation) at the latest, the Commission shall submit an assessment to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the statistics and impact of preventive confiscation orders and the consequences on cross-border cooperation in case of the extension of such orders to all Member States.
2017/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 84 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 1
2. By [fivthree years from the date of application of this Regulation] at the latest, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the application of this Regulation. If necessary, the report shall be accompanied by proposals for adaptation of this Regulation.
2017/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 84 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
(20) To this end, freezing and confiscation orders should be transmitted directly by the issuing authority to the executing authority or, where applicable, to a central authorityand communicated to a central authority responsible for assisting the competent authorities, logging the freezing or confiscation orders transmitted and received at the national level and streamlining the transmission and reception of orders.
2017/10/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 85 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – section 8 – point 3 a (new)
3a. Is the offence for which the confiscation order is issued punishable in the issuing State by a custodial sentence or detention order of a maximum of at least two years as defined by the law of the issuing State and included in the list of offences set out below? (please tick the relevant box) - tax fraud, - aggravated tax fraud, - tax evasion.
2017/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 87 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
(26) The recognition and execution of a freezing order or a confiscation order should not be refused on grounds other than those stated in this Regulation. In particular, it should be possible for the executing authority not to recognise and execute a confiscation order on the basis of fundamental rights, the principle ne bis in idem, of the rights of any interested party, or of the right to be present at the trial.
2017/10/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 143 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. A freezing order or confiscation order shall give rise to execution without verification of the double criminality of the acts if the acts giving rise to the freezing or confiscation order constitute tax fraud, aggravated tax fraud and tax evasion, as defined by the law of the issuing State, and are punishable in the issuing State by a custodial sentence of a maximum of at least two years.
2017/10/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 144 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. A confiscation order, or a certified copy of it, shall be transmitted together with the certificate provided for in Article 7 by the issuing authority directly to the executing authority or, where applicable,and communicated to the central authority referred to in Article 27(2) by any means capable of producing a written record under conditions allowing the executing authority to establish authenticity.
2017/10/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 159 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) there are substantial grounds to believe that the execution of the confiscation order would be incompatible with the executing State's obligations in accordance with Article 6 TEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
2017/10/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 164 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point f
(f) if, in a case referred to in Article 3(2), the conduct on which the confiscation order is based does not constitute an offence under the law of the executing State; however, in relation to taxes or duties, customs and exchange, execution of the confiscation order shall not be refused on the ground that the law of the executing State does not impose the same kind of tax or duty or does not contain the same type of rules or offences as regards taxes, duties and customs and exchange regulations as the law of the issuing State;
2017/10/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 191 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. A freezing order shall be transmitted in the form referred to in Article 16 by the issuing authority directly to the executing authority, or where applicable and communicated to the central authority referred to in Article 27(2), by any means capable of producing a written record under conditions allowing the executing authority to establish authenticity.
2017/10/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 195 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1
The executing authority shall recognise a freezing order transmitted in accordance with Article 14 without further formalities and shall take the necessary measures to execute it unless that authority decides to invoke one of the grounds for non- recognition and non-execution provided for in Article 18 or one of the grounds for postponement provided for in Article 20. As soon as the execution of the order has been completed, the executing authority shall inform the issuing authority by any means capable of producing a written record.
2017/10/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 199 #

2016/0412(COD)

(aa) there are substantial grounds to believe that the execution of the freezing order would be incompatible with the executing State's obligations in accordance with Article 6 TEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
2017/10/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 201 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) in a case referred to in Article 3(2), the conduct on which the freezing order is based does not constitute an offence under the law of the executing State; however, in relation to taxes or duties, customs and exchange, execution of the freezing order shall not be refused on the grounds that the law of the executing State does not impose the same kind of tax or duty or does not contain the same type of rules or offences as regards taxes, duties and customs and exchange regulations as the law of the issuing State;
2017/10/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 221 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2
2. The notification shall contain information, at least briefly, on the reasons of the freezing order, on the authority who issued the order and on the existing legal remedies under the national law of the executing State.
2017/10/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 235 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 2
2. Each Member State mayshall designate, if it is one cessary as a result of the organntral authority responsible for assisation of its internal system, one or more central authorities responsible for the administrativng the competent authorities, logging all freezing and confiscation orders transmitted and received at the national level and streamlining the transmission and reception of the freezing orand confiscation orders and to assist the competent authorities. The Member States shall inform the Commission thereof.
2017/10/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 237 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 2
2. All communications, including those intended to deal with difficulties concerning the transmission or authenticity of any document needed for the execution of the freezing or confiscation order, shall be made by direct contact between the issuing State and the executing authority involved or, where the Member State has designated aand with the involvement of the central authority in accordance with Article 27(2), with the involvement of that central authority.
2017/10/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 243 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) if the amount obtained from the execution of the confiscation order is more than EUR 10 000, 50 %EUR 10 000 shall accrue to the executing State and the rest of the amount shall be transferred by the executing State to the issuing State.
2017/10/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 260 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 2
2. The substantive reasons for issuing the freezing or confiscation order shall not be challenged before a court in the executing State, except in cases of an order issued without a final conviction within the framework of criminal proceedings.
2017/10/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 264 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Member States shall regularly collect and maintain comprehensive statistics from the relevant authorities and from the central authority pursuant to Article 27(2). The statistics collected shall be sent to the Commission each yearvery six months and shall include, in addition to those foreseen in Article 11(2) of Directive 2014/42/EU:
2017/10/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 265 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1 a (new)
The Commission shall submit an annual report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee compiling statistics received and accompanied by a comparative analysis.
2017/10/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 266 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – title
Reporting and review clause
2017/10/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 267 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 1
By [fivthree years from the date of application of this Regulation] at the latest, and every three years thereafter, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the application of this Regulation. The report shall include, among others, the following elements: (a) an overview of the statistics provided by Member States under Article 35; and (b) an assessment of the possible impact of cross-border freezing and confiscation orders on fundamental rights and freedoms and the rule of law. If necessary, the report shall be accompanied by proposals for adaptation of this Regulation.
2017/10/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 271 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – section 8 – point 3 a (new)
3a. Is the offence for which the confiscation order is issued punishable in the issuing State by a custodial sentence or detention order of a maximum of at least two years as defined by the law of the issuing State and included in the list of offences set out below? (please tick the relevant box) □ tax fraud, aggravated tax fraud and tax evasion;
2017/10/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 272 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – section 13 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Where a cCentral authority has been made responsible for the administrativresponsible for assisting the competent authorities, logging all confiscation orders transmitted and received at the national level and streamlining the transmission and reception of the confiscation orders in the issuing Stateaccordance with Article 27(2):
2017/10/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 273 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – section 9 – point 3 a (new)
3a. Is the offence for which the freezing order is issued punishable in the issuing State by a custodial sentence or detention order of a maximum of at least two years as defined by the law of the issuing State and included in the list of offences set out below? (please tick the relevant box) □ tax fraud, aggravated tax fraud and tax evasion;
2017/10/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 274 #

2016/0412(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – section 13 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Where a cCentral authority has been made responsible for the administrativresponsible for assisting the competent authorities, logging all freezing orders transmitted and received at the national level and streamlining the transmission and reception of the freezing orders in the issuing Stateaccordance with Article 27(2):
2017/10/27
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 169 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
(5) The fact that the legislative basis necessary for governing SIS consists of separate instruments does not affect the principle that SIS constitutes one single information system that should operate as such. Certain provisions of these instruments should therefore be identical, while other provisions should differ, in particular as regards the authorities authorised to access to the data contained into the SIS information system. The rules on the protection of personal data should be fully guaranteed, in particular the purpose limitation principle.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 172 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6 a (new)
(6 a) Competent authorities should be able to add in the SIS specific information relating to any specific, objective, physical characteristics of a person not subject to change. This information may relate to characteristics such as piercings, tattoos, marks, scars, etc. However, it should not reveal sensitive data of a person such as ethnicity, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation, as defined in Article 9 of the General Data Protection Regulation.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 176 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
(8) It is necessary to maintain a manual setting out the detailed rules for the exchange of certain supplementary information concerning the action called for by alerts. National authorities in each Member State (the SIRENE Bureaux), should ensure the immediate exchange of this information.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 178 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
(9) In order to maintain the efficient and immediate exchange of supplementary information concerning the action to be taken specified in the alerts, it is appropriate to reinforce the functioning of the SIRENE Bureaux by specifying the requirements concerning the available resources, user training and the response time to the inquiries received from other SIRENE Bureaux.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 182 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
(15) SIS should permit the processing of biometric data in order to assist in the reliable identification of the individuals concerned. In the same perspective, SIS should also allow for the processing of data concerning individuals whose identity has been misused (in order to avoid inconveniences caused by their misidentification), subject to suitable safeguards; in particular with the consent of the individual concerned and a strict limitation of the purposes for which such data can be lawfully processed.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 189 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) This Regulation should set out the conditions for use of dactylographic data and facial images for identification purposes. The use of facial images for identification purposes in SIS should also help to ensure consistency in border control procedures where the identification and the verification of identity are required by the use of fingerprints and facial images. Searching with dactylographic data should be mandatory if there is anyserious doubt concerning the identity of a person. Facial images for identification purposes should only be used in the context of regular border controls in self-service kiosks and electronic gates.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 191 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
(18) The introduction of an automated fingerprint identification service within SIS complements the existing Prüm mechanism on mutual cross-border online access to designated national DNA databases and automated fingerprint identification systems46 . The Prüm mechanism enables interconnectivity of national fingerprint identification systems whereby a Member State can launch a request to ascertain if the perpetrator of a crime whose fingerprints have been found, is known in any other Member State. The Prüm mechanism verifies if the owner of the fingerprints are known in one point in time therefore if the perpetrator becomes known in any of the Member States later on he or she will not necessarily be captured. The SIS fingerprint search allows an active search of the perpetrator. Therefore, it should be possible to upload the fingerprints of an unknown perpetrator into SIS, provided that the owner of the fingerprints can be identified to a high degree of probability as the perpetrator of a serious crime or act of terrorism. Such fingerprints should only be stored with the aim of identifying an unknown wanted person and his or her whereabouts; a verified match of these data does not constitute on its own a sufficient basis to take another action (e.g. taking into custody). Only after successful verification of the match, taking into account additional information or evidence and proper consultation with the Member State issuing the alert should the result be used for other actions. This is in particular the case if fingerprints are found on the weapon or on any object used for the offence. The mere presence of the fingerprints at the crime scene should not be considered as indicating a high degree of probability that the fingerprints are those of the perpetrator. A further precondition for the creation of such alert should be that the identity of the perpetrator cannot be established via any other national, European or international databases. Should such fingerprint search lead to a potential match the Member State should carry out further checks with their fingerprints, possibly with the involvement of fingerprint experts to establish whether he or she is the owner of the prints stored in SIS, and should establish the identity of the person. The procedures should be subject of national law. An identification as the owner of an "unknown wanted person" in SIS may substantially contribute to the investigation and it may lead to an arrest provided that all conditions for an arrest are met. _________________ 46 Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross- border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p.1); and Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 12).
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 199 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
(20) It should be possible to add a DNA profile in cases where dactylographic data are not available, and which should only be accessible to authorised users. DNA profiles should facilitate the identification of missing persons in need of protection and particularly missing children, including by allowing the use of DNA profiles of parents or siblings to enable identification. DNA data should not contain reference to racial origin.deleted
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 208 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
(23) SIS should contain alerts on missing persons to ensure their protection or to prevent threats to public security. Issuing an alert in SIS for children at risk of abduction (i.e. in order to prevent a future harm that has not yet taken place as, for example in the case of children who are at risk of parental abduction) should be limited, therefore it is appropriate to provide for strict and appropriate safeguards. In cases of children, these alerts and the corresponding procedures should serve the best interests of the child having regard to Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 211 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23 a (new)
(23 a) Assessing risk should be seen as integral to the investigation into the disappearance of a person and will indicate the seriousness and urgency of the case. The level of seriousness and urgency has to be established by competent authorities so one can decide whether or not to issue a preventive alert.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 212 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23 b (new)
(23 b) The level of risk to which a missing person is exposed must be understood and can be done by assessing their personal circumstances and the environment to which they are exposed. The two combined will indicate how significant the risk is. It is up to the competent authority to determine the level of risk and, based on the level of risk, whether or not to issue a preventive alert.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 215 #

2016/0409(COD)

(24) A new action should be included for cases of suspected terrorism and serious crime, allowing for a person who is suspected to have committed a serious crime or where there is a reason to believe that he or she will commit a serious crime, to be stopped and questioned in order to supply the most detailed information to the issuing Member State. This new action should not amount either to searching the person or to his or her arrest. It should supply, however, sufficient information to decide about further actions. Serious crime should be the offences listed in Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA.deleted
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 219 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
(29) Alerts should not be kept in SIS longer than the time required to fulfil the purposes for which they were issued. In order to reduce the administrative burden on the different authorities involved in processing data on individuals for different purposes, it is appropriate to align the retention period of alerts on persons with the retention periods envisaged for return and illegal stay purposes. Moreover, Member States regularly extend the expiry date of alerts on persons if the required action could not be taken within the original time period. Therefore, the retention period for alerts on persons should be a maximum of fivthree years. As a general principle, alerts on persons should be automatically deleted from SIS after a period of fivthree years, except for alerts issued for the purposes of discreet, and specific and inquiry checks. These should be deleted after one year. Alerts on objects entered for discreet checks, inquiry checks or specific checks should be automatically deleted from the SIS after a period of one year, as they are always related to persons. Alerts on objects for seizure or use as evidence in criminal proceedings should be automatically deleted from SIS after a period of five years, as after such a period the likelihood of finding them is very low and their economic value is significantly diminished. Alerts on issued and blank identification documents should be kept for 10 years, as the validity period of documents is 10 years at the time of issuance. Decisions to keep alerts on persons should be based on a comprehensive individual assessment. Member States should review alerts on persons within the defined period and keep statistics about the number of alerts on persons for which the retention period has been extended.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 224 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
(30) Entering and extending the expiry date of a SIS alert should be subject to the necessary proportionality requirement, examining whether a concrete case is adequate, relevant and important enough to insert an alert in SIS. Offences pursuant to Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism50 constitute a very serious threat to public security and integrity of life of individuals and to society, and these offences are extremely difficult to prevent, detect and investigate in an area without internal border controls where potential offenders circulate freely. Where a person or object is sought in relation to these offences, it is always necessary to create the corresponding alert in SIS on persons sought for a criminal judicial procedure, on persons or objects subject to a discreet, inquiry and specific check as well as on objects for seizure, as no other means would be as effective in relation to that purpose. _________________ 50 Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism (OJ L 164, 22.6.2002, p. 3).
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 227 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
(33) Data processed in SIS in application of this Regulation should not be transferred or made available to third countries or to international organisations. However, it is appropriate to strengthen cooperation between the European Union and Interpol by promoting an efficient exchange of passport data. Where personal data is transferred from SIS to Interpol, these personal data should be subject to an adequate level of protection, guaranteed by an agreement, providing strict safeguards and conditions.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 230 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
(35) For processing of data by competent national authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection of serious crime or terrorist offences, or prosecution of criminal offences and the execution of criminal penalties including the safeguarding against the prevention of threat to public security, national provisions transposing Directive (EU) 2016/680 should apply. The provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council52 and Directive (EU) 2016/680 should be further specified in this Regulation where necessary. _________________ 52Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 231 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
(37) The provisions of Directive (EU) 2016/680, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 should be further specified in this Regulation where necessary. With regard to processing of personal data by Europol, Regulation (EU) 2016/794 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement cooperation (Europol Regulation)54 applies. _________________ 54Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council Decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA (OJ L 135, 25.5.2016, p. 53).deleted
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 233 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
(38) The provisions of Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 200255 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime concerning data protection apply to the processing of SIS data by Eurojust, including the powers of the Joint Supervisory Body, set up under that Decision, to monitor the activities of Eurojust and liability for any unlawful processing of personal data by Eurojust. In cases when searches carried out by Eurojust in SIS reveal the existence of an alert issued by a Member State, Eurojust cannot take the required action. Therefore it should immediately inform the Member State concerned allowing it to follow up the case. _________________ 55 Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime (OJ L 63, 6.3.2002, p. 1).
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 236 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
(41) The national independent supervisory authorities should monitor the lawfulness of the processing of personal data by the Member States in relation to this Regulation. The rights of data subjects for access, rectification and erasure of their personal data stored in SIS, andas regards subsequent remedies before national courts as well as the mutual recognition of judgments should be set out. Therefore, it is appropriate to require annual statistics from Member States.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 241 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 45
(45) It is also necessary to set out clear rules for Europol on the processing and downloading of SIS data to allow the most comprehensive use of SIS provided that data protection standards are respected as provided in this Regulation and Regulation (EU) 2016/794under Union law. In cases where searches carried out by Europol in SIS reveal the existence of an alert issued by a Member State, Europol cannot take the required action. Therefore it should immediately inform the Member State concerned allowing it to follow up the case.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 244 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46
(46) Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council56 provides for the purpose of this Regulation, that the host Member State is to authorise the members of the European Border and Coast Guard teams or teams of staff involved in return-related tasks, deployed by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, to consult European databases, where this consultation is necessary for fulfilling operational aims specified in the operational plan on border checks, border surveillance and return. Other relevant Union agencies, in particular the European Asylum Support Office and Europol, may also deploy experts as part of migration management support teams, who are not members of the staff of those Union agencies. The objective of the deployment of the European Border and Coast Guard teams, teams of staff involved in return- related tasks and the migration management support team is to provide for technical and operational reinforcement to the requesting Member States, especially to those facing disproportionate migratory challenges. Fulfilling the tasks assigned to the European Border and Coast Guard teams, teams of staff involved in return- related tasks and the migration management support team necessitates access to SIS via a technical interface of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency connecting to Central SIS. In cases where searches carried out by the team or the teams of staff in SIS reveal the existence of an alert issued by a Member State, the member of the team or the staff cannot take the required action unless authorised to do so by the host Member State. Therefore it should inform the Member States concerned allowing for follow up of the case. _________________ 56 Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016 on the European Border and Coast Guard and amending Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC) No 863/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 and Council Decision 2005/267/EC (OJ L 251 of 16.9.2016, p. 1).
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 246 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 47
(47) In accordance with Commission proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS)57 the ETIAS Central Unit of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency will perform verifications in SIS via ETIAS in order to perform the assessment of the applications for travel authorisation which require, inter alia, to ascertain if the third country national applying for a travel authorisation is subject of a SIS alert. To this end the ETIAS Central Unit within the European Border and Coast Guard Agency should also have access to SIS to the extent necessary to carry out its mandate, namely to all alert categories on persons and alerts on blank and issued personal identification documents. _________________ 57deleted COM (2016)731 final.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 253 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) ‘alert’ means a set of data, including biometric identifiers as referred to in Article 22 and in Article 40, entered in SIS allowing the competent authorities to identify a person or an object with a view to taking specific action;
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 261 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point h
(h) ‘flag’ means a suspension of validity of an alert at the national level that may be added to alerts for arrest, alerts for missing persons and alerts for discreet, inquiry and specific checks, where a Member State considers that to give effect to an alert is incompatible with its national law, its international obligations or essential national interests. Where the alert is flagged, the requested action on the basis of the alert shall not be taken on the territory of this Member State.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 270 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. Supplementary information shall be exchanged in accordance with the provisions of the SIRENE Manual and using the Communication Infrastructure. Member States shall provide the necessary technical and personal resources to ensure the continuous availability and immediate exchange of supplementary information. In the event that the Communication Infrastructure is unavailable, Member States may use other adequately secured technical means to timely exchange supplementary information.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 274 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3
3. The SIRENE Bureaux shall carry out their task in a quick and efficient manner, in particular by replying to a request as soon as possible but not later than 12 hours after the receipt of the request. In case of alerts for terrorism offences the SIRENE Bureaux shall act immediately.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 285 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. Without prejudice to Article 25 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, Member States shall ensure that every access to and all exchanges of personal data within CS-SIS are logged in their N.SIS for the purposes of checking whether or not the search is lawful, monitoring the lawfulness of data processing, self-monitoring and ensuring the proper functioning of N.SIS , data integrity and security.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 291 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 7
7. Where Member States carry out automated scanned searches of the number plates of motor vehicles, using Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems, and only if such automated searches are allowed under national law, Member States shall maintain a log of the search in accordance with national law. The content of this log shall be established by means of implementing measures in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 72(2). Where a positive match is achieved against data stored in SIS, or a national or technical copy of SIS data, a full search shall be carried out in SIS in order to verify that a match has indeed been achieved. The provisions of paragraphs 1 to 6 of this Article shall apply to this full search.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 295 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Before being authorised to process data stored in SIS and periodically after access to SIS data has been granted, the staff of the authorities having a right to access SIS shall receive appropriate training about data security, fundamental rights including data protection rules and the procedures on data processing as set out in the SIRENE Manual. The staff shall be informed of any relevant criminal offences and penalties.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 303 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 4
4. The logs may only be used for the purposes mentioned in paragraph 1 and shall be deleted at the earliest one year, and at the latest three years,one year after their creation. The logs which include the history of alerts shall be erased after one to threone years after deletion of the alerts.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 309 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 3 – point e
(e) any specific, objective, physical characteristics not subject to change, not linked to special categories of personal data defined in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, such as ethnicity, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation;
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 316 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 3 – point x
(x) relevant DNA profiles subject to Article 22(1)(b) of this Regulation;deleted
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 326 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – title
Specific rules for entering photographs, facial images, and dactylographic data and DNA profiles
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 329 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The entering into SIS of data referred to in Article 20(3)(w), (x) and (y) shall be subject to the following provisions:
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 331 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) Photographs, facial images, and dactylographic data and DNA profiles shall only be entered following a quality check to ascertain the fulfilment of a minimum data quality standard.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 334 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) A DNA profile may only be added to alerts provided for in Article 32(2)(a) and (c) and only where photographs, facial images or dactylographic data suitable for identification are not available. The DNA profiles of persons who are direct ascendants, descendants or siblings of the alert subject may be added to the alert provided that those persons concerned gives explicit consent. The racial origin of the person shall not be included in the DNA profile.deleted
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 362 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) children at risk of abduction in accordance with paragraph 43b.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 371 #

2016/0409(COD)

(a) Paragraph 2c shall apply to children at risk under the following conditions: (i) An alert on a child referred to in paragraph 2c shall be entered at the request of the competent authority of the Member State where the child has gone missing. (ii) The assessment whether a missing child is at risk, should be determined by competent authorities. Following this risk assessment, protocols and tools should support the necessary action to be taken, as included in the alert.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 374 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 4
4. An alert on a child referred to in paragraph 2(c) shall be entered at the request of therequested and ruled on by a competent judicial authority of the Member State that has jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility in accordance with Council Regulation No 2201/200374 where a concrete and apparent risk exists that the child may be unlawfully and imminently removed from the Member State where that competent judicial authority is situatedin accordance with Council Regulation No 2201/200374. In Member States which are party to the Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children and where Council Regulation No 2201/2003 does not apply, the provisions of the Hague Convention are applicable. _________________ 74 Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ L 338, 23.12.2003, p. 1).
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 387 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Chapter 9 – title
ALERTS ON PERSONS AND OBJECTS FOR DISCREET CHECKS, INQUIRY CHECKS OR SPECIFIC CHECKS
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 388 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1
1. Data on persons or vehicles, boats, aircraft and containers shall be entered in accordance with the national law of the Member State issuing the alert, for the purposes of discreet checks, inquiry checks or specific checks in accordance with Article 37(4).
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 394 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) where an overall assessment of a person, in particular on the basis of past criminal offences, gives reason to believe that that person may also commit serious crimes in the future, in particular the offences referred to in Article 2(2) of the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA.deleted
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 401 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. For the purposes of discreet checks, inquiry checks or specific checks, all or some of the following information shall be collected and immediately communicated to the authority issuing the alert when border control checks, police and customs checks or other law enforcement activities are carried out within a Member State:
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 403 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 2
2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be immediately communicated through the exchange of supplementary information.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 404 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 4
4. Depending on the operational circumstances and in accordance with national law, an inquiry check shall comprise a more in-depth check and a questioning of the person. Where inquiry checks are not authorised by the law of a Member State, they shall be replaced by discreet checks in that Member State.deleted
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 407 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 5
5. During specific checks, persons, vehicles, boats, aircraft, containers and objects carried, may be searched in accordance with national law for the purposes referred to in Article 36. Searches shall be carried out in accordance with national law. Where specific checks are not authorised by the law of a Member State, they shall be replaced by inquirydiscreet checks in that Member State.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 412 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – title
Alerts on unknown wanted person for apprehensidentification under national law
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 417 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1
Dactylographic data may be entered in SIS, not related to persons who are subject of the alerts. These dactylographic data shall be either complete or incomplete sets of fingerprints or palm prints discovered at the scenes of crimes under investigation, of serious crimes and terrorist offences under investigation and where it can be established to a high degree of probability that they belong to the perpetrator of the offence. The dactylographic data in this category shall be stored as “unknown suspect or wanted person” and shall only be stored with the aim of identifying an unknown wanted person and his or her whereabouts, provided that the competent authorities cannot establish the identity of the person by using any other national, European or international database.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 422 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1
In the event of a hit or a potential match with the data stored pursuant to Article 40, the identity of the person shall be established in accordance with national law, together with verification that the dactylographic data stored in SIS belong to the person. Member States shall immediately communicate by using supplementary information in order to facilitate timely investigation of the case.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 425 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – title
Specific rules for verification or search with photographs, facial images, and dactylographic data and DNA profiles
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 431 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 1
1. Photographs, facial images, and dactylographic data and DNA profiles shall be retrieved from SIS to verify the identity of a person who has been located as a result of an alphanumeric search made in SIS.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 433 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 2
2. Dactylographic data may also be used to identify a person. Dactylographic data stored in SIS shall be searched for identification purposes only if the identity of the person cannot be ascertained by other means.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 438 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 4
4. As soon as this becomes technically possible, and while ensuring a high degree of reliability of identification, photographs and facial images may be used to identify a person. Identification based on photographs or facial images shall only be used at regular border crossing points where self-service systems and automated border control systems are in use.deleted
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 460 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 2
2. Where a search by Europol reveals the existence of an alert in SIS, Europol shall immediately inform the issuing Member State via the channels defined by Regulation (EU) 2016/794.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 461 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 3
3. The use of information obtained from a search in the SIS is subject to the consent of the Member State concerned. If the Member State allows the use of such information, the handling thereof by Europol shall be governed by Regulation (EU) 2016/794. Europol may only communicate such information to third countries and third bodies with the consent of the Member State concerned. and in full respect of Union law on data protection.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 469 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 2
2. Where a search by a national member of Eurojust reveals the existence of an alert in SIS, he or she shall immediately inform the issuing Member State.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 473 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 3
3. Where a search by a member of the European Border and Coast Guard teams or teams of staff involved in return-related tasks or by a member of the migration management support team reveals the existence of an alert in SIS, the issuing Member State shall be immediately informed thereof. In accordance with Article 40 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1624, members of the teams may only act in response to an alert in SIS under instructions from and, as a general rule, in the presence of border guards or staff involved in return-related tasks of the host Member State in which they are operating. The host Member State may authorise members of the teams to act on its behalf.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 479 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 2
2. The European Border and Coast Guard Agency shall, for the purpose of performing its tasks conferred on it by the Regulation establishing a European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS), have the right to access and search data entered in SIS, in accordance with Articles 26, 32, 34, 36 and 38(2) (j) and (k).deleted
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 483 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 3
3. Where a verification by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency reveals the existence of an alert in SIS the procedure set out in Article 22 of Regulation establishing a European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) applies.deleted
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 488 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 6
6. Except where necessary to perform the tasks for the purposes of the Regulation establishing a European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS), nNo parts of SIS shall be connected to any computer system for data collection and processing operated by or at the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, nor shall the data contained in SIS to which the European Border and Coast Guard Agency has access be transferred to such a system. No part of SIS shall be downloaded. The logging of access and searches shall not be construed to be the downloading or copying of SIS data.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 489 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 1
1. Alerts entered in SIS pursuant to this Regulation shall not be kept lonlyger than for the time required to achieve the purposes for which they were entered.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 491 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 2
2. A Member State issuing an alert shall, within fivthree years of its entry into SIS, review the need to retain it. Alerts issued for the purposes of Article 36 of this Regulation shall be kept for a maximum period of one year.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 495 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 5
5. In cases where it becomes clear to staff in the SIRENE Bureau, who are responsible for coordinating and verifying of data quality, that an alert on a person has achieved its purpose and should be deleted from SIS, the staff shall immediately notify the authority which created the alert to bring this issue to the attention of the authority. The authority shall have 30 calendar days from the receipt of this notification to indicate that the alert has been or shall be deleted or shall state reasons for the retention of the alert. If the 30-day period expires without such a reply the alert shall be deleted by the staff of the SIRENE Bureau. SIRENE Bureaux shall report any recurring issues in this area to their national supervisory authority.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 498 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1
1. Alerts for arrest for surrender or extradition purposes pursuant to Article 26 shall be deleted once the person has been surrendered or extradited to the competent authorities of the issuing Member State. They mayshall also be deleted where the judicial decision on which the alert was based has been revoked by the competent judicial authority according to national law.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 509 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. Alerts on discreet, inquiry and specific checks shall be deleted in accordance with the following rules:
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 510 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Concerning alerts on discreet, inquiry and specific checks, pursuant to Article 36, an alert shall be deleted upon:
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 514 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 6
6. Alerts on unknown wanted persons pursuant to Article 40 shall be deleted in accordance with the following rulesupon:
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 519 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 6
6. With regard to the alerts laid down in Articles 26, 32, 34, 36, 38 and 40 of this Regulation, any processing of information contained therein for purposes other than those for which it was entered in SIS has to be linked with a specific case and justified by the need to prevent an imminent serious threat to public policy and public security, on serious grounds of national security or for the purposes of preventing a serious crime. Prior authorisation from the Member State issuing the alert shall be obtained for this purpose.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 525 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 8
8. Each Member State shall send, to the Agency, a list of its competent authorities which are authorised to search directly the data contained in SIS pursuant to this Regulation, as well as any changes to the list. The list shall specify, for each authority, which data it may search and for what purposes. The Agency shall ensure the annual publication of the list on its website and in the Official Journal of the European Union.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 526 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 1
1. Article 53(2) shall not prejudice the right of a Member State to keep in its national files SIS data in connection with which action has been taken on its territory. Such data shall be kept in national files for a maximum period of three years, except if specific provisions in national law provide for a longer retention period.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 529 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 3
3. Where a Member State other than that which issued an alert has evidence suggesting that an item of data is factually incorrect or has been unlawfully stored, it shall, through the exchange of supplementary information, immediately inform the issuing Member State at the earliest opportunity and not later than 10 days after the said evidence has come to its attention. The issuing Member State shall check the communication and, if necessary, correct or delete the item in question without delay.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 541 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. In case of a data breach, data subjects shall be informed in accordance with Article 34 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or Article 31 of Directive (EU) 2016/680.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 542 #

2016/0409(COD)

(a) the SIRENE Bureau shall immediately contact the requesting authority to clarify whether or not the alert is on the same person;
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 546 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. For the purpose of this Article, and subject to the victim’s explicit consent for each data category, only the following personal data may be entered and further processed in SIS : :
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 547 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 3 – point e
(e) any specific objective and physical characteristic not subject to change;deleted
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 548 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 3 – point j
(j) fingerprints;deleted
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 550 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 3
3. Paragraph 2 shall not prejudice the right of a Member State to keep in national files data relating to a particular alert which that Member State has issued or to an alert in connection with which action has been taken on its territory. The period for which such data may be held in such files shall be governed by national lawone year.
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 552 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 63
1. By way of derogation from Article 62, the passport number, country of issuance and the document type of stolen, misappropriated, lost or invalidated passports entered in SIS may be exchanged with members of Interpol by establishing a connection between SIS and the Interpol database on stolen or missing travel documents, subject to the conclusion of an Agreement between Interpol and the European Union. The Agreement shall provide that the transmission of data entered by a Member State shall be subject to the consent of that Member State. 2. The Agreement referred to in paragraph 1 shall foresee that the data shared shall only be accessible to members of Interpol from countries that ensure an adequate level of protection of personal data. Before concluding this Agreement, the Council shall seek the opinion of the Commission on the adequacy of the level of protection of personal data and respect of fundamental rights and liberties regarding the automatic processing of personal data by Interpol and by countries which have delegated members to Interpol. 3. The Agreement referred to in paragraph 1 may also provide for access through SIS for the Member States to data from the Interpol database on stolen or missing travel documents, in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Decision governing alerts on stolen, misappropriated, lost and invalidated passports entered in SIS.Article 63 deleted Exchange of data on stolen, misappropriated, lost or invalidated passports with Interpol
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 553 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 65
Right of access, rectification of inaccurate data and erasure of unlawfully stored 1. The right of data subjects to have access to data relating to them entered in SIS and to have such data rectified or erasure shall be exercised in accordance with the law of the Member State before which they invoke that right. 2. If national law so provides, the national supervisory authority shall decide whether information is to be communicated and by what means. 3. A Member State other than that which has issued an alert may communicate information concerning such data only if it first gives the Member State issuing the alert an opportunity to state its position. This shall be done through the exchange of supplementary information. 4. A Member State shall take a decision not to communicate information to the data subject, in whole or in part, in accordance with national law, to the extent that, and for as long as such a partial or complete restriction constitutes a necessary and proportionate measure in a democratic society with due regard for the fundamental rights and legitimate interests of the natural person concerned, in order to: (a) avoid obstructing official or legal inquiries, investigations or procedures; (b) avoid prejudicing the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties; (c) protect public security; (d) protect national security; (e) protect the rights and freedoms of others. 5. Any person has the right to have factually inaccurate data relating to him rectified or unlawfully stored data relating to him erased. 6. The person concerned shall be informed as soon as possible and in any event not later than 60 days from the date on which he applies for access or sooner if national law so provides. 7. The person concerned shall be informed about the follow-up given to the exercise of his rights of rectification and erasure as soon as possible and in any event not later than three months from the date on which he applies for rectification or erasure or sooner if national law so provides.Article 65 deleted data
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 572 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 69 – paragraph 1
1. The national supervisory authorities and the European Data Protection Supervisor, each acting within the scope of its respective competences, shall actively cooperate with each other within the framework of their responsibilities and shall ensure coordinated supervision of SISin accordance with Article 62 of [New Regulation 45/2001].
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 573 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 69 – paragraph 2
2. They shall, each acting within the scope of its respective competences, exchange relevant information, assist each other in carrying out audits and inspections, examine difficulties in the interpretation or application of this Regulation and other applicable legal acts of the Union, study problems that are revealed through the exercise of independent supervision or through the exercise of the rights of data subjects, draw up harmonised proposals for joint solutions to any problems and promote awareness of data protection rights, as necessary.deleted
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 575 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 69 – paragraph 3
3. For the purposes laid down in paragraph 2, the national supervisory authorities and the European Data Protection Supervisor shall meet at least twice a year as part of the European Data Protection Board established by Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The costs and servicing of these meetings shall be borne by the Board established by Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Rules of procedure shall be adopted at the first meeting. Further working methods shall be developed jointly as necessary.deleted
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 577 #

2016/0409(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 69 – paragraph 4
4. A joint report of activities as regards coordinated supervision shall be sent by the Board established by Regulation (EU) 2016/679 to the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission every two years.deleted
2017/09/07
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 140 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6 a (new)
(6 a) Competent authorities should be able to add in the SIS specific information relating to any specific, objective, physical characteristics of a person not subject to change. This information may relate to characteristics such as piercings, tattoos, marks, scars, etc. However, it should not reveal sensitive data of a person such as ethnicity, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation, as defined in Article 9 of the General Data Protection Regulation.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 144 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
(8) It is necessary to maintain a manual setting out the detailed rules for the exchange of certain supplementary information concerning the action called for by alerts. National authorities in each Member State (the SIRENE Bureaux), should ensure the immediate exchange of this information.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 146 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
(9) In order to maintain the efficient and immediate exchange of supplementary information concerning the action to be taken specified in the alerts, it is appropriate to reinforce the functioning of the SIRENE Bureaux by specifying the requirements concerning available resources, user training and the response time to the inquiries received from other SIRENE Bureaux.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 157 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) This Regulation should set out the conditions for use of dactylographic data and facial images for identification purposes. The use of facial images for identification purposes in SIS should also help ensure consistency in border control procedures where identification and the verification of identity are required by the use of dactylographic data and facial images. Searching with dactylographic data should be mandatorypossible if there is any serious doubt concerning the identity of a person. Facial images for identification purposes should only be used in the context of regular border controls in self-service kiosks and electronic gates.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 168 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
(20) A greater level of effectiveness, harmonisation and consistency can be achieved by making it mandatory to enter in SIS all entry bans issued by the competent authorities of the Member States in accordance with procedures respecting Directive 2008/115/EC47 with full respect of fundamental rights and in particular the principle of non-refoulement, and by setting common rules for entering such alerts following the return of the illegalrregularly staying third country national. Member States should take all necessary measures to ensure that no time-gap exist between the moment in which the third- country national leaves the Schengen area and the activation of the alert in SIS. This should ensure the successful enforcement of entry bans at external border crossing points, effectively preventing re-entry into the Schengen area. _________________ 47 Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98).
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 171 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
(23) Alerts should not be kept in SIS longer than the time required to fulfil the purposes for which they were issued. In order reduce the administrative burden on the authorities involved in processing data on individuals for different purposes, it is appropriate to align the maximum retention period of refusal of entry and stay alerts with the possible maximum length of entry bans issued in accordance with procedures respecting Directive 2008/115/EC. Therefore, the retention period for alerts on persons should be a maximum of fivthree years. As a general principle, alerts on persons should be automatically deleted from SIS after a period of fivthree years. Decisions to keep alerts on persons should be based on a comprehensive individual assessment. Member States should review alerts on persons within the defined period and keep statistics about the number of alerts on persons for which the retention period has been extended.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 179 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
(27) To enhance the efficiency of the work of the immigration authorities when deciding about the right of third country nationals to enter and stay in the territories of the Member States, as well as about the return of illegalrregularly staying third country nationals, it is appropriate to grant them access to SIS under this Regulation.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 181 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
(28) Regulation (EU) 2016/67950 should apply to the processing of personal data under this Regulation by Member States authorities when Directive (EU) 2016/68051 does not apply. Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council52 should apply to the processing of personal data by the institutions and bodies of the Union when carrying out their responsibilities under this Regulation. The provisions of Directive (EU) 2016/680, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 should be further specified in this Regulation where necessary. With regard to processing of personal data by Europol, Regulation (EU) 2016/794 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement cooperation53 (Europol Regulation) applies. _________________ 50 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1). 51 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p.89). 52 Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p.1). 53 Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council Decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA (OJ L 135, 25.5.2016, p. 53).
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 185 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
(33) Regulation (EU) 2016/794 (Europol Regulation) provides that Europol supports and strengthens actions carried out by the competent authorities of Member States and their cooperation in combating terrorism and serious crime and provides analysis and threat assessments. In order to facilitate Europol in carrying out its tasks, in particular within the European Migrant Smuggling Centre, it is appropriate to allow Europol access to the alert categories defined in this Regulation. Europol's European Migrant Smuggling Centre plays a major strategic role in countering the facilitation of irregular migration, it should obtain access to alerts on persons who are refused entry and stay within the territory of a Member State either on criminal grounds or because of non-compliance with entry and stay conditions.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 191 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
(35) It is also necessary to set out clear rules for Europol on the processing and downloading of SIS data to allow the most comprehensive use of SIS provided that data protection standards are respected as provided in this Regulation and Regulation (EU) 2016/794by Union law. In cases where searches carried out by Europol in SIS reveal the existence of an alert issued by a Member State, Europol cannot take the required action. Therefore it should immediately inform the Member State concerned allowing it to follow up the case.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 197 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
(37) In accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 the European Border and Coast Guard Agency shall prepare risk analyses. These risk analyses shall cover all aspects relevant to European integrated border management, notably threats that may affect the functioning or security of the external borders. Alerts introduced in the SIS in accordance with this Regulation, notably the alerts on refusal of entry and stay are relevant information for assessing possible threats that may affect the external borders and should thus be available in view of the risk analysis which must be prepared by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency. Fulfilling the tasks assigned to the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in relation to risk analysis, necessitates access to SIS. Furthermore, in accordance with Commission proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS)55 the ETIAS Central Unit of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency will perform verifications in SIS via ETIAS in order to perform the assessment of the applications for travel authorisation which require, inter alia, to ascertain if the third country national applying for a travel authorisation is subject of a SIS alert. To this end the ETIAS Central Unit within European Border and Coast Guard Agency should also have access to SIS to the extent necessary to carry out its mandate, namely to all alert categories on third country nationals in respect of whom an alert has been issued for the purposes of entry and stay, and those who are subject to restrictive measure intended to prevent entry or transit through Member States. _________________ 55COM (2016)731 final.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 227 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. Supplementary information shall be exchanged in accordance with the provisions of the SIRENE Manual and using the Communication Infrastructure. Member States shall provide the necessary technical and personal resources to ensure the continuous availability and immediate exchange of supplementary information. In the event that the Communication Infrastructure is unavailable, Member States may use other adequately secured technical means to exchange supplementary information.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 231 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3
3. The SIRENE Bureaux shall carry out their task in a quick and efficient manner, in particular by replying to a request as soon as possible butimmediately and not later than 12 hours after the receipt of the request.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 241 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. Without prejudice to Article 25 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, Member States shall ensure that every access to and all exchanges of personal data within CS-SIS are logged in their N.SIS for the purposes of checking whether or not the search is lawful, monitoring the lawfulness of data processing, self-monitoring and ensuring the proper functioning of N.SIS , data integrity and security.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 250 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Before being authorised to process data stored in SIS and periodically after access to SIS data has been granted, the staff of the authorities having a right to access SIS shall receive appropriate training about data-security, fundamental rights including data-protection rules and the procedures on data processing as set out in the SIRENE Manual. The staff shall be informed of any relevant criminal offences and penalties.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 258 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 4
4. The logs may only be used for the purposes mentioned in paragraph 1 and shall be deleted at the earliest one year, and at the latest three years,one year after their creation. The logs which include the history of alerts shall be erased after one to three years after deletion of the alerts.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 264 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – point e
(e) any specific, objective, physical characteristics not subject to change, not linked to special categories of personal data defined in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, such as ethnicity, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation;
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 296 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1
1. Data on third-country nationals in respect of whom an alert has been issued for the purposes of refusing entry and stay shall be entered in SIS on the basis of a national alert resulting from a decision in force taken by the competent administrative or judicial authorities in accordance with the rules of procedure laid down by national law taken on the basis of an individual assessment. Appeals against those decisions shall be made in accordance with national law. Such appeals shall include an effective remedy before a tribunal.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 299 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. An alert shall be entered where the decision referred to in paragraph 1 is based on a threat to public policy or public security or to national security which the presence of the third-country national in question in the territory of a Member State may pose. This situation shall arise in particular in the case of:
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 303 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) a third-country national who has been convicted in a Member State of an offence carrying a penalty involving the deprivation of liberty of at least onthree years;
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 321 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 2
2. Dactylographic data may also be used to identify a person. Dactylographic data stored in SIS shallmay also be used for identification purposes if the identity of the person cannot be ascertained by other means.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 325 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 3
3. Dactylographic data stored in SIS in relation to alerts issued under Article 24 may also be searched with complete or incomplete sets of fingerprints or palm prints discovered at the scenes of crimserious crimes or terrorist offences under investigation and where it can be established to a high degree of probability that they belong to the perpetrator of the serious crime or terrorist offence provided that the competent authorities are unable to establish the identity of the person by using any other national, European or international database.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 329 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 4
4. As soon as this becomes technically possible, and while ensuring a high degree of reliability of identification, photographs and facial images may be used to identify a person. Identification based on photographs or facial images shall only be used in the context of regular border crossing points where self- service systems and automated border control systems are in use.deleted
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 339 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 2
2. Where a search by Europol reveals the existence of an alert in SIS, Europol shall immediately inform the issuing Member State via the channels defined by Regulation (EU) 2016/794.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 340 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 3
3. The use of information obtained from a search in the SIS is subject to the consent of the Member State concerned. If the Member State allows the use of such information, the handling thereof by Europol shall be governed by Regulation (EU) 2016/794. Europol may only communicate such information to third countries and third bodies with the consent of the Member State concerned and in full respect of Union law on data protection.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 349 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 3
3. Where a search by a member of the European Border and Coast Guard teams or teams of staff involved in return-related tasks or by a member of the migration management support teams reveals the existence of an alert in SIS, the issuing Member State shall be immediately informed thereof. In accordance with Article 40 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1624, members of the teams may only act in response to an alert in SIS under instructions from and, as a general rule, in the presence of border guards or staff involved in return-related tasks of the host Member State in which they are operating. The host Member State may authorise members of the teams to act on its behalf.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 356 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 4
4. The European Border and Coast Guard Agency shall, for the purpose of performing its tasks conferred on it by the Regulation establishing a European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS), have the right to access and verify data entered in SIS, in accordance with Articles 24 and 27.deleted
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 360 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 5
5. Where a verification by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the purposes of paragraph 2 reveals the existence of an alert in SIS the procedure set out in Article 22 of Regulation establishing a European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) applies.deleted
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 364 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 8
8. Except where necessary to perform the tasks for the purposes of the Regulation establishing a European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) nNo parts of SIS shall be connected to any computer system for data collection and processing operated by or at the European Border and Coast Guard Agency nor shall the data contained in SIS to which the European Border and Coast Guard Agency has access be transferred to such a system. No part of SIS shall be downloaded. The logging of access and searches shall not be construed to be the downloading or copying of SIS data.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 365 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1
1. Alerts entered in SIS pursuant to this Regulation shall not be kept lonlyger than for the time required to achieve the purposes for which they were entered.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 367 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 2
2. A Member State issuing an alert shall, within fivthree years of its entry into SIS, review the need to retain it.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 369 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 4
4. In cases where it becomes clear to staff in the SIRENE Bureau, who are responsible for coordinating and verifying of data quality, that an alert on a person has achieved its purpose and should be deleted from SIS, the staff shall immediately notify the authority which created the alert to bring this issue to the attention of the authority. The authority shall have 30 calendar days from the receipt of this notification to indicate that the alert has been or shall be deleted or shall state reasons for the retention of the alert. If the 30-day period expires without such a reply the alert shall be deleted by the staff of the SIRENE Bureau. SIRENE Bureaux shall report any recurring issues in this area to their national supervisory authority.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 380 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 5
5. Any processing of information contained in SIS for purposes other than those for which it was entered in SIS has to be linked with a specific case and justified by the need to prevent an imminent serious threat to public policy and public security, on serious grounds of national security or for the purposes of preventing a serious crime. Prior authorisation from the Member State issuing the alert shall be obtained for this purpose.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 382 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 8
8. Each Member State shall send to the Agency a list of its competent authorities which are authorised to search directly the data contained in SIS pursuant to this Regulation, as well as any changes to the list. The list shall specify, for each authority, which data it may search and for what purposes. The Agency shall ensure the annual publication of the list on its website and in the Official Journal of the European Union.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 383 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 1
1. Article 36(2) shall not prejudice the right of a Member State to keep in its national files SIS data in connection with which action has been taken on its territory. Such data shall be kept in national files for a maximum period of three years, except if specific provisions in national law provide for a longer retention period.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 387 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 3
3. Where a Member State other than that which issued an alert has evidence suggesting that an item of data is factually incorrect or has been unlawfully stored, it shall, through the exchange of supplementary information, immediately inform the issuing Member State at the earliest opportunity and not later than 10 days after the said evidence has come to its attention. The issuing Member State shall check the communication and, if necessary, correct or delete the item in question without delay.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 396 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. In case of a data breach, data subjects shall be informed in accordance with Article 34 of Regulation (EU) No 2016/679 or Article 31 of Directive (EU) No 2016/680.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 397 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the SIRENE Bureau shall immediately contact the requesting authority to clarify whether or not the alert is on the same person;
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 401 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. For the purpose of this Article, and subject to the victim’s explicit consent for each data category, only the following personal data may be entered and further processed in SIS:
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 402 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 3 – point e
(e) any specific objective and physical characteristic not subject to change;deleted
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 403 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 3 – point j
(j) fingerprints;deleted
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 405 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 3
3. Paragraph 2 shall not prejudice the right of a Member State to keep in national files data relating to a particular alert which that Member State has issued or to an alert in connection with which action has been taken on its territory. The period for which such data may be held in such files shall be governed by national lawone year.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 407 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 47
Right of access, rectification of inaccurate data and erasure of unlawfully stored 1. The right of data subjects to have access to data relating to them entered in SIS and to have such data rectified or erased shall be exercised in accordance with the law of the Member State before which they invoke that right. 2. If national law so provides, the national supervisory authority shall decide whether information is to be communicated and by what means. 3. A Member State other than that which has issued an alert may communicate information concerning such data only if it first gives the Member State issuing the alert an opportunity to state its position. This shall be done through the exchange of supplementary information. 4. A Member State shall take a decision not to communicate information to the data subject, in whole or in part, in accordance with national law, to the extent that, and for as long as such a partial or complete restriction constitutes a necessary and proportionate measure in a democratic society with due regard for the fundamental rights and legitimate interests of the natural person concerned, in order to: (a) avoid obstructing official or legal inquiries, investigations or procedures; (b) avoid prejudicing the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties; (c) protect public security; (d) protect national security; (e) protect the rights and freedoms of others. 5. The person concerned shall be informed as soon as possible and in any event not later than 60 days from the date on which he applies for access or sooner if national law so provides. 6. The person concerned shall be informed about the follow-up given to the exercise of his rights of rectification and erasure as soon as possible and in any event not later than three months from the date on which he applies for rectification or erasure or sooner if national law so provides.Article 47 deleted data
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 417 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 48
1. Third-country nationals who are the subject of an alert issued in accordance with this Regulation shall be informed in accordance with Articles 10 and 11 of Directive 95/46/EC. This information shall be provided in writing, together with a copy of or a reference to the national decision giving rise to the alert, as referred to in Article 24(1). 2. This information shall not be provided: (a) where: i) the personal data have not been obtained from the third-country national in question; and ii) the provision of the information proves impossible or would involve a disproportionate effort; (b) where the third country national in question already has the information; (c) where national law allows for the right of information to be restricted, in particular in order to safeguard national security, defence, public security and the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences.Article 48 deleted Right of information
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 429 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1
1. The national supervisory authorities and the European Data Protection Supervisor, each acting within the scope of its respective competences, shall actively cooperate with each other within the framework of their responsibilities and shall ensure coordinated supervision of SISin accordance with Article 62 of [New Regulation on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data].
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 432 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 2
2. They shall, each acting within the scope of its respective competences, exchange relevant information, assist each other in carrying out audits and inspections, examine difficulties in the interpretation or application of this Regulation and other applicable legal acts of the Union, study problems that are revealed through the exercise of independent supervision or through the exercise of the rights of data subjects, draw up harmonised proposals for joint solutions to any problems and promote awareness of data protection rights, as necessary.deleted
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 433 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 3
3. For the purposes laid down in paragraph 2, the national supervisory authorities and the European Data Protection Supervisor shall meet at least twice a year as part of the European Data Protection Board established by Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The costs and servicing of these meetings shall be borne by the Board established by Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Rules of procedure shall be adopted at the first meeting. Further working methods shall be developed jointly as necessary.deleted
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 434 #

2016/0408(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 4
4. A joint report of activities as regards coordinated supervision shall be sent by the Board established by Regulation (EU) 2016/679 to the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission every two years.deleted
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 31 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Title 1
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegalrregularly staying third-country nationals
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 35 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
(2) It is necessary to increase the effectiveness of the European system to return illegalrregularly staying third-country nationals. This is essential for maintaining public trust in the Union migration and asylum policy and providing support to persons in need of international protection.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 38 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
(3) Member States should take allthe necessary measures to return illegalrregularly staying third-country nationals in an effective and proportionate manner, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 2008/115/EC and with full respect of fundamental rights and in particular the principle of non-refoulement.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 44 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4) A Union-wide system for sharing information between Member States on return decisions issued in respect of third- country nationals staying illegalrregularly on the territory of the Member States in accordance with provisions respecting Directive 2008/115/EC and for monitoring whether third-country nationals subject to those decisions have left the territory of the Member States should be established.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 45 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
(6) SIS alerts on return and the exchange of supplementary information on these alerts should support competent authorities to take the necessary measures to enforce return decisions issued in accordance with provisions respecting Directive 2008/115/EC. SIS should contribute to the identification and the information sharing between Member States on third-country nationals who are the subject of such return decision, who have absconded and are apprehended in another Member State. These measures should help prevent and deter irregular migratincrease the effectiveness of return decisions and enhance cooperation between Member States’ authorities.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 49 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
(7) To ensure the effectiveness of return and increase the added value of alerts on return, Member States should enter alerts in SIS in relation to all final return decisions they issue to illegalrregularly staying third-country nationals in accordance with provisions respecting Directive 2008/115/EC. For this purpose, Member States should enter an alert in SIS also when decisions imposing or stating an obligation to return are issued in the situations described in Article 2(2) of that Directive, notably to third-country nationals who are subject to a refusal of entry in accordance with the Schengen Borders Code, or who are apprehended or intercepted by the competent authorities in connection with the irregular crossing by land, sea or air of the external border of a Member State and who have not subsequently obtained an authorisation or a right to stay in that Member State, and to third-country nationals who are subject to return as a criminal law sanction or as a consequence of a criminal law sanction, according to national law, or who are the subject of extradition procedures.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 50 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
(8) This Regulation should set out common rules for entering alerts related to return in SIS as soon as the underlying return decisions in accordance with provisions respecting Directive 2008/115/EC are issued. The alert should indicate whether a period for voluntary departure has been granted to the third- country national concerned, including whether such period has been extended taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, whether the third-country national has a right to appeal against the return decision, whether an appeal against the return decision is pending, and whether the decision has been suspended or the removal has been postponed.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 54 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
(9) It is necessary to specify the categories of data that can be entered in SIS in respect of third-country nationals who are the subject of a return decision issued in accordance with provisions respecting Directive 2008/115/EC. Alerts on return should contain only those data that are required in order to identify the data subjects, to allow the competent authorities to take informed decisions without losing time and to ensure, where necessary, their protection in relation to persons who are armed, violent, have escaped or are involved in an activity as referred to in Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism26 . Furthermore, in order to facilitate identification and detect multiple identities, the alert should include also a reference to the personal identification document and a copy of such document, if available. _________________ 26 Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism (OJ L 164, 22.6.2002, p. 3).
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 56 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 a (new)
(9a) Competent authorities should be able to add in the SIS specific information relating to any specific, objective, physical characteristics of a person not subject to change. This information may relate to characteristics such as piercings, tattoos, marks, scars, etc. However, it should not reveal sensitive data of a person such as ethnicity, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation, as defined in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a. _______________ 1a Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 60 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
(11) Procedures should be established to enable Member States to verify that the obligation to return has been complied with and to confirm the departure of or that a residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay has been granted to the third- country national concerned to the Member State that issued the alert on return. This information should contribute to a more comprehensive follow-up of the compliance with return decisions and rate of successful appeals against return decisions in accordance with provisions respecting Directive 2008/115/EC.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 64 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
(12) Alerts on return should be deleted as soon as the Member State or competent authority that issued the return decision in accordance with provisions respecting Directive 2008/115/EC has been informed that the return has taken place or that a residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay has been granted. Where a return decision is accompanied by an entry ban, the latter should be entered in SIS in accordance with Article 24(3) of Regulation (EU) 2018/xxx [border checks]. In such cases Member States should take all necessary measures to ensure that no time-gap exist between the moment in which the third-country national leaves the Schengen area and the activation of the alert on the entry ban in SIS.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 72 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
(15) Alerts should be kept in SIS only for the time required to fulfil the purposes for which they were entered. In accordance with Article 34 of Regulation (EU) 2018/xxx [border checks] the review period for alerts on third-country nationals is fivthree years.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 74 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
(16) Data processed in SIS or transferred through the exchange of supplementary information may provide to the enforcing Member State information that is useful for the rapid identification and re- documentation of illegalrregularly staying third- country nationals, in view of their return to a third country. In individual cases, it should be possible to share such data and informationSuch data and information should not be shared with a third country for this purpose. Sharing of any personal data should be subject to clear conditions, should be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and be conducted with the agreement of the Member State that issued the alert.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 79 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) National authorities responsible for return may differ significantly among Member States, and such authorities may also vary within a Member State depending on the reasons for illegalrregular stay. Judicial authorities may also issue return decisions in accordance with provisions respecting Directive 2008/115/EC, for instance as result of appeals against a refusal of granting an authorisation or right to stay, or as a criminal sanction. All national authorities in charge of issuing and enforcing return decisions in accordance with Directive 2008/115/EC should be entitled to access SIS in order to enter, update, delete and search alerts on return.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 83 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
(18) Access to alerts on return should be granted to national authorities referred to in points (a), (b),(c) and (d) of Article 29(1) and in Article 29(2) of Regulation (EU) 2018/xxx [border checks] for the purpose of identification and return of third-country nationals.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 85 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
(19) Regulation (EU) 2016/794 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement cooperation (Europol Regulation) provides that Europol supports and strengthens actions carried out by the competent authorities of Member States and their cooperation in combating terrorism and serious crime and provides analysis and threat assessments. In order to facilitate Europol in carrying out its tasks, in particular within the European Migrant Smuggling Centre, it is appropriate to allow Europol access to the alert category defined in this Regulation.deleted
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 87 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
(20) Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 provides that the host Member State shall authorise the members of the European Border and Coast Guard teams or teams of staff involved in return-related tasks, deployed by the European Border and Coast Gard Agency, to consult European databases, where this consultation is necessary for fulfilling operational aims specified in the operational plan on border checks, border surveillance and return. The objective of the deployment of the European Border and Coast Guard teams, teams of staff involved in return-related tasks and the migration management support teams is to provide for technical and operational reinforcement to the requesting Member States, especially to those facing disproportionate migratory challenges. Fulfilling the tasks assigned to the European Border and Coast Guard teams, teams of staff involved in return- related tasks and to the migration management support teams, necessitates access to alerts on return SIS via a technical interface of European Border and Coast Guard Agency connecting to Central SIS.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 93 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) ‘return decision issued in accordance with provisions respecting Directive 2008/115/EC’ means a return decision within the meaning of point (c) and an administrative or judicial decision or act, stating or declaring the stay of a third-country national to be illegalrregular and imposing or stating an obligation to return, issued under the conditions of Article 2(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC;
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 102 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. The period for voluntary departure granted to third-country nationals subject to a return decision issued in accordance with provisions respecting Directive 2008/115/EC shall be immediately recorded in the alert. Any extension of a period for voluntary departure shall also be immediately recorded in the alert.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 105 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) any specific, objective, physical characteristics not subject to change, not linked to special categories of personal data defined in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, such as ethnicity, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation;
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 116 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point u
(u) dactylographicfingerprint data;
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 121 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point x a (new)
(xa) whether the return decision issued in accordance with provisions respecting Directive 2008/115/EC can be appealed;
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 122 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point x b (new)
(xb) whether an appeal is pending against the return decision issued in accordance with provisions respecting Directive 2008/115/EC.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 124 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2
An alert may not be entered without the data referred to in (a),(g),(k), (l), (m),(n), (w), (x), (xa) and (wxb). When available, all other data listed above shall also be entered.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 127 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point e
(e) the third-country of destination.deleted
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 131 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. The Member States shall provide on a monthly basis statistics to the European Agency for the operational management of large-scale information systems in the area of freedom, security and justice established by Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council36 (‘the Agency’) on the number of confirmed returns, on whether the return was carried out in voluntary compliance with an obligation to return or was enforced, and on the third countries of destinationon the number of successful appeals against return decisions and on the number of conflicting instructions or conflicting information inserted in the database. Those statistics shall not contain personal data. _________________ 36 Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 establishing a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (OJ L 286, 1.11.2011, p.1).
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 132 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. CS-SIS shall notify the Member States about their alerts on return for which the period for voluntary departure has expired and for which the period for voluntary departure has not been extended or a residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay has been issued to the third-country national concerned.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 139 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. Where a Member State considers granting a residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay to a third-country national who is the subject of an alert on return entered by another Member State, the former shall first consult, through the exchange of supplementary information, the Member State that entered the alert. The Member State that entered the alert shall reply within seven daysinform the Member State that entered the alert. If the Member State considering granting a residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay decides to grant it, the alert on return shall be deleted.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 141 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. Where a Member State considers entering an alert for return concerning a third-country national who is the holder of a valid residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay issued by another Member State, it shall inform through the exchange of supplementary information the Member State that issued the permit in order to allow that Member State to decide whether there are reasons justifying its withdrawal. The Member State that issued the permit shall provide a definite reply within seven days.deleted
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 146 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall provide on an annual basis statistics to the Agency about the consultations carried out in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 150 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. Without prejudice to Articles 6 and 8, alerts on return shall be deleted when the decision upon which the alert was based has been withdrawn or annulled by the competent authority. Alerts on return shall also be deleted when the third-country national concerned can demonstrate that they havehas left the territory of the Member States in compliance with a return decision issued in accordance with provisions respecting Directive 2008/115/EC.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 156 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. Alerts on return entered in respect of a person who has acquired a residence permit, authorisation offering a right to stay or citizenship of a Member State or of any State whose nationals are beneficiaries of the right of free movement within the Union shall be deleted as soon as the issuing Member State becomes aware, or is informed pursuant to Article 39 of Regulation (EU) 2018/xxx [border checks], that the person in question has acquired such residence permit, other authorisation offering a right to stay or citizenship.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 161 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
DOnly data processed in SIS and the related supplementary information pursuant toreferred to in Article 4(a), (b), (c), (f), (h), (i), (p), (q), (r), (s), (t) and (v) of this Regulation may be transferred or made available to a third-country in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 with the authorisation of the issuing Member State, only for the purpose of identification of and issuance of an identification or travel document to an illegalrregularly staying-third country national in view of return.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 162 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Without prejudice to the provisions on statistics in Article 54 of Regulation (EU) 2018/xxx [Border checks], the Agency shall produce daily, monthly and annual statistics, both in total number and per each Member State on the number of alerts on return entered in SIS, including on the data referred to in Article 4(x), (xa) and (xb) of this Regulation, on the notifications referred to in Article 7(1) of this Regulation and the number of alerts on return deleted due to compliance with an obligation to return. The Agency shall produce monthly and annual statistics about the data provided by the Member States in accordance with Article 6(3) and Article 8(5) of this Regulation. Those statistics shall not contain personal data.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 163 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. Access to data entered in SIS and the right to search such data shall be reserved to the national authorities referred to in points (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Article 29(1) and in Article 29 (2) of Regulation (EU) 2018/ xxx [Border checks] for the purpose of identification and return of third-country nationals.
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 165 #

2016/0407(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. Europol shall have within their mandate the right to access and search data entered in SIS for the purpose of supporting and strengthening action by the competent authorities of the Member States and their mutual cooperation in preventing and combating migrant smuggling and facilitation of irregular migration in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 30 of Regulation (EU) 2018/ xxx [Border checks].deleted
2017/09/06
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 38 #

2016/0339(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
(4) Directive (EU) 2016/1164 provides for a framework to tackle hybrid mismatch arrangements, which does not comprehensively and systematically eliminate hybrid mismatches and has its scope limited to the European Union.
2017/03/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 43 #

2016/0339(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
(5) It is necessary to establish rules that neutralise hybrid mismatches in a comprehensive manner. Considering that Directive (EU) 2016/1164 only covers hybrid mismatch arrangements that arise in the interaction between the corporate tax systems of Member States, the ECOFIN Council issued a statement on 20 June 2016 requesting the Commission to put forward by October 2016 a proposal on hybrid mismatches involving third countries in order to provide for rules consistent with and no less effective than the rules recommended by the OECD BEPS report on Action 2, with a view to reaching an agreement by the end of 2016.
2017/03/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 54 #

2016/0339(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
(9) Rules on hybrid mismatches should address mismatch situations which are the result of conflicting tax rules of two (or more) jurisdictions. However, those rules should not affect the general features of the tax system of a jurisdiction.
2017/03/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 58 #

2016/0339(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9 a (new)
(9 a) Permanent establishment mismatches occur where differences in the rules for allocating income and expenditure between different parts of the same entity in the permanent establishment jurisdiction and those in the residence jurisdiction give rise to a mismatch in tax outcomes, including cases where a mismatch outcome arises due to the fact that a permanent establishment is disregarded as a result of the application of the laws of the branch jurisdiction. Those mismatch outcomes could lead to non-taxation without inclusion, a double deduction or a deduction without inclusion, and should therefore be eliminated. In the case of disregarded permanent establishments, the Member State in which the taxpayer is resident should include the income that would otherwise be attributed to the permanent establishment.
2017/03/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 69 #

2016/0339(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
(21) The objective of this Directive is to improve the resilience of the internal market as a whole against hybrid mismatch arrangements. This cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States acting individually, given that national corporate tax systems are disparate and that independent action by Member States would only replicate the existing fragmentation of the internal market in direct taxation. It would thus allow inefficiencies and distortions to persist in the interaction of distinct national measures. This would thus result in a lack of coordination. That objective can rather, due to the cross-border nature of hybrid mismatch arrangements and the need to adopt solutions that function for the internal market as a whole, be better achieved at Union level. The Union mayshould therefore adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union, including moving from a separate entity approach to a unitary approach regarding the taxation of multinational enterprises. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective. By setting the required level of protection for the internal market, this Directive only aims to achieve the essential degree of coordination within the Union that is necessary to achieve its objectives.
2017/03/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 73 #

2016/0339(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
(23) The Commission should evaluate the implementation of this Directive fourthree years after its entry into force and report to the Council thereon. Member States should communicate to the Commission all information necessary for this evaluation,
2017/03/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 79 #

2016/0339(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c a (new)
Directive (EU) 2016/1164
Article 2 – point 11 a (new)
(ca) the following point is added: ‘(11a) ‘payer jurisdiction’ means the jurisdiction where a hybrid entity or a permanent establishment is established or where a payment is treated as made;’
2017/03/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 82 #

2016/0339(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) 2016/1164
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
To the extent that a hybrid mismatch between Member States results in a deduction without inclusion, the Mdeduction shall be denied in the member State ofthat is the payer shall deny the deduction of such payment. jurisdiction of such payment. Where the deduction is not denied in the payer jurisdiction, the Member State concerned shall require the tax payer to include the amount of the payment that would otherwise give rise to a mismatch in the income in the payee jurisdiction.
2017/03/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 74 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
(1) Companies which seek to do business across frontiers within the Union encounter serious obstacles and market distortions owing to the existence and interaction of 28 disparate corporate tax systems. Furthermore, tax planning structures have become ever-more sophisticated over time, as they develop across various jurisdictions and effectively take advantage of the technicalities of a tax system or of mismatches between two or more tax systems for the purpose of reducing the tax liability of companies. Although those situations highlight shortcomings that are completely different in nature, they both create obstacles which impede the proper functioning of the internal market and create distortion between large companies and small and medium-sized enterprises. Action to rectify those problems should therefore address both types of market deficiencies. If this proposal does not result in an agreement eliminating the distortion in question, the Commission should issue a new proposal based on Article 116 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, whereby the European Parliament and the Council, act in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure to issue the necessary directives.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 89 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
(2) To support the proper functioning of the internal market, the corporate tax environment in the Union should be shaped in accordance with the principle that companies pay their fair share of tax in the jurisdiction(s) where their profits are generated and where they have economic substance. It is therefore necessary to provide for mechanisms that discourageprohibit companies from taking advantage of mismatches amongst national tax systems in order to lower their tax liability. It is equally important to also stimulate growth and economic development in the internal market by facilitating cross-border trade and corporate investment. To this end, it is necessary to eliminate both double taxation and double non-taxation risks in the Union through eradicating disparities in the interaction of national corporate tax systems. At the same time, companies need an easily workable tax and legal framework for developing their commercial activity and expanding it across borders in the Union. In that context, remaining cases of discrimination should also be removed.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 101 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) In addition, improving the internal market is the key factor for encouraging growth and job creation. The introduction of a CCCTB should improve growth and lead to more jobs in the Union by reducing the administrative costs for companies, particularly for small businesses operating in several Member States.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 107 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
(4) Considering the need to act swiftly in order to ensure a proper functioning of the internal market by making it, on the one hand, friendlier to trade and investment and, on the other hand, more resilient to tax avoidance schemes, it is necessary to divide the ambitious CCCTB initiative into two separate proposals. At a first stage, rules on a common corporate tax base should be enacted, before addressing, at a second stage, the issue ofeal with the CCTB and CCCTB proposals in parallel. Rules on a common corporate tax base should enter into application at the same time as the consolidation.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 121 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
(5) Many aggressive tax planning structures tend to feature in a cross-border context, which implies that the participating groups of companies possess a minimum of resources. On this premise, for reasons of proportionality, the rules on a common base should be mandatory only for companies which belong to a group of a substantial size. For that purpose, a size- related threshold should be fixed on the basis of the total consolidated revenue of a group which files consolidated financial statements. In addition, to ensure coherence between the two steps of the CCCTB initiative, the rules on a common base should be mandatory for companies which would be considered as a group should the full initiative materialise. In order to better serve the aim of facilitating trade and investment in the internal market, the rules on a common corporate tax base should also be available, as an option, to companies which do not meet those criteria. Five years after the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission shall, in its review, assess the impact of making this system mandatory for all companies and, if appropriate, present a legislative proposal to amend this Directive accordingly.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 128 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5 a (new)
(5a) One of the main problems encountered by the tax authorities is the impossibility of gaining access in due time to comprehensive and relevant information about MNEs' tax planning strategies. Such information should be made publicly available, in order for tax authorities to react quickly to tax risks, by assessing those risks more effectively, targeting checks and alerting about changes required to the legislation in force.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 132 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5 b (new)
(5b) In order to create a level playing field and to eliminate tax competition and the resulting race to the bottom as regards corporate taxation levels, minimum effective corporate tax rate should be introduced in parallel of the common consolidated corporate tax base so as to avoid transferring unfair competition on the tax base to unfair competition on the tax rates. This Directive therefore sets a minimum corporate tax rate at 20% in each Member State, applicable two years after the date of implementation of the present Directive, with a possibility for Member States to extend this deadline up to five years subject to a prior authorisation by the Commission.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 133 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5 c (new)
(5c) A severe lack in investments has been one of the root causes of the Union economic troubles but the Union budget is still insufficiently geared towards future- oriented investments. Creating additional Union budget related resources is possible according to the existing flexibilities of the Treaty. This proposal, together with the proposal for a CCCTB, should therefore aim at having a part of the EU fiscal revenues financed from the common consolidated corporate tax base.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 138 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
(6) Too often, multinational companies make arrangements to transfer their profits to tax havens without paying any or very low rates of tax. The concept of permanent establishment will provide a precise, binding definition of the criteria which must be met if a multinational company is to prove that it is situated in a given country. This will force multinational companies to pay their taxes fairly. It is necessary to define the concept of a permanent establishment situated in the Union and belonging to a taxpayer who is resident for tax purposes within the Union. The aim would be to ensure that all concerned taxpayers, including those operating in the digital sector, share a common understanding and to exclude the possibility of a mismatch due to divergent definitions. OnAt the contraryis stage, it should not be seen as essential to have a common definition of permanent establishments situated in a third country, or in the Union but belonging to a taxpayer who is resident for tax purposes in a third country. This dimension should better be left to bilateral tax treaties and national law due to its complicated interaction with international agreements. However, the Commission should make a proposal to set up a European model of tax treaty which could ultimately replace the thousands bilateral treaties concluded by each Member States.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 140 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6 a (new)
(6a) Taking into account the digital change in the business environment as well as the current gap in taxation between digitally operating companies and physically operating businesses, as well as between digital MNEs and SMEs, it is necessary to define the concept of a virtual permanent establishment. A level- playing field is needed for similar business models which only differ from one another in this aspect that one of them uses a digital solution instead of a physical one and therefore is not considered to have a physical presence in the country. Companies that generate a significant amount of revenues in a Member State without having a physical establishment in that Member State should be treated in the same way as companies having a physical establishment. Therefore, this proposal should also apply to digital corporations.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 148 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
(8) Taxable revenues should be reduced by business expenses and certain other items. Deductible business expenses should normally include all costs relating to sales and expenses linked to the production, maintenance and securing of income. To support innovation in the economy and modernisze the internal market, deductions should be provided for research and development costs, including super-deductions, and those should be fullygenuine expenseds, in the year incurred (with the exception of immovable property). Small starting companies without associated enterprises which are particularly innovative (a category which will in particular cover start-ups) should alsoHowever, such R&D allowance shall not be regarded as a substitute for national policies aiming at stimulating innovation in Europe. Moreover, Member States are encouraged to apply their R&D tax benefits on social contributions and/or wages rather than on corporate income taxes. Small and medium companies without associated enterprises which are particularly innovative could be supported through enhanced super- deductions for research and development costs in certain circumstances. In order to ensure legal certainty, there should also be a list of non- deductible expenses. In order to avoid financing research and development of new potentially toxic financial instruments and to limit R&D allowance to key strategic and future-related investments, such costs should be non- deductible insofar as they concern financial undertakings.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 154 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
(9) Recent developments in international taxation have highlighted that, in an effort to reduce their global tax liability, multinational groups of companies have increasingly engaged in tax avoidance arrangements leading to base erosion and profit shifting, through excessive interest payments. It is therefore necessary to limit the deductibility of interest (and other financial) costs, in order to discourage such practices. In that context, the deductibility of interest (and other financial) costs should only be allowed without restrictions to the extent that those costs can be offset against taxable interest (and other financial) revenues. Any surplus of interest costs should however be subject to deductibility restrictions, to be determined by reference to a taxpayer’s taxable earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (‘EBITDA’).
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 157 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
(10) The fact that interest paid out on loans is deductible from the tax base of a taxpayer whilst this is not the case for profit distributions creates a definitive advantage in favour of financing through debt as opposed to equity. Given the risks that this entails for the indebtedness of companies, it is critical to provide for measures which neutralise the current bias against equity financing. In this light, it is envisaged to give taxpayers an allowance for growth and investment according to which increases in a taxpayer's equity should be deductible from its taxable base subject to certain conditions. Thus, it would be essential to ensure that the system does not suffer cascading effects and to this end, it would be necessary to exclude the tax value of a taxpayer's participations in associated enterprises. Finally, to make the scheme of the allowance sufficiently robust, it would also be required to lay down anti-tax avoidance rules, by gradually removing the possibility to deduct interest paid out on loans from the tax base of a tax payer.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 161 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
(12) In order to discourage the shifting of passive (mainly, financial) income out of highly-taxed companies, any losses that such companies may incur at the end of a tax year should be presumed to mostly correspond to the results of trading activity. Based on that premise, taxpayers should be allowed to carry losses forward indefinitely without restrictions on the deductible amount per year. Since the carry-forward of losses is intended to ensure thaton the deductible amount per year during a tmaxpayer pays tax on its real income, there is no reason to place a time limit on carry forwimum of five yeards. Regarding the prospect for a loss carry-back, no such a rule would need to be introduced because that this is relatively rare in the practice of Member States, and tends to lead to excessive complexity. There should be no carry forward of losses incurred prior to the entry into force of this directive. Furthermore, an anti-abuse provision should be laid down in order to prevent, thwart or counter attempts to circumvent the rules on loss deductibility through purchasing loss-making companies.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 167 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
(13) In order to facilitate the cash-flow capacity of businesses – for instance, by compensating start-up losses in a Member State with profits in another Member State – and encourage the cross-border expansion within the Union, taxpayers should be entitled to temporarily take into account the losses incurred by their immediate subsidiaries and permanent establishments situated in other Member States. For that purpose, a parent company or head office located in a Member State should be able to deduct from its tax base, in a given tax year, the losses incurred in the same tax year by its immediate subsidiaries or permanent establishments situated in other Member States in proportion to its holding. The parent company should then be required to add back to its tax base, considering the amount of losses previously deducted, any subsequent profits made by those immediate subsidiaries or permanent establishments. As it is vital to safeguard national tax revenues, the deducted losses should also be reincorporated automatically if this has not already occurred after a certain number of years or if the requisites to qualify as an immediate subsidiary or permanent establishment are no longer met.deleted
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 172 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
(15) It is crucial to provide for appropriate anti-tax avoidance measures in order to reinforce the resilience of the rules on a common base against aggressive tax planning practices. Specifically, the system should include an effective general anti- abuse rule (‘GAAR’), supplemented by measures designed to curb specific types of avoidance. Given that GAARs have the function of tackling abusive tax practices that have not yet been dealt with through specifically targeted provisions, they fill in gaps, which should not affect the applicability of specific anti-avoidance rules. Within the Union, GAARs should be applied to arrangements that are not genuine. It is furthermore important to ensure that the GAAR apply in a uniform manner to domestic situations, cross-border situations within the Union and cross- border situations involving companies established in third countries, so that their scope and results of application do not differ.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 178 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
(17) Taking into account that the effect of hybrid mismatches is usually a double deduction (i.e. deduction in both states) or a deduction of the income in one state without inclusion in the tax base of another, such situations clearly affect the internal market by distorting its mechanisms and creating loopholes for tax avoidance practices to flourish. Given that mismatches generate from national differences in the legal qualification of certain types of entities or financial payments, they normally do not occur amongst companies which apply the common rules for calculating their tax base. Mismatches would however persist in the interaction between the framework of the common base and national or third- country corporate tax systems. To neutralise the effects of hybrid mismatches or related arrangements, it is necessary to lay down rules whereby one of the two jurisdictions in a mismatch deny the deduction of a payment or ensures that the corresponding income is included in the corporate tax base.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 179 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 17 a (new)
(17a) Member States should not be prevented from introducing additional anti-tax avoidance measures in order to reduce the negative effects of shifting profits to low-tax countries outside the Union, which do not necessarily automatically exchange tax information according to Union standards.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 192 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
(23) The Commission should be required to review the application of the Directive five years after its entry into force and report to the Council and the European Parliament on its operation. Member States should be required to communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive,
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 199 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The rules of this Directive shall apply to a company that is established under the laws of a Member State, including its permanent and virtual permanent establishments in other Member States, where the company meets all of the following conditions:
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 201 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) it belongs to a consolidated group for financial accounting purposes with a total consolidated group revenue that exceeded EUR 7540 000 000 during the financial year preceding the relevant financial year;
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 211 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. This Directive shall also apply to a company that is established under the laws of a third country in respect of its virtual permanent establishments that are specifically directed towards consumers or businesses in a Member State or that principally receive their revenue from activity in a Member State, where the company meets the conditions laid down in points (b) to (d) of paragraph 1.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 214 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 4
4. The rules of this Directive shall not apply to a shipping company under a special tax regime. A shipping company under a special tax regime shall be taken into account for the purpose of determining the companies which are members of the same group as referred to in Article 3.deleted
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 216 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) it has a right to exercise more than 50 % of the voting rights; andor
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 219 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The use of letterbox companies by taxpayers operating in the Union should be prohibited. Taxpayers should communicate to tax authorities evidence demonstrating the economic substance of each of the entities in their group, as part of their annual country-by-country reporting obligations.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 222 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point 11
(11) 'research and development' means experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundations of phenomena and observable facts, without any particular application or use in view (basic research); original investigation undertaken in order to acquire new knowledge but directed primarily towards a specific, practical aim or objective (applied research); systematic work, drawing on knowledge gained from research and practical experience and producing additional knowledge, which is directed to producing new products or processes or to improving existing products or processes (experimental development). R&;D investments generally include the costs of labour and to a lesser extend costs of machinery and equipment, costs of buildings and other current expenses related to the research activities;
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 227 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point 30 a (new)
(30a) 'economic substance' means factual criteria, including in the context of the digital economy, which can be used to define the taxable presence of an undertaking, such as the existence of human and physical resources specific to the entity, its management autonomy, its legal reality, the revenues it generates and, where appropriate, the nature of its assets;
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 228 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point 30 b (new)
(30b) 'letterbox company' means any type of legal entity which has no economic substance and which is setup purely for tax purposes;
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 230 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point 31 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
(31) 'hybrid mismatch' means a situation between a taxpayer and an associated enterprise or a structured arrangement between parties in different tax jurisdictionsother entity where any of the following outcomes is attributable to differences in the legal characteriszation of a payment, a financial instrument or an entity, or in the treatment of a commercial presence as a permanent establishment:
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 231 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point 31 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) a deduction of a payment from the taxable base in the jurisdiction in which the payment has its source without a corresponding inclusion for tax purposes of the same payment in the other jurisdiction where the payment is received ('deduction without inclusion');
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 232 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point 31 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) in case of differences in the treatment of a commercial presence as a permanent establishment, non-taxation of income which has its source in a jurisdiction without a corresponding inclusion for tax purposes of the same income in the another jurisdiction ('non- taxation without inclusion').
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 235 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point 33 a (new)
(33a) ‘tax haven’ means a jurisdiction characterized by one or several of the following criteria: (a) no or only nominal taxation for non-residents; (b) laws or administrative practices preventing the effective exchange of tax information with other jurisdictions; (c) legal or administrative provisions preventing tax transparency or the absence of requirement of a substantial economic activity to be carried out; (d) Financial systems with external assets and liabilities out of proportion to domestic financial intermediation; (e) the existence of very specific and restricted tax advantages or certain administrative practices that provide selective advantages for tax planners;
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 237 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point 33 b (new)
(33b) 'permanent establishment' means a fixed place of business situated in a Member State through which the business of a company of another Member State is wholly or partly carried on; in the case of companies engaging in fully or partly dematerialized digital activities, a virtual permanent establishment means a taxpayer having a significant economic presence in the jurisdiction directed towards consumers or businesses in this country and based on criteria including number of digital contracts concluded with costumers in the jurisdiction, profits coming from those digital activities, volume of digital content and data collected and number of registered users and views or downloads. Attention shall also be put to whether the virtual establishment is conducting its business under the top level domain of the Member State or of the Union or, in relation to mobile application based businesses, is distributing its application via the Member State specific part of a mobile application distribution centre.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 238 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The Commission may adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 66 in order to update current definitions or lay down definitions of more concepts.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 239 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. A taxpayer shall be considered to have a permanent establishment or a virtual permanent establishment in a Member State other than the Member State in which it is resident for tax purposes when it has a fixed place or a digital presence in that other Member State through which it carries on its business, wholly or partly, including in particular:
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 244 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
(fa) a digital platform or any other digital form remotely accessible to users.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 251 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. The tax base shall be calculated for each tax year unless otherwise provided. A tax year shall be any twelve-month period, unless otherwise provided.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 263 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. The expenses referred to in paragraph 1 shall include all costs of sales and all expenses, net of deductible value added tax, that the taxpayer incurred with a view to obtaining or securing income, including costgenuine expenses for research and development and under the conditions of Article 13, costs incurred in raising equity or debt for the purposes of the business.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 265 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. By way of derogation to paragraph 2, expenses for research and development shall not be deductible as far as they concern financial undertakings as defined in Article 3(29).
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 266 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Recurring costs relating to environmental protection and reduction of carbon emissions may also be regarded as deductible expenses.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 273 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
In addition to the amounts which are deductible as costs for research and development in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 2a, the taxpayer may also deduct, per tax year, an extra 50% of suchits costs, with the exception of the cost related to movable tangible fixed assets, that it incurred during that year. To the extent that costs for research and development reach beyon for research and development up to EUR 10 000 000 where that taxpayer meets all of the following conditions: (a) it is an unlisted enterprise with fewer than 250 employees and an annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total that does not exceed EUR 240 000 000, the taxpayer may deduct 25% of the exceeding amount; (b) it has not been formed through a merger; (c) it does not have any associated enterprises.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 276 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
By way of derogation from the first subparagraph, the taxpayer may deduct an extra 100% of its costs for research and development up to EUR 20 000 000 where that taxpayer meets all of the following conditions: (a) it is an unlisted enterprise with fewer than 50 employees and an annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total that does not exceed EUR 10 000 000; (b) longer than five years. If the taxpayer is not subject to registration, the period of five years may be taken to start at the moment that the enterprise either starts, or is liable to tax for, its economic activity; (c) merger; (d) enterprises.deleted it has not been registered for it has not been formed through a it does not have any associated
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 279 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Member States shall not grant additional R&D tax incentives to taxpayers on the outputs of their R&D processes.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 280 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Member States shall put in place national innovation action plans with the aim of effectively stimulating research and development investments, including by granting public subsidies or guaranteed state loans. Member States shall transmit every year their action plans to the European Commission which shall review them and make recommendations, in particular with a view to avoid abuses of national R&D incentives.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 288 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11
[...]deleted
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 296 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) 50 % of entertainment costsordinary and necessary entertainment costs directly related or associated with the business of the taxpayer, up to an amount that does not exceed [x] % of revenues in the tax year;
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 301 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Exceeding borrowing costs shall be deductible in the tax year in which they are incurred for maximum of 310 % of the taxpayer's earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (‘EBITDA’) or for a maximum amount of EUR 31 000 000, whichever is higher.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 305 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
For the purposes of this Article, where a taxpayer is permitted or required to act on behalf of a group, as defined in the rules of a national group taxation system, the entire group shall be treated as a taxpayer. In those circumstances, exceeding borrowing costs and the EBITDA shall be calculated for the entire group. The amount of EUR 31 000 000 shall also be considered for the entire group.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 309 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 6
6. Exceeding borrowing costs that cannot be deducted in a given tax year shall be carried forward without time limitationfor a maximum period of two years.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 312 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 7
7. Paragraphs 1 to 6 shall not apply to financial undertakings, including those that are part of a consolidated group for financial accounting purposes.deleted
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 314 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Five years after the implementation date of this Directive, Member States shall no longer apply paragraphs 2 to X (currently 2, 3 and 6).
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 331 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 41 – paragraph 1
1. Losses incurred in a tax year by a resident taxpayer or a permanent establishment of a non-resident taxpayer may be carried forward and deducted in subsequent tax years, unless otherwise provided by this Directiveduring a maximum of five years.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 337 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 42
1. profitable after having deducted its own losses pursuant to Article 41 may additionally deduct losses incurred, in the same tax year, by its immediate qualifying subsidiaries, as referred to in Article 3(1), or by permanent establishment(s) situated in other Member States. This loss relief shall be given for a limited period of time in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Article. 2. proportion to the holding of the resident taxpayer in its qualifying subsidiaries as referred to in Article 3(1) and full for permanent establishments. In no case shall the reduction of the tax base of the resident taxpayer result in a negative amount. 3. back to its tax base, up to the amount previously deducted as a loss, any subsequent profits made by its qualifying subsidiaries as referred to in Article 3(1) or by its permanent establishments. 4. Losses deducted pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 shall automatically be reincorporated into the tax base of the resident taxpayer in any of the following circumstances: (a) year after the losses became deductible, no profit has been reincorporated or the reincorporated profits do not correspond to the full amount of losses deducted; (b) referred to in Article 3(1) is sold, wound up or transformed into a permanent establishment; (c) establishment is sold, wound up or transformed into aArticle 42 deleted Loss relief and recapture A resident taxpayer that is still The deduction shall be in The resident taxpayer shall add where, at the end of the fifth tax where the qualifying subsidiary; (d) as where the parent company no longer fulfils the requirements of Article 3(1).ermanent
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 340 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 47
A taxpayer bringing forward unrelieved losses incurred before the rules of this Directive became applicable to him or her, may deduct those losses from its tax base if and to the extent that the national legislation applicable to the taxpayer and according to which those losses were incurred, allow for such deduction.rticle 47 deleted Pre-entry losses
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 343 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 53 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
By way of derogation from points (c) and (d) of Article 8, a taxpayer shall not be exempt from tax on foreign income that the taxpayer received as a profit distribution from an entity in a third country or as proceeds from the disposal of shares held in an entity in a third country where that entity in its country of tax residence is subject to a statutoryn effective corporate tax rate lower than half75% of the statutory tax rate that the taxpayer would have been subject to, in connection with such foreign income, in the Member State of its residence for tax purposes.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 350 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 53 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The first subparagraph shall not apply where aMember States’ conventions for the avoidance of double taxation between the Member State in which the taxpayer is resident for tax purposes and the third country where that entity is resident for tax purposes does not allow switching over from a tax exemption to taxing the designated categories of foreign incomeshall be amended accordingly.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 355 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 58 – paragraph 1
1. For the purposes of calculating the tax base under the rules of this Directive, a Member State shall disregard an arrangement or a series of arrangements which, having been put in place for the essentialone of the main purposes of obtaining a tax advantage that defeats the object or purpose of this Directive, are not genuine, having regard to all relevant facts and circumstances. An arrangement may comprise more than one step or part.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 362 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 59 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) the actual corporate tax paid byprofits of the entity or the permanent establishment on its profits is lower than the difference between the corporate tax that would have been charged on the profits of the entity or permanent establishment in accordance with the rules of this Directive and the actual corporate tax paid on those profits by the entity or permanent establishmentare subject to an effective corporate tax rate lower than 75 percent of the effective tax rate that would have been charged under the applicable corporate tax system in the Member State of the taxpayer.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 374 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 59 – paragraph 3
3. An entity or permanent establishment shall not be treated as a controlled foreign company as referred to in paragraph 1 where not more than one third of the income accruing to the entity or permanent establishment falls within categories (a) to (f) of paragraph 2. Financial undertakings shall not be treated as controlled foreign companies under paragraph 1 where not more than one third of the income accruing to the entity or permanent establishment from categories (a) to (f) of paragraph 2 comes from transactions with the taxpayer or its associated enterprises.deleted
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 377 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 61 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
To the extent that a hybrid mismatch between Member States results in a double deduction of the same payment, expenses or losses, the deduction shall be given onlydenied in the Member State where such payment has its source, the expenses are incurred or the losses are sufferedich is the investor jurisdiction.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 378 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 61 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
To the extent that a hybrid mismatch involving a third country results in a double deduction of the same payment, expenses or losses, the Member State concerned shall deny the deduction of such payment, expenses or losses, unless the third country has already done so. The burden of proof to demonstrate that a third country has denied the deduction lies on the taxpayer.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 380 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 61 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
To the extent that a hybrid mismatch between Member States results in a deduction without inclusion, the Member State ofwhich is the payer jurisdiction shall deny the deduction of such payment. Where the deduction is not denied in the payer jurisdiction, the Member State concerned shall require the taxpayer to include the amount of the payment that would otherwise give rise to a mismatch in the income of the payee jurisdiction.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 381 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 61 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 – introductory part
To the extent that a hybrid mismatch that involves a third country results in a deduction without inclusion:, the deduction shall be denied in the Member State which is the payer jurisdiction of such payment. Where the deduction is not denied in the payer jurisdiction, the Member State concerned shall require the taxpayer to include the amount of the payment that would otherwise give rise to a mismatch in the income in the payee jurisdiction.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 382 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 61 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 – point a
(a) if the payment has its source in a Member State, that Member State shall deny the deduction, ordeleted
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 383 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 61 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 – point b
(b) if the payment has its source in a third country, the Member State concerned shall require the taxpayer to include such payment in the taxable base, unless the third country has already denied the deduction or has required that payment to be included.deleted
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 389 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 66 – paragraph 2
2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles 2(5), 4(5), 11(6), 32(5) and 40 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from the date of entry into force of this Directive.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 390 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 66 – paragraph 3
3. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 2(5), 4(5), 11(6), 32(5) and 40 may be revoked at any time by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 391 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 66 – paragraph 5
5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 2(5), 4(5), 11(6), 32(5) and 40 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed by the Council within a period of [two months] of notification of that act to the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the Council has informed the Commission that it will not object. That period shall be extended by [two months] at the initiative of the Council.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 393 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 66 a (new)
Article 66a Minimum effective tax rate 1. Two years after the date of implementation of this Directive, Member States shall not be allowed to set an effective corporate tax rate below 20%, whilst no upper limit is set by this Directive. 2. By way of derogation of paragraph 1, Member States may request an extended deadline to the European Commission, so as to keep an effective corporate tax rate below 20% for longer than two years after the implementation of this Directive, but for no longer than seven years after its implementation. The derogation request shall be motivated and authorised by the European Commission. When deciding on a possible extension of the phasing-in period for a particular Member State, due account shall be taken of the specific situation of that Member State, the objective reasons for the request, and the impact of such a derogation on other Member States.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 394 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 66 b (new)
Article 66b Measures against tax treaty abuses Member States shall amend their bilateral tax treaties according to this Directive to ensure such treaties contain: (a) a clause ensuring that both parties to the treaty commit that tax will be paid where economic activities are taking place and where value is created; (b) an addendum to clarify that the objective of bilateral treaties, beyond avoiding double taxation is also to fight tax evasion and aggressive tax planning; (c) a clause for a principal purpose test based general anti-avoidance rule.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 395 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 67 a (new)
Article 67a Monitoring The Commission shall put in place a specific monitoring mechanism to ensure the proper implementation of this Directive and the homogeneous interpretation of its measures by Member States.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 397 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 69 – paragraph 1
The Commission shall, five years after the entry into force of this Directive, review its application and report to the Council and the European Parliament on the operation of this Directive.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 399 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 69 – paragraph 1 a (new)
The review shall include an impact assessment of an extension of the scope of this Directive to all companies.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 400 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 69 – paragraph 2
Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, the Commission shall, three years after the entry into force of this Directive, examine the functioning of Article 11 and consider adjustments to the definition and calibration of the AGI. The Commission shall undertake a thorough analysis of how the AGI can encourage companies that are entitled to opt for applying the rules of this Directive to finance their activities through equity.deleted
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 404 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 69 – paragraph 3
The Commission shall communicate its findings to Member States with the aim to take those findings into account for the design and implementation of national corporate tax systems.deleted
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 408 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 70 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall adopt and publish, by 31st December 20189 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 413 #

2016/0337(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 70 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
They shall apply those provisions from 1st January 201920.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 37 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
(1) Companies which seek to do business across frontiers within the Union encounter serious obstacles and market distortions owing to the existence and interaction of 28 disparate corporate tax systems. Furthermore, tax planning structures have become ever-more sophisticated over time, as they develop across various jurisdictions and effectively take advantage of the technicalities of a tax system or of mismatches between two or more tax systems for the purpose of reducing the tax liability of companies. Although those situations highlight shortcomings that are completely different in nature, they both create obstacles which impede the proper functioning of the internal market and create distortion between large companies and small and medium enterprises. Action to rectify these problems should therefore address both these types of market deficiencies. If this proposal does not result in an agreement eliminating the distortion in question, the European Commission should issue a new proposal based on Article116 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, whereby the European Parliament and the Council, act in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure to issue the necessary directives.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 53 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
(2) To support the proper functioning of the internal market, the corporate tax environment in the Union should be shaped in accordance with the principle that companies pay their fair share of tax in the jurisdiction(s) where their profits are generated and where they have economic substance. It is therefore necessary to provide for mechanisms that discourageprohibit companies from taking advantage of mismatches amongst national tax systems in order to lower their tax liability. It is equally important to also stimulate growth and economic development in the internal market by facilitating cross-border trade and corporate investment. To this end, it is necessary to eliminate both double taxation and double non-taxation risks in the Union through eradicating disparities in the interaction of national corporate tax systems. At the same time, companies need an easily workable tax and legal framework for developing their commercial activity and expanding it across borders in the Union. In that context, remaining cases of discrimination should also be removed.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 61 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) In addition, improving the internal market is the key factor for encouraging growth and job creation. The introduction of a CCCTB should improve growth and lead to more jobs in the Union by reducing the administrative costs for companies, particularly for small businesses operating in several Member States.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 75 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
(4) Considering the need to act swiftly in order to ensure a proper functioning of the internal market by making it, on the one hand, friendlier to trade and investment and, on the other hand, more resilient to tax avoidance schemes, it is necessary to divide the ambitious CCCTB initiative into two separate proposals. At a first stage, rules on a common corporate tax base should be agreed, before addressing, at a second stage, the issue ofeal with the CCTB and CCCTB proposals in parallel. Rules on a common corporate tax base should enter into application, at the same time as the consolidation.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 82 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
(5) Many aggressive tax planning structures tend to feature in a cross-border context, which implies that the participating groups of companies possess a minimum of resources. On this premise, for reasons of proportionality, the rules on a CCCTB should be mandatory only for groups of companies of a substantial size. For that purpose, a size-related threshold should be fixed on the basis of the total consolidated revenue of a group which files consolidated financial statements. In addition, in order to better serve the aim of facilitating trade and investment in the internal market, the rules on a CCCTB should also be available, as an option, to those groups that fall short of the size- related threshold. Five years after the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission shall, in its review, assess the impact of making this system mandatory for all companies and, if appropriate, issue a legislative proposal to amend this Directive accordingly.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 87 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5 a (new)
(5a) One of the main problems encountered by the tax authorities is the impossibility of gaining access in due time to comprehensive and relevant information about MNEs' tax planning strategies. Such information should be made publicly available, in order for tax authorities to react quickly to tax risks, by assessing those risks more effectively, targeting checks and alerting about changes required to the legislation in force.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 91 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5 b (new)
(5b) In order to create a level playing field and to eliminate tax competition and the resulting race to the bottom as regards corporate taxation levels, minimum effective corporate tax rate should be introduced in parallel of the common consolidated corporate tax base so as to avoid transferring unfair competition on the tax base to unfair competition on the tax rates. This Directive therefore sets a minimum corporate tax rate at 20% in each Member State, applicable two years after the date of implementation of the present Directive, with a possibility for Member States to extend this deadline up to five years subject to a prior authorisation by the Commission.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 94 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5 c (new)
(5c) A severe lack in investments has been one of the root causes of the Union economic troubles but the Union budget is still insufficiently geared towards future- oriented investments. Creating additional Union budget related resources is possible according to the existing flexibilities of the Treaty. This proposal therefore includes the objective to have a part of the EU fiscal revenues financed from the common consolidated corporate tax base.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 97 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
(6) Eligibility for the consolidated tax group should be determined in accordance with a two-partcriteria test based on (i) control (more than 50 percent of voting rights) andor (ii) ownership (more than 75 percent of equity) or rights to profits (more than 75 percent of rights giving entitlement to profit). Such a test would ensure a high level of economic integration between group members. To guarantee the integrity of the system, the two thresholdscriteria for control andor ownership or profit rights should be met throughout the tax year; otherwise, the failing company should leave the group immediately. To prevent a manipulation of the tax results through companies entering and leaving the group within a short-term, there should also be a minimum requirement of nine consecutive months for establishing group membership.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 100 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
(7) Rules on business reorganisations should ensure that the effect of such reorganisations on the existing taxing rights of Member States is kept to a minimum. Each time that a company joins a group, the Member States where other group members are resident for tax purposes or situated should therefore not bear the extra cost of losses that the company incurred under the rules of another corporate tax system which applied to that company prior to the rules of this Directive. Pre-consolidation trading losses of a company joining a group should thus be carried forward to be set off against that company's apportioned share. Accordingly, losses incurred by a group member during the period of consolidation should not exclusively be allocated to that group member but be shared across the group instead. In the case of more extensive reorganisations, where more than one company is leaving a loss- making group, it would be essential to fix a threshold, in order to determine under which conditions companies should no longer be leaving a loss-making group without being allocated any losses to carry forward. A similar adjustment should be made in respect of capital gains resulting from the disposal of certain assets within a short period after those assets joined, or departed from, a group alongside a joining or leaving company. In these cases, the Member State(s) where these gains accrued should be given the right to tax them, despite the fact that the assets may no longer be under their taxing jurisdiction. The tax treatment of capital gains engrained in self-generated intangible assets calls for a customised approach, since these assets are often not registered on a company’s financial accounts and since there does not seem to be a way to precisely calculate their value. Accrued capital gains should therefore be assessed on the basis of a suitable proxy, namely the costs for research and development and for marketing and advertising over a specific period.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 103 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
(10) TAs far as companies not involved in digital business through virtual permanent establishments are concerned, the formula apportionment for the consolidated tax base should comprise three equally weighted factors, namely labour, tangible assets and sales by destination. As far as companies fully or partially operating digitally through one or several virtual permanent establishments are concerned, the formula apportionment for the consolidated tax base should comprise four equally weighted factors, namely labour, tangible assets, revenues generated from collected data and number of users in the destination country. Those equally weighted factors should reflect a balanced approach to distributing taxable profits amongst the relevant Member States and should ensure that profits are taxed where they are actually earned. Labour and tangible assets should therefore be allocated to the Member State where the labour is performed or the assets are located, and would thereby give appropriate weight to the interests of the Member State of origin, whilst sales, or, as far as digital activities are concerned, revenues generated from collected data and the number of users should be allocated to the Member State of destination of the goods or services. To account for differences in the levels of wages across the Union and thus allow for a fair distribution of the consolidated tax base, the labour factor should comprise both payroll and the number of employees (i.e. each item counting for half). The asset factor, on the other hand, should comprise all fixed tangible assets, but not intangible and financial assets because of their mobile nature and the resulting risk that the rules of this Directive could be circumvented. Where, due to exceptional circumstances, the outcome of the apportionment does not fairly represent the extent of business activity, a safeguard clause should provide for an alternative method of income allocation.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 105 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
(10) The formula apportionment for the consolidated tax base should comprise three equally weighted factors, namely labour, assets and sales by destination. Those equally weighted factors should reflect a balanced approach to distributing taxable profits amongst the relevant Member States and should ensure that profits are taxed where they are actually earned. Labour and assets should therefore be allocated to the Member State where the labour is performed or the assets are located, and would thereby give appropriate weight to the interests of the Member State of origin, whilst sales should be allocated to the Member State of destination of the goods or services. To account for differences in the levels of wages across the Union and thus allow for a fair distribution of the consolidated tax base, the labour factor should comprise both payroll and the number of employees (i.e. each item counting for half). The asset factor, on the other hand, should comprise all fixed tangible assets, but not intangible and financial assets because of their mobile nature and the resulting risk that the rules of this Directive could be circumvented. Where, due to exceptional circumstances, the outcome of the apportionment does not fairly represent the extent of business activity, a safeguard clause should provide for an alternative method of income allocation.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 116 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
(13) Audits should in principle be initiated and coordinated by the principal tax authority, but given that the first stage consisting in the calculation of the tax base is performed locally, the national authorities of any Member State in which the profits of a group member are subject to tax should also be able to request the initiation of an audit. Accordingly, to protect the national tax base, the competent authority of the Member State in which a group member is resident for tax purposes or established in the form of a permanent or virtual permanent establishment should be able to challenge before the courts of the Member State of the principal tax authority a decision of that tax authority concerning the notice to create a group or a decision concerning an amended tax assessment. Disputes between taxpayers and tax authorities shouldmay be dealt with by an administrative body at first instance, in order to reduce the number of cases that reach the courts. That body should be structured and operating in accordance with the law of the Member State of the principal tax authority is competent to hear appeals at first instance. The Commission should establish a new CCCTB forum to which companies and Member States can refer questions and disputes relating to the CCCTB. That forum should be able to give guidance to companies and Member States.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 120 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
(14) This Directive builds upon Council Directive 2016/xx/EU on a common corporate tax base (which lays down a common set of corporate tax rules for computing the tax base) and focusses on the consolidation of tax results across the group. It wouldis thus be necessary to deal with the interaction between the two legislative instruments and cater for the transition of certain elements of the tax base into the new framework of the group. Such elements should include, in particular, the interest limitation rule, the switch-over clause and controlled foreign company legislation as well as hybrid mismatches. Member States should not be prevented from introducing additional anti-tax avoidance measures in order to reduce the negative effects of shifting profits to low- tax countries outside the Union.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 123 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 14 a (new)
(14a) In order to reach its objectives, this Directive should ensure a real consolidation process of tax bases rather than a simple aggregation process which could eventually lead to new loopholes and mismatches between the different national accounting rules. The consolidated tax base should therefore be regarded as the result of the consolidated net taxable revenue of the group members as calculated on an accounting basis applicable to all group members.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 131 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
(18) Since the objectives of this Directive, namely to improve the functioning of the internal market through countering practices of international tax avoidance and to facilitate businesses in expanding across borders within the Union, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States acting individually and in a disparate fashion because coordinated action is necessary to obtain these objectives, but can rather, by reason of the fact that the Directive targets inefficiencies of the internal market that originate in the interaction between disparate national tax rules which impact on the internal market and discourage cross-border activity, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives, especially considering that its mandatory scope is currently limited to groups beyond a certain size.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 133 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
(20) The Commission should be required to review the application of the Directive five years after its entry into force and report to Council and European Parliament on its operation. Member States should be required to communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive,
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 140 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The rules of this Directive shall apply to a company that is established under the laws of a Member State, including its permanent and virtual permanent establishments in other Member States, where the company meets all of the following conditions:
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 146 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) it belongs to a consolidated group for financial accounting purposes with a total consolidated group revenue that exceeded EUR 7540 000 000 during the financial year preceding the relevant financial year;
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 151 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. This Directive shall also apply to a company that is established under the laws of a third country in respect of its virtual permanent establishments that are specifically directed towards consumers or businesses in a Member State or that principally receive their revenue from activity in a Member State, where the company meets the conditions laid down in points (b) to (d) of paragraph 1.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 153 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 4
4. The rules of this Directive shall not apply to a shipping company under a special tax regime. A shipping company under a special tax regime shall be taken into account for the purpose of determining the companies which are members of the same group as referred to in Articles 5 and 6.deleted
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 157 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 23
(23) 'consolidated tax base' means the result of adding up the tax basesthe consolidated net taxable revenue of allthe group members, as calculated ion an accordance withunting basis applicable to all group members according to Directive 2016/xx/EU;
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 160 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 28 a (new)
(28a) ‘permanent and virtual permanent establishment’ as defined in point (X) of Article 4 of Directive 2016/xx/EU;
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 169 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 5
5. A non-resident taxpayer shall be subject to corporate tax on all income from an activity carried on through a permanent or virtual permanent establishment in a Member State.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 172 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) it has a right to exercise more than 50 % of the voting rights; andor
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 177 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The use of letterbox companies by taxpayers operating in the Union should be prohibited. Taxpayers should communicate to tax authorities evidence demonstrating the economic substance of each of the entities in their group, as part of their annual country-by-country reporting obligations.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 178 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) all its permanent and virtual permanent establishments that are situated in a Member State;
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 179 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) all permanent and virtual permanent establishments that are situated in a Member State and belong to its qualifying subsidiaries that are resident in a third country for tax purposes;
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 180 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) all its qualifying subsidiaries that are resident in a Member State for tax purposes, including the permanent and virtual permanent establishments of those subsidiaries where such permanent establishments are situated in a Member State;
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 181 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. A non-resident taxpayer shall form a group in respect of all of its permanent and virtual permanent establishments that are situated in one or more Member States and with all of its qualifying subsidiaries that are resident in a Member State for tax purposes, including the permanent and virtual permanent establishments of those subsidiaries where such permanent establishments are also situated in one or more Member States.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 184 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. The tax bases of all members of a group shall be added together into a consolidated tax basnet taxable revenue of a group’s members shall be based on their financial statements which are to be adjusted so that taxable revenues include all cash and exchange or barter receipts - arising during or due for the period - less those accounted for in previous periods, those of a capital nature and those explicitly exempted from charge.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 186 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The net taxable revenue shall not include cash, barter or exchange payments made or due which were accounted for in previous periods for the purposes of the trade of the corporation, as well as loan or equity capital repayment and expenses that are explicitly exempted from deduction.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 187 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. Where the consolidated tax base is negative, the loss shall be carried forward and be set off against the next positive consolidated tax base during a maximum of five years. Where the consolidated tax base is positive, it shall be apportioned in accordance with Chapter VIII.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 197 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. All such intra-group transactions shall be eliminated from the tax base as a result of the consolidation required by Article 7 (1).
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 198 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4
4. The taxpayer that, as a result of a business reorganisation, no longer exists or no longer has a permanent or virtual permanent establishment in the Member State in which it was resident for tax purposes on the date that it joined the group, shall be considered to have a permanent or virtual permanent establishment in that Member State for the purpose of applying this Article.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 199 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15
Unrelieved losses that have been incurred by a group member in accordance with national corporate tax law or Directive 2016/xx/EU before the rules of this Directive became applicable to that group member may be set off against the apportioned share of that group member if and to the extent that this is provided for under the national corporate tax law or Directive 2016/xx/EU.Article 15 deleted Pre-entry losses
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 200 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 3
3. For the purpose of applying this Article, the transferring taxpayer referred to in paragraph 2 that no longer exists or no longer has a permanent or virtual permanent establishment in the Member State from which the assets were transferred shall be considered to have a permanent or virtual permanent establishment in that Member State.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 201 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Where, as a result of a business reorganisation, one or more groups, or two or more group members, become part of another group, any unrelieved losses of the previously existing group or groups shall be allocated to each of the group members in accordance with Chapter VIII and on the basis of the factors as they stand at the end of the tax year in which the business reorganisation takes place. Unrelieved losses of the previously existing group or groups shall be carried forward for futurduring a maximum of five years.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 204 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 23 – paragraph 2
2. Where two or more principal taxpayers merge within the meaning of points (i) and (ii) of Article 2(a) of Council Directive 2009/133/EC15 , any unrelieved losses of a group shall be allocated to its members in accordance with Chapter VIII, on the basis of the factors as they stand at the end of the tax year in which the merger takes place. Unrelieved losses shall be carried forward for futurduring a maximum of five years. __________________ 15 Council Directive 2009/133/EC of 19 Council Directive 2009/133/EC of 19 October 2009 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, partial divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States and to the transfer of the registered office of an SE or SCE between Member States (OJ L 310, 25.11.2009, p. 34).
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 206 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 3
3. Where the beneficial owner of the shares that were disposed of is a non- taxpayer or a non-resident taxpayer with those shares attributed to its head office or permanent or virtual permanent establishment in a third country, the market value of the asset or assets at the time of the disposal of the shares, less the value for tax purposes, shall be deemed to have been received by the taxpayer that held the assets prior to the intra-group transaction referred to in the first paragraph.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 207 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 2
2. The tax credit referred to in paragraph 1 shall be calculated separately for each Member State or third country as well as for each type of income. It shall not exceed the amount resulting from subjecting the income attributed to a taxpayer or to a permanent or virtual permanent establishment to the corporate tax rate of the Member State where the taxpayer is resident for tax purposes or where the permanentsuch establishment is situated.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 212 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The consolidated tax base shall be shared between the group members in each tax year on the basis of a formula for apportionment. In determining the apportioned share of a group member A, the formula shall take the following form, giving equal weight to the factors of sales, labour and assets:The formula for apportionment to be used shall depend on whether or not the company has virtual permanent establishments, as defined in Directive 2016/xx/EU.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 214 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
As far as non-digital activities are concerned, , the formula for determining the apportioned share of a group member A shall take the following form, giving equal weight to the factors of sales, labour and assets:
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 218 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
As far as digital activities are concerned, the formula for determining the apportioned share of a group member A shall take the following form, giving equal weight to the factors of revenues, labour, assets, and users:
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 220 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 b (new)
Share A= [1/4 (Revenues generated from data collected by A)/(Revenues of the Group) + 1/4 (No of users A)/(No of users of the Group)) + 1/4 (1/2 (Payroll A)/(Payroll Group) + 1/2 (No of employees A)/(No of employees Group)) + 1/4 (Assets A)/(Assets Group)
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 221 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 c (new)
The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article XX to lay down the detailed rules on how the revenues generated from collected data as well as how the number of user shall be defined and calculated depending on the type of digital business concerned.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 222 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 5
5. When determining the apportioned share of a group member, equal weight shall be given to the factors of sales, labour and assets.deleted
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 224 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 29
As an exception to the rule set out in Article 28, if the principal taxpayer or a competent authority considers that the outcome of the apportionment of the consolidated tax base to a group member does not fairly represent the extent of the business activity of that group member, the principal taxpayer or competent authority may request the use of an alternative method for calculating the tax share of each group member. An alternative method can be used only if, following consultations among the competent authorities and, where applicable, discussions held in accordance with Articles 77 and 78, all these authorities agree to that alternative method. The Member State of the principal tax authority shall inform the Commission about the alternative method used.rticle 29 deleted Safeguard clause
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 234 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 35 a (new)
Article 35a Composition of the data and user factors The data and users factors shall consist, as to one quarter of the formula, of the value of total revenues generated from data collected as its numerator and the total amount of revenues of the group as its denominator; and as to another quarter of the formula, of the total number of user accounts as its numerator and the total number of user accounts of the group as its denominator. This data factors apply only in cases where the group has virtual permanent establishments.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 236 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 37 – paragraph 1
1. The sales factor shall consist of the total sales allocated to a group member, including permanent and virtual permanent establishments that are considered to exist pursuant to Article 22(3), as its numerator and the total sales of the group as its denominator.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 240 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 39 – paragraph 1
The Commission may adopt acts laying down detailed rules on the calculation of the labour, asset, sales, data and saleusers factors, the allocation of employees and payroll, assets and sales to the respective factor and the valuation of assets. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 77(2).
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 250 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 46 – paragraph 3
3. The principal tax authority shall transmit the notice immediately to the competent authorities of all Member States in which group members are resident for tax purposes or situated in the form of a permanent or virtual permanent establishment. Those authorities may submit their views and any relevant information on the validity and scope of the notice to the principal tax authority within one month of its transmission.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 251 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 47 – paragraph 1
1. This Directive shall start applying to a group one month after the notice to create a group was received, as referred to in Article 46(3), by the competent authorities of all Member States in which group members are resident for tax purposes or situated in the form of a permanent or virtual permanent establishment. The principal tax authority shall inform the principal taxpayer in this regard.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 252 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 48 – paragraph 2
The Commission mayshall adopt an act establishing a standard form of the notice to create a group. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 77(2).
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 253 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 51 – paragraph 3
3. Where the consolidated tax return does not have the legal status of a tax assessment for the purposes of enforcing a tax debt, the competent authority of a Member State may, in respect of a group member that is resident for tax purposes or situated there in the form of a permanent or virtual permanent establishment, issue an instrument of national law authorising enforcement in that Member State. That instrument shall incorporate the data in the consolidated tax return concerning the group member. Appeals shall be permitted against the instrument exclusively on grounds of form and not to the underlying tax assessment. The procedure shall be governed by the national law of the relevant Member State.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 254 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 51 – paragraph 4
4. The principal taxpayer shall be responsible for all procedural obligations relating to the taxation of permanent or virtual permanent establishments as referred to in Article 11(4) or Article 22(3).
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 256 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 56 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
Prior to issuing an amended tax assessment, the principal tax authority shall consult the competent authorities of the Member States in which a group member is resident for tax purposes or situated in the form of a permanent or virtual permanent establishment. Those authorities may express their views within one month of consultation.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 257 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 56 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
The competent authority of a Member State in which a group member is resident for tax purposes or situated in the form of a permanent or virtual permanent establishment may call on the principal tax authority to issue an amended tax assessment. Failure of the principal tax authority to notify within three months of that call to the competent authority that it undertakes to issue that amended tax assessment shall be treated as a refusal.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 258 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 58 – paragraph 2
In exceptional circumstances, the competent tax authorities of the Member States in which the group members are resident or in which they have a permanent or virtual permanent establishment may, within six months of the notice referred to in Article 46 or within six months of a reorganisation involving the principal taxpayer, decide by common agreement that a taxpayer other than the taxpayer designated by the group shall be the principal taxpayer.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 259 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 60 – paragraph 1
A taxpayer shall at the request of the competent authority of the Member State in which it is resident or in which its permanent or virtual permanent establishment is situated provide all information foreseeably relevant to the determination of its tax liability. In addition, the principal taxpayer shall at the request of the principal tax authority provide all information foreseeably relevant to the determination of the consolidated tax base or of the tax liability of any group member.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 260 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 61 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
A taxpayer may request from the competent authority of the Member State in which it is resident or in which it has a permanent or virtual permanent establishment an opinion on the implementation of the rules of this Directive on a specific transaction or series of transactions that it plans to carry out. A taxpayer may also request an opinion on the proposed composition of a group. The competent authority shall take all possible steps to respond to the request within a reasonable time.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 262 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 65 – paragraph 1
1. Where the competent authority of the Member State in which a group member is resident for tax purposes or situated in the form of a permanent or virtual permanent establishment disagrees with a decision of the principal tax authority made pursuant to Articles 49 or 56(2) or (4) or the second subparagraph of Article 56(5) may challenge that decision before the courts of the Member State of the principal tax authority within a period of three months.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 265 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 67 – paragraph 1
1. Appeals against amended tax assessments or tax assessments made pursuant to Article 54 shall be heard by an administrative body that according to the law of the Member State of the principal tax authority is competent to hear appeals at first instance. That administrative body shall be independent from the tax authorities in the Member State of the principal tax authority. Where there is no such administrative body in that Member State or where the principal taxpayer prefers so, the principal taxpayer may lodge a judicial appeal directly.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 266 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 67 – paragraph 5
5. TIf seized of the case, the administrative body referred to in paragraph 1 shall decide on the appeal within six months. If no decision is received by the principal taxpayer within that period, the decision of the principal tax authority shall be deemed to have been confirmed.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 268 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 69 – paragraph 2
2. Where paragraph 1 applies, the exceeding borrowing costs and EBITDA shall be calculated at the level of the group and comprise the results of all group members. The amount of EUR 31 000 000 referred to in Article 13 of Directive 2016/xx/EU shall be increased to 53 000 000 while respecting the time conditions set out in article 13 of Directive 2016/xx/EU.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 272 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 71
1. on lArticle 71 deleted Loss relief and recapture shall automatically cease to apply when this Directive comes into force. 2. yet been recaptured when this Directive enters into force shall remain with the taxpayer to which they have been transferred.Article 41 of Directive 2016/xx/EU Transferred losses which have not
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 274 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 72 – paragraph 1
For the purposes of this Directive, the reference to the statutory corporate1. By way of derogation from points (c) and (d) of Article 8 of Directive 2016/xx/EU, a taxpayer shall not be exempt from tax on foreign income that the taxpayer received as a profit distribution from an entity in a third country or as proceeds from the disposal of shares held in an entity in a third country where that entity in its country of tax residence is subject to an effective corporate tax rate lower than 75% of the statutory tax rate that the taxpayer would have been subject to, in the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Directive 2016/xx/EU shall not apply and shall be replaced by the average statutory corporate tax rate applicable amongst all Member States instead. connection with such foreign income, in the Member State of its residence for tax purposes. Member States’ conventions for the avoidance of double taxation between the Member State in which the taxpayer is resident for tax purposes and the third country where that entity is resident for tax purposes shall be amended accordingly. 2. Where paragraph 1 applies, the taxpayer shall be subject to tax on the foreign income with a deduction of the tax paid in the third country from its tax liability in the Member State where it is resident for tax purposes. The deduction shall not exceed the amount of tax, as computed before the deduction, which is attributable to the income that may be taxed. 3. Member States shall exclude losses from the scope of this Article in the event of a disposal of shares in an entity that has its residence for tax purposes in a third country.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 277 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 73 – paragraph 1
For the purposes of this Directive, the scope of controlled foreign company legislation applies as defined under Article 59 of Directive 2016/xx/EU shall be limited to relations between group members and entities that are resident for tax purposes, or permanent establishments that are situated, in a third country.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 280 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 74 – paragraph 1
For the purposes of this Directive, the scope of the rules on hybrid mismatches uander Article 61 of Directive 2016/xx/EU shall be limited to relations between group members and non-group members that are associated enterpris related arrangements applies, as rdeferred to inined under Article 561 of Directive 2016/xx/EU.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 281 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 75 a (new)
Article 75a Minimum effective tax rate and contribution to the Union budget 1. Two years after the date of implementation of this Directive, Member States shall not be allowed to set an effective corporate tax rate below 20%, whilst no upper limit is set by this Directive. 2. By way of derogation of paragraph 1, Member States may request an extended deadline to the European Commission, so as to keep an effective corporate tax rate below 20% for longer than two years after the implementation of this Directive, but for no longer than seven years after its implementation. The derogation request shall be motivated and authorised by the European Commission. When deciding on a possible extension of the phasing-in period for a particular Member State, due account shall be taken of the specific situation of that Member State, the objective reasons for the request, and the impact of such a derogation on other Member States. 3. The Commission shall put forward by [two years after the entry into application of this Directive] a legislative proposal for the allocation of a part of the fiscal revenues generated from the common consolidated corporate tax base to the budget of the European Union in order to increase its own resources.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 282 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 75 b (new)
Article 75b CCCTB forum The Commission shall establish a CCCTB forum to which companies and Member States may refer questions and general disputes relating to the CCCTB. That forum shall provide guidance to companies and Member States and shall be coordinated and chaired by Commission services.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 287 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 79 – paragraph 1
The Commission shall, five years after the entry into force of this Directive, review its application and report to the Council and the European Parliament on the operation of this Directive. The report shall in particular include an analysis of the impact of the mechanism set up in Chapter VIII of this Directive on the apportionment of the tax bases between the Member States.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 293 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 80 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall adopt and publish, by 31st December 202019 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 298 #

2016/0336(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 80 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
They shall apply those provisions from 1st January 20210.
2017/09/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 60 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
(5) It is necessary to lay down rules against the erosion of tax bases in the internal market and the shifting of profits out of the internal market. Rules in the following areas are necessary in order to contribute to achieving that objective: limitations to the deductibility of interest, exit taxation, a switch-over clause, a general anti-abuse rule, controlled foreign company rules and a framework to tackle hybrid mismatches. Where the application of those rules gives rise to double taxation, taxpayers should receive relief through a deduction for the tax paid in another Member State or third country, as the case may be. Thus, the rules should not only aim to counter tax avoidance practices but also avoid creating other obstacles to the market, such as double taxation. Nevertheless, it is also urgent and necessary to lay down a single set of rules for calculating taxable profits of cross-border companies in the Union by treating corporate groups as a single entity for tax purposes, in order to strengthen the internal market and eliminate many of the weaknesses in the current corporate tax framework enabling aggressive tax planning.
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 67 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
(6) In an effort to reduce their global tax liability, cross-border groups of companies have increasingly engaged in shifting profits, often through inflated interest payments, out of high tax jurisdictions into countries with lower tax regimes. The interest limitation rule is necessary to discourage such practices by limiting the deductibility of taxpayers’ net financial costs (i.e. the amount by which financial expenses exceed financial revenues). It is therefore necessary to fix a ratio for deductibility which refers to a taxpayer’s earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA). Tax exempt financial revenues should not be set off against financial expenses. This is because only taxable income should be taken into account in determining up to how much of interest may be deducted. To facilitate taxpayers which run reduced risks related to base erosion and profit shifting, net interest should always be deductible up to a fixed maximum amount, which is triggered where it leads to a higher deduction than the EBITDA-based ratio. Where the taxpayer is part of a group which files statutory consolidated accounts, the indebtedness of the overall group should be considered for the purpose of granting taxpayers entitlement to deduct higher amounts of net financial costs. The interest limitation rule should apply in relation to a taxpayer's net financial costs without distinction of whether the costs originate in debt taken out nationally, cross-border within the Union or with a third country. Although iIt is generally accepted that financial undertakings, i.e. financial institutions and insurance undertakings, should also be subject to limitations to the deductibility of interest, it is equally acknowledged that these two sectors present special features which call for a more customised approach. As the discussions in this field are not yet sufficiently conclusive in the international and Union context, it is not yet possible to provide specific rules in the financial and insurance sectorsperhaps with a more customised approach.
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 74 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a) Too often, multinational companies make arrangements to transfer their profits to tax havens without paying any or very low rates of tax. The concept of permanent establishment will provide a precise, binding definition of the criteria which must be met if a multinational company is to prove that it is situated in a given country. This will force multinational companies to pay their taxes fairly.
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 77 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 b (new)
(7b) The term transfer pricing refers to the conditions and arrangements surrounding transactions effected within a multinational company, including subsidiaries and shell companies whose profits are divested to a parent multinational. It denotes the prices charged between associated undertakings established in different countries for their intra-group transactions, such as the transfer of goods and services. As the prices are set by non-independent associates within the same multinational undertaking, they may not reflect the objective market price. The Union must satisfy itself that the taxable profits generated by multinational undertakings are not being transferred outside the jurisdiction of the Member State concerned and that the tax base declared by multinational undertakings in their country reflects the economic activity undertaken there. In the interests of taxpayers, it is essential to limit the risk of double non-taxation which may result from a difference of opinion between two countries regarding the determination of the arm's length charge for their international transactions with associated undertakings. This system does not rule out the use of a range of artificial arrangements, in particular involving products for which there is no market price (for example a franchise or services provided to undertakings).
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 78 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 c (new)
(7c) The OECD has developed the 'modified nexus approach' in an effort to regulate the patent box system. This method guarantees that, under the patent box system, a favourable rate of tax is charged only on revenue directly linked to spending on research and development. However, we already see the difficulty for member States in applying the concepts of 'nexus' and 'economic substance' to their innovation boxes. If, by June 2016, the Member States have still not fully implemented the modified nexus approach in a uniform manner in order to eliminate current harmful patent box regimes, the Commission should submit a new, binding legislative proposal under Article 116 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 80 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
(8) Given the inherent difficulties in giving credit relief for taxes paid abroad, States tend to increasingly exempt from taxation foreign income in the State of residence. The unintended negative effect of this approach is however that it encourages situations whereby untaxed or low-taxed income enters the internal market and then, circulates – in many cases, untaxed - within the Union, making use of available instruments within the Union law. Switch- over clauses are commonly used against such practices. It is therefore necessary to provide for a switch-over clause which is targeted against some types of foreign income, for example, profit distributions, proceeds from the disposal of shares and permanent establishment profits which are tax exempt in the Union and originate in third countries. This income should be taxable in the Union, if it has been taxed below a certain level in the third country. Considering that the switch-over clause does not require control over the low- taxed entity and therefore access to statutory accounts of the entity may be unavailable, the computation of the effective tax rate can be a very complicated exercise. Member States should therefore use the statutoryMember States should use the effective tax rate when applying the switch-over clause. Member States that apply the switch-over clause should give a credit for the tax paid abroad, in order to prevent double taxation.
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 86 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
(9) General anti-abuse rules (GAARs) feature in tax systems to tackle abusive tax practices that have not yet been dealt with through specifically targeted provisions. GAARs have therefore a function aimed to fill in gaps, which should not affect the applicability of specific anti-abuse rules. Within the Union, the application of GAARs should be limitapplied to arrangements that are ‘wholly artificial’ (non-genuine); otherwise, the taxpayer should have the right to choose the most tax efficient structure for its commercial affairsconsidered harmful. It is furthermore important to ensure that the GAARs apply in domestic situations, within the Union and vis-à-vis third countries in a uniform manner, so that their scope and results of application in domestic and cross-border situations do not differ.
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 89 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
(10) Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) rules have the effect of re-attributing the income of a low-taxed controlled subsidiary to its parent company. Then, the parent company becomes taxable to this attributed income in the State where it is resident for tax purposes. Depending on the policy priorities of that State, CFC rules may target an entire low-taxed subsidiary or be limited to income which has artificially been diverted to the subsidiary. It is desirable to address situations both in third-countries and in the Union. To comply with the fundamental freedoms, the impact of the rules within the Union should be limited tocover all arrangements which result inone of the principal purposes is the artificial shifting of profits out of the Member State of the parent company towards the CFC. In this case, the amounts of income attributed to the parent company should be adjusted by reference to the arm’s length principle, so that the State of the parent company only taxes amounts of CFC income to the extent that they do not comply with this principle. CFC rules should exclude financial undertakings from their scope where those are tax resident in the Union, including permanent establishments of such undertakings situated in the Union. This is because the scope for a legitimate application of CFC rules within the Union should be limited to artificial situations without economic substance, which would imply that the heavily regulated financial and insurance sectors would be unlikely to be captured by those rules.
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 95 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) An exhaustive 'black list' with accompanying sanctions should be prepared by the Commission to list tax havens including those in the Union, which distort competition by granting low or no taxation to non-residents without real economic substance.
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 98 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 a (new)
(12a) One of the main problems encountered by the tax authorities is the impossibility of gaining access in due time to comprehensive and relevant information about MNEs' tax planning strategies. Such information should be made publicly available, in order for tax authorities to react quickly to tax risks, by assessing those risks more effectively, targeting checks and alerting about changes required to the legislation in force.
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 105 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
(15) The Commission should put in place a specific monitoring mechanism to ensure the proper implementation of this Directive and the homogeneous interpretation of its measures by Member States. It should evaluate the implementation of this Directive three years after its entry into force and report to the European Parliament and the Council thereon. Member States should communicate to the European Parliament and the Commission all information necessary for this evaluation,.
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 108 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)
(1a) 'taxpayer' means a corporate entity covered under the scope of this Directive;
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 112 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7 a (new)
(7a) 'permanent establishment' means a fixed place of business situated in a Member State through which the business of a company of another Member State is wholly or partly carried on; this definition should also address situations in which companies which engage in fully dematerialised digital activities are considered to have a permanent establishment in a Member State if they maintain a significant digital presence in the economy of that country;
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 115 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7 b (new)
(7b) 'tax haven' means a jurisdiction characterised by one or several of the following criteria: no or only nominal taxation for non-residents; laws or administrative practices preventing the effective exchange of tax information with other governments; legal or administrative provisions preventing tax transparency or the absence of requirement of a substantial economic activity to be carried out.
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 116 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7 c (new)
(7c) 'competition haven' means a jurisdiction whose tax system has preferential tax regimes constituting harmful tax competition
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 119 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. Exceeding borrowing costs shall be deductible in the tax year in which they are incurred only up to 30 percent of the taxpayer's earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) or up to an amount of EUR 1 000 000, whichever is higher. The EBITDA shall be calculated by adding back to taxable income the tax-adjusted amounts for net interest expenses and other costs equivalent to interest as well as the tax- adjusted amounts for depreciation and amortisationeach corporate group's consolidated interest costs payable to third parties or up to an amount of EUR 1 000 000, whichever is higher.
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 135 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. The EBITDA of a tax year which is not fully absorbed by the borrowing costs incurred by the taxpayer in that or previous tax years may be carried forward for future tax years for a maximum period of two years.
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 144 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 6
6. Paragraphs 2 to 5 shall not apply to financial undertakings.deleted
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 172 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5a Permanent establishment 1. A fixed place of business that is used or maintained by a taxpayer shall be deemed to give rise to a permanent establishment if the same taxpayer or a closely related person carries on business activities at the same place or at another place in the same State and: a) that place or other place constitutes a permanent establishment for the taxpayer or the closely related person under the provisions of this article; or b) the overall activity resulting from the combination of the activities carried on by the taxpayer and the closely related person at the same place, or by the same taxpayer or closely related persons at the two places, is not of a preparatory or auxiliary character, provided that the business activities carried on by the taxpayer and the closely related person at the same place, or by the same taxpayer or closely related persons at the two places, constitute complementary functions that are part of a cohesive business operation. 2. Where a person is acting in a State on behalf of a taxpayer and, in doing so, habitually concludes contracts, or habitually plays the principal role leading to the conclusion of contracts that are routinely concluded without material modification by the taxpayer, and these contracts are: a) in the name of the taxpayer, or b) for the transfer of the ownership of, or for the granting of the right to use, property owned by that taxpayer or that the taxpayer has the right to use, or c) for the provision of services by that taxpayer, that taxpayer shall be deemed to have a permanent establishment in that State in respect of any activities which that person undertakes for the taxpayer, unless the activities of such person are of auxiliary or preparatory character so that, if exercised through a fixed place of business, would not make this fixed place of business a permanent establishment under the provisions of this paragraph. 3. The Member States shall adapt their bilateral treaties to this definition. 4. The Commission shall be empowered to define by delegated act the notions of preparatory or auxiliary character.
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 174 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 b (new)
Article 5 b Harmful tax regimes 1. Patent or innovation boxes are not the right incentive to promote Research and Development and should be phased out in Member States where they exist by 2020. In the meantime, stricter rules than the 'modified nexus approach' on economic substance and transparency shall apply to the existing regimes, especially regarding how much revenue is granted in the form of tax exemption to taxpayers benefiting from such boxes regimes. Counter- measures shall be applicable by Member States which see their tax base eroded by such regimes. 2. Tax rulings with a cross-border effect shall be made public. The competent authority of a Member State shall publicly disclose advance rulings and advance pricing arrangements in an accessible centralised register, twelve months at the most after the ruling is signed. 3. Within the Union, the consolidated tax base shall make it possible to eliminate the issue of profit shifting through tax planning as regards intellectual property. 4. That system shall take account of the location of profit attribution. 5. The common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB) shall include: - a common corporate tax base under which a single set of rules shall apply with regard to calculating the taxable result for the purposes of corporation tax, in all the Member States; - consolidated results for members of the group.
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 177 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 c (new)
Article 5c 'Letterbox' companies 1. The use of letterbox companies shall be prohibited by taxpayers operating in the European Union. Taxpayers shall communicate to tax authorities element of proof demonstrating an economic substance for each of the entities in their group, as part of their annual country-by- country reporting obligation.
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 191 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. Non-genuine arrangements or a series thereof carried out for the essentialmain purpose or one of the main purposes of obtaining a tax advantage that defeats the object or purpose of the otherwise applicable tax provisions shall be ignored for the purposes of calculating the corporate tax liability. An arrangement may comprise more than one step or part.
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 196 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. For the purposes of paragraph 1, an arrangement or a series thereof shall be regarded as non-genuine to the extent that they lead to different taxation of certain types of income, such as those generated by patents.
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 199 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. The European Parliament may call for the Commission to open an investigation if it considers that a discretionary bilateral tax agreement has been agreed between a Member State and a MNE.
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 200 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. In order to prevent the creation of special purpose entities such as 'letterbox companies' or shell companies with a lower tax treatment, enterprises must correspond to the definitions of permanent establishment and minimum economic substance laid down in Article 2.
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 218 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – title
Hybrid mismatches between Member States
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 224 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 a (new)
Article 10a Hybrid mismatches involving third countries Where a Member State and a third country give a different legal characterisation to the same taxpayer (hybrid entity), including permanent establishments in the third country, and this leads to either a situation where a deduction of the same payment, expenses or losses occurs both in the Member State in which the payment has its source, the expenses are incurred or the losses are suffered and in the third country or a situation where there is a deduction of a payment in the Member State in which the payment has its source without a corresponding inclusion of the same payment in the third country, the legal characterisation given to the hybrid entity by the third country, the expenses are incurred or the losses are suffered shall be followed by the Member State. Where a Member State and a third country give a different legal characterisation to the same payment (hybrid instrument) and this leads to a situation where there is a deduction in the Member State in which the payment has its source without a corresponding inclusion of the same payment in the third country, the legal characterisation given to the hybrid instrument by the third country shall be followed by the Member State.
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 226 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 b (new)
Article 10b Measures against tax treaty abuses 1. It is recommended that Member States amend their bilateral tax treaties to include the following provisions: (a) a clause ensuring that both parties to the treaties commit that tax will be paid where economic activities are taking place and value is created, (b) an addendum to clarify that the objective of bilateral conventions, beyond avoiding double taxation is to fight tax evasion and tax avoidance, (c) a clause for a principal purpose test based general anti-avoidance rule, as defined in the Commission recommendation C (2016) 271 final, (d) a definition of permanent establishment, as defined in Article 5 of the OECD Model Tax Convention; 2. The Commission shall make a proposal before 31 December 2017 for a "European approach to tax treaties" in order to set up a European model of tax treaty which could ultimately replace the thousands bilateral treaties concluded by each Member States; 3. Member States shall denounce or refrain for signing bilateral treaties with jurisdictions not respecting minimum standards of Union agreed principles of good governance in tax matters.
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 230 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – title
Review and Monitoring
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 235 #

2016/0011(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The Commission shall put into place a specific monitoring mechanism to ensure the full and adequate transposition of this Directive and the correct interpretation of all definitions provided and actions required by Member States, in order to have a coordinated European approach on the fight against base erosion and profit shifting.
2016/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 194 #

2015/2221(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Asks the Commission to conduct and make public an evaluation of the decision-making procedure which led the Troika, in the implementation of the last Memorandum of Understanding signed with Greece, to require savings up to 25 billion EUR for the recapitalization of Greek banks, while the SSM, which role is to assess such needs, stated on 31 October 2015, that the recapitalization needs, in a baseline scenario, were up to 4.4 billion EUR, and the most risky scenario, up to 14.4 billion EUR;
2015/12/14
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1 #

2015/2128(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas Member States are primarily responsible for the collection of own resources, inter alia in the form of VAT and customs duties;
2015/11/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 3 #

2015/2128(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas the diversity of legal and administrative systems in the Member States presents a challenging environment in which to overcome irregularities and combat fraud; whereas any incorrect use of EU funds entails not only individual, but also collective, losses;
2015/11/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 11 #

2015/2128(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Encourages the Council to give a new impetus to the negotiations on the PIF Directive in order to strengthen the existing legal framework by establishing common minimum rules for the definition of offences affecting the Union’s financial interests with VAT included in the scope, and by laying down sanctions and time limitsrules on prescription for such cases, particularly in view of the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Taricco case reminding that VAT is a traditional own resource;
2015/11/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 15 #

2015/2128(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Reiterates its call to the Council to keep the Parliament informed of and closely involved in the current negotiations for the establishment of the EPPO and recalls the recommendations made in its resolutions of March 2014 and April 2015; stresses that the EPPO Regulation should be adopted swiftly and demands that the Council explain its reasons for delaying the negotiations;
2015/11/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 17 #

2015/2128(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Expresses its concern about the estimated losses on VAT collections in the EU, amounting to EUR 168 billion in 2013; underlines the fact that in many Member States VAT fraud and avoidance remains at a continuously high level; reiterates that the Commission has the competence to control and supervise measures taken by the Member States; calls on the Commission to make full use of its executive powers in order to both control and help the Member States in their fight against VAT fraud and tax avoidance;
2015/11/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 18 #

2015/2128(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Notes with concern that the number of irregularities reported as fraudulent in 2014 dropped by only 4 % after a 76 % increase in 2013; urges the competent authorities to take all necessary measures to decrease the number of fraudulent irregularities, although not at the expense of control standards;
2015/11/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 25 #

2015/2128(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Invites the Commission to develop a system of strict indicators and easily applicable criteria based on the requirements set out in the Stockholm Programme to measure the level of corruption in the Member States; is concerned about the reliability and quality of data coming from the Member States; calls on the Commission, therefore, to work closely with Member States to guarantee comprehensive, exact and reliable data; invites the Commission to work out a corruption index to categorise Member States;
2015/11/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 28 #

2015/2128(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Reiterates its call on the Commission to swiftly promote legislation on the minimum level of protection for whistle- blowers in the European Union; calls on the European institutions to amend the Staff Regulations to ensure that these not only formally oblige officials to report irregularities, but also lay down adequate protection for whistle-blowers; calls on the European institutions that have not done so and other bodies to implement Article 22(c) of the Staff Regulations without delay;
2015/11/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 29 #

2015/2128(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Reiterates that, according to Article 325(2) TFEU, Member States ‘shall take the same measures to counter fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union as they take to counter fraud affecting their own financial interests’; is of the opinion that this provision is not met in the EU; is of the opinion that the Commission should develop a horizontal policy on the fight against fraud and corruption; emphasises that the Commission is also responsible for the effective spending of funds, and calls therefore on the Commission to put in place internal performance requirements;
2015/11/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 30 #

2015/2128(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6c. Notes that the comprehensive prosecution of crime, including fraud and corruption or money laundering or related organised crime and other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the EU, is a conditio sine qua non for the effective functioning of the EU; emphasises the need for a systemic follow- up to OLAF recommendations; is of the opinion that following up those recommendations requires procedural rights for OLAF in national legislations to make sure that recommendations are respected and taken into account by national authorities;
2015/11/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 31 #

2015/2128(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)
6d. Underlines the importance of access to information and the transparency of lobbying, and of using EU funding to support the work of independent organisations in this area, inter alia to establish financial support for cross- border investigative journalism;
2015/11/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 2 #

2015/2110(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 a (new)
- having regard to Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the protection of the environment through criminal law;
2016/07/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 94 #

2015/2110(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Reiterates its call for the establishment of an independent European Public Prosecutor’s Office with clearly defined responsibilities and powers; calls in particular for the inclusion of VAT fraud within the scope of its powers;
2016/07/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 98 #

2015/2110(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Considers that the European Public Prosecutor's Office should constitute a central element in the fight against corruption in the European Union; reiterates the importance of having clearly defined responsibilities and powers between national Prosecutors and the future European Public Prosecutor's Office, as well with Eurojust and OLAF, in order to prevent any conflict of competencies; calls for the allocation of appropriate financial and human resources to the future European Public Prosecutor's Office, in line with its tasks;
2016/07/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 109 #

2015/2110(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 4 a (new)
Protecting whistle-blowers through European legislation
2016/07/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 110 #

2015/2110(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11b. Points out that whistle-blowers play a central role in the fight against corruption as they may reveal cases of fraud that would otherwise be kept secret; regards whistle-blowing as one of the most effective ways of halting and preventing wrongdoing from occurring, or uncovering it if it already took place;
2016/07/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 111 #

2015/2110(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 c (new)
11c. Underlines that no European legislation should be interpreted as restricting whistleblowing activity;
2016/07/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 112 #

2015/2110(INI)

11d. Deplores the fact that whistle- blowers who act in the public interest often take a very high personal risk as they may be dismissed, sued, boycotted, arrested, threatened or victimised and discriminated in a variety of other ways;
2016/07/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 113 #

2015/2110(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 e (new)
11e. Calls on the Commission to take legislative action with the aim of setting up a European protection framework for whistle-blowers; calls for such a proposal to be issued before the end of 2017;
2016/07/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 117 #

2015/2110(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Deplores the fact that cross-border police and judicial cooperation involves excessively lengthy, bureaucratic procedures that hamper its efficiency and jeopardise the effectiveness of the fight against organised crime at EU level; calls on the Member States to increase the resources they devote to cross-border police and judicial cooperation, to guarantee the mutual admissibility of evidence between Member States, to ensure that greater use is made of joint investigation teams and to employ a common system for communication and for exchanging information relevant to the fight against organised crime and corruption, while fully respecting European data protection legislation;
2016/07/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 155 #

2015/2110(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Expresses its concerns about the increase of illegal environment-related activities connected to or resulting from organised, mafia-style criminal activities, such as illegal waste trafficking and disposal and destruction of the environmental landscape; recalls its recommendation to develop a common action plan to prevent and combat these forms of crimes; urges the Commission to propose legislation to better fight environmental crimes;
2016/07/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 187 #

2015/2110(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Points out that the complex activities of criminal organisations often prepare the ground for identity-basedmay be linked to terrorismt crimes; believes that if the fight against terrorism is to be effective, EU legislation on combating organised crime needs to be strengthened;
2016/07/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 193 #

2015/2110(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Instructs its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to follow up on the recommendations made in its resolutions on the fight against corruption; calls the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to assess, within two years, the legislative actions taken by the European Commission in this area, in light of the above recommendations;
2016/07/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 12 #

2015/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 14 a (new)
- having regard to its Written Declaration 0006/2011 of 14 February 2011 on infringement of the fundamental rights of detainees in the European Union,
2017/05/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 34 #

2015/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas, in its judgment of 6 October 2005 in the case Hirst v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights confirmed that a general and automatic restriction on prisoners’ right to vote was not compatible with democracy; whereas in 2011, 58.7% of prisoners in Poland entitled to vote participated in the parliamentary elections;
2017/05/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 57 #

2015/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas the European Social Fund includes projects aiming to help prisoners and ex-offenders integrate in the labour market once they have served their sentence, such as the "Reintegration DJI 2014" project in the Netherlands, the "More qualified work force – more secure society" project in Estonia or the "Leonhard: Enterprise for Prisoners" project in Germany, among others;
2017/05/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 82 #

2015/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L
L. whereas the phenomenon of radicalisation that is occurring in many prisons inof the European Union deserves particular attention and should be tackled appropriately, in full respect of human rights and international obligations;
2017/05/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 126 #

2015/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Is concerned about the growing trend of classifying as crimes acts which used to be classified as minor infringements, and the heavier penalties imposed for specific infringements, resulting in prison sentences being given more often, and for longer periods;
2017/05/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 127 #

2015/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Underlines that systems which are entirely punitive are ineffective or even counter-productive; calls on Member States to de-criminalise certain minor offences for non-violent offenders, such as the use of cannabis (marijuana) and other soft drugs;
2017/05/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 130 #

2015/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Is concerned about immediate appearance proceedings which, although they are for minor offences, are accompanied by penalties which are on average twice as harsh as those imposed in traditional proceedings;
2017/05/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 133 #

2015/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. With a view to gradually tackling prison overcrowding, urges Member States to put systems in place which regulate incarceration rates in an effort to keep strictly within the capacities of penal establishments;
2017/05/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 137 #

2015/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that increasing prisons’ capacity is not the sole solution to overcrowding, as the prison population tends to rise at the same rate as prison capacity; calls nonetheless on Member States to allocate appropriate resources to refurbishment and modernisation of prisons in order to protect the rights of prisoners; is concerned about the increase in privatisation of prison systems and the use of public/private partnerships in the construction and daily management of prisons; is concerned about the length of contracts with private enterprises, which are sometimes concluded for periods of longer than 20 years, on occasion making it impossible to apply new prison laws or prison policy reforms, and placing states in significant debt; deplores the fact that very few comparative studies have been carried out to evaluate the costs and the quality of management in public and private prisons; points out that the main tasks of guidance, monitoring and court administration must remain in the hands of the state; recalls that the Commission recently mentioned the possibility of drawing on the Structural Funds of the European Union; for the renovation and modernisation of prisons, with a view to improving conditions for prisoners;
2017/05/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 152 #

2015/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Warns that penal establishments described as ‘modern’ can be dehumanising; points out that the socialisation of prisoners is necessary, and vital for their successful reintegration into society;
2017/05/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 153 #

2015/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Stresses the importance of in- depth thinking about the architectural principles that must take pride of place when constructing new prisons, such as prioritising the construction of small units, and avoiding as far as possible units with more than 1 000 places, creating collective spaces that meet the objectives of activity provision and socialisation, ensuring that movement within the prisons is fluid, and prioritising lighting and sound schemes that promote a peaceful atmosphere;
2017/05/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 159 #

2015/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Recalls that the European Prison Rules, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, underline that that prisoners should be able to participate in elections, referenda and in other aspects of public life, in so far as their right to do so is not restricted by national law; recalls that participation in electoral activities allows prisoners to become again active members of society, which helps in their reintegration path; urges Member States to facilitate the practical access to electoral rights for prisoners, such as setting up voting booths inside prisons on election days;
2017/05/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 165 #

2015/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Points out that, compared with alternative measures, imprisonment leads to more re-offending for short sentences; Encourages Member States to adopt non- custodial measures as an alternative to detention and calls on them to ensure that, in addition to the punitive aspect of imprisonment, attention is also devoted to more educational and social aspects, in order to enable punishment to be managed better, make a success of social reintegration and reduce recidivism; draws attention in this connection to the good practices which exist in the Scandinavian countries;
2017/05/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 174 #

2015/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Recalls that the European Social Fund is a Union financial instrument improving job prospects for millions of Europeans, in particular those who find it difficult to get work, including prisoners and ex-offenders; welcomes the setting-up of projects helping prisoners to re- integrate into society and the labour market once they have served their sentence;
2017/05/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 198 #

2015/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Deplores the fact that the vulnerable situation of elderly prisoners is not fully taken into account in some Member States; calls on Member States to ensure that elderly prisoners who become incapacitated are released; calls on Member States to ensure that elderly prisoners or prisoners who suffer from a handicap are provided with the necessary infrastructure such as ramps, lifts, handrails and wheelchairs;
2017/05/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 207 #

2015/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Calls on Member States to ensure that prisoners have regular contacts with their families through inter alia letters, telephone calls and visits, but also through modern technologies; recalls that the notion of family should be interpreted liberally to include a person with whom the prisoner has established a relationship comparable to that of a family member even if the relationship has not been formalised;
2017/05/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 213 #

2015/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Urges Member States to allow intimate family visits for an extended period of time, for example 72 hours, as such long visits allow inmates to have intimate relations with their partners; recalls that shorter visits for this purpose may be demeaning to both partners and are detrimental to good prisoners' conditions;
2017/05/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 221 #

2015/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on Member States to abide by the recommendations in force concerning the treatment of foreign prisoners, based on their right not to suffer discrimination; underlines that prisoners who are detained in another Member State than their Member State of residence have more difficulties in keeping in contact with their families; recalls that any prisoner should be detained in a location as close as possible to his or her family members;
2017/05/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 230 #

2015/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on Member States to combat the growphenomenon of radicalisation ing phenomenon of radicalisation in prisonrison; stresses that inadequate detention conditions and prison overcrowding can constitute factors that increase the risk of radicalisation, as can the use of disproportionate measures, particularly the use of force or disciplinary sanctions;
2017/05/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 241 #

2015/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Underlines that any specific programme dedicated to a certain group of prisoners, such as those considered as "radicalised", shall respect the same human rights and international obligations as for any prisoners; warns against the risk of arbitrary categorisation of prisoners, discriminatory practices and disproportionate constraints and restrictions such as permanent solitary confinement; stresses that inhuman detention conditions and bad treatments are not only contrary to Member States' obligations, but also counter-productive as regards the objective of combating radicalisation and violent extremism; recalls that the training of staff and increase of resources is essential in order to improve the situation in prisons;
2017/05/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 262 #

2015/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Calls on Member States to ensure regular dialogue between prisoners and prison staff, as good professional relationships between staff and prisoners are an essential element of dynamic security in de-escalating potential incidents or in restoring good order through a process of dialogue;
2017/05/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 267 #

2015/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12b. Calls on the European Commission to launch a European Forum on prisons' conditions in order to encourage the exchange of best practices between experts and practitioners across all Member States;
2017/05/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 270 #

2015/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Calls on the Commission to monitor and collect information and statistics about detention conditions in all Member States and any cases of infringement of the fundamental rights of detainees, while respecting the principle of subsidiarity; calls on Member States to allow MEPs right of access to prisons and detention centres without hindrance;
2017/05/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 274 #

2015/2062(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on Member States to promote policies to reintegrate prisoners into civil life and to establish policies on monitoring and adjustment of penalties; encourages Member States to introduce a binding requirement for penal establishments to offer a minimum of five hours of activities each day; stresses the importance of offering each prisoner a tailored programme of activities, focused on reintegration, preparation for release and prevention of re-offending; encourages the establishment of specific areas dedicated to preparation for release, within the framework of preventing re- offending;
2017/05/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 22 #

2015/2058(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Calls for the introduction of a mandatory consolidated common tax base for corporation tax in order to standardise tax returns; Calls for a minimum corporate tax rate;
2015/04/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 27 #

2015/2058(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Calls for the establishment of a globally accepted definition of tax havens, of penalties for operators making use of them and of a blacklist of countries that do not combat tax evasion or accept a blacklist to be drawn up of such tax havens and countries distorting competition with favourable tax conditions, including those in the EU, by end of 2015; the definition of tax havens should include but should not be limited to the following: "Provision for tax measures which entail no or nominal taxes, a lack of effective exchange of information with foreign tax authorities and a lack of transparency in legislative, legal or administrative provisions, or where advantages are granted even without any real economic activit,y as has already been called for previouslynd substantial economic presence within country offering such tax advantages";
2015/04/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 39 #

2015/2058(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to set up an programme to assist developing countries in combating tax fraud, evasion and aggressive tax planning which should include in particular human resources training and the development of administrative structures;
2015/04/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 45 #

2015/2058(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on EU bodies such as, for instance, the EIB and the EBRD not to cooperate any longer through their financial intermediaries with non- cooperative tax jurisdictions providing for tax measures which entail no or nominal taxes, a lack of effective exchange of information with foreign tax authorities and a lack of transparency in legislative, legal or administrative provisions, or where advantages are granted even without any real economic activity and substantial economic presence within country offering such tax advantages;
2015/04/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 57 #

2015/2058(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the OSCE and the G20 to abide by their pledges and adopt the latest BEPS measures in 2015Asks the Commission to fully cooperate with the OECD, the G20 and developing countries to address BEPS and to report regularly to Parliament and the Council on the progress made; welcomes the upcoming revised Commission Action Plan in 2015 on tax evasion and tax avoidance and calls on the Commission to come forward with an EU anti-BEPS Directive;
2015/04/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 59 #

2015/2058(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the OSCE and the G20 to abide by their pledges and adopt the latest BEPS measures in 2015 while ensuring full involvement of developing countries;
2015/04/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 62 #

2015/2058(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Calls for a review of existing double taxation agreements in order to allow for a 'fair share' of the tax base to be taxed in developing countries;
2015/04/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 63 #

2015/2058(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Furthermore, calls on the Commission to propose changes to EU company law to effectively ban shell companies and similar entities by introducing for example substance requirements, limitation of multiple directorships etc.
2015/04/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 66 #

2015/2058(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes the Tax Inspectors Without Frontiers initiative and calls on the Commission to undertake a similarand other Member States to become part of the project;
2015/04/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 91 #

2015/2058(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the EU and the Member States to enforce the recommendations of theprinciple that multinational companies must adopt country-by-country reporting as standard, requiring them to publish as part of their annual report on a country-by-country basis for each territory in which they operate the names of all subsidiaries, their financial performance, relevant tax information, assets and number of employees, and to ensure that this information is publicly available; Calls for CbC reportsing to be implemented for multinational companies in all sectors and in all countries.;
2015/04/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 95 #

2015/2058(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Calls for a swift implementation of the Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD) and the Transfer of Funds Regulation (ToFR); considers, however, that room for improvement remains and urges MSs to use the available flexibility, provided for in particular in the AMLD, towards the use of unrestricted public registers with access to beneficial ownership information for companies, trusts, foundations and other legal entities;
2015/04/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 74 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 4 a (new)
(4a) Member States should strengthen the professionalism of security forces, law enforcement agencies and justice institutions; and ensure effective oversight and accountability of such bodies, in conformity with international human rights law and the rule of law. This includes human rights training to security forces including on how to respect human rights within the context of measures taken to counter violent extremism and terrorism.
2016/04/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 95 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6 a (new)
(6a) The provision of humanitarian assistance by impartial humanitarian organisations recognised by international humanitarian law such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) should not be considered as contributing to the criminal activities of a terrorist group.
2016/04/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 98 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6 b (new)
(6b) This Directive covers acts which are considered by all Member States as serious infringements of their criminal laws committed by individuals whose objectives constitute a threat to their democratic societies respecting the rule of law and the civilisation upon which these societies are founded. It has to be understood in this sense and cannot be construed so as to argue that the conduct of those who have acted in the interest of preserving or restoring these democratic values, as was notably the case in some Member States during the Second World War, could now be considered as "terrorist" acts. Nor can it be construed so as to incriminate on terrorist grounds persons exercising their fundamental right to manifest their opinions, even if in the course of the exercise of such right they commit offences, or persons or groups conducting attacks against the military and military infrastructure of dictatorial regimes. Similarly, incitement to attacks against the military infrastructure of dictatorial regimes, and glorification of such attacks, should not be covered by this Directive.
2016/04/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 100 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
(7) The offenses related to public provocation to commit a terrorist offence act comprise, inter alia, the glorification and justification of terrorism or the dissemination of messages or images including those related to the victims of terrorism as a way to gain publicity for the terrorists cause or seriously intimidating the population, provided that such behaviour causes a danger that terrorist acts may be committed.deleted
2016/04/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 110 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
(8) Considering the seriousness of the threat and the need to in particular stem the flow of foreign terrorist fighters, it is necessary to criminalise the travelling abroad for terrorist purposes, being not only the commission of terrorist offences and providing or receiving training but also to participate in the activities of a terrorist group. Any act of facilitation of such travel should also be criminalised. The act of travelling should be criminalised under very specific conditions and only when the intention of doing so for a terrorist purpose is proven by inferring from objective, factual circumstances.
2016/04/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 114 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
(9) Criminalisation of the receiving training for terrorism complements the existing offence of providing training and specifically addresses the threats resulting from those actively preparing for the commission of terrorist offences, including those ultimately acting alone. This criminalisation should only cover active participation in the training; the mere fact of visiting websites containing information or receiving communications should not be covered.
2016/04/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 119 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
(10) TWithout prejudice to Directive 2015/849/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council1a, terrorist financing should be punishable in the Member States and cover not only the financing of terrorist acts, but also the financing of a terrorist groupterrorist organisations and individual terrorists even in the absence of a link to a specific terrorist act or acts, as well as other offences related to terrorist activities, such as the recruitment and training, or travel for terrorist purposes, with a view to disrupting the support structures facilitating the commission of terrorist offences. Aiding and abetting or attempting terrorist financing should also be punishable. Sanctions should be reviewed by an independent oversight body and any sanctions should be linked to a specific criminal offence, to avoid arbitrary decisions on the basis of national, religious, ethnical, or racial criteria. __________________ 1a Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 73).
2016/04/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 125 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10 a (new)
(10a) Financial investigations may be fundamental in uncovering the facilitation of terrorist offences and the networks and schemes of terrorist organisations. Such investigations may be very productive, particularly when tax and customs authorities, financial intelligence units (FIUs) and judicial authorities are involved at an early stage of the investigation. Member States should endeavour to ensure a more efficient and coordinated approach aiming at establishing specialised units at national level to deal with financial investigations into terrorism. Such a centralisation of expertise may have considerable added value and contribute substantially to securing successful prosecutions. In addition, cooperation between FIUs through the FIU.net platform should be strengthened.
2016/04/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 151 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 15 a (new)
(15a) The Internet plays an essential role in promoting values of peace, tolerance and solidarity as well as promoting and protecting Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms within and outside the European Union.
2016/04/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 157 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 15 b (new)
(15b) In order to prevent and combat terrorism, a closer cross-border cooperation among the competent national and European authorities is needed with regard to expedient exchange of any relevant information from criminal records or other available sources on individuals who are suspects of a criminal offence or have been subject to criminal proceedings or asset freezing. This provision is without prejudice to the [Data Protection Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/... of the European Parliament and of the Council of ...on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA)].
2016/04/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 160 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 15 c (new)
(15c) Member States should cooperate among each other, notably through Eurojust, to ensure a coordinated approach for the development of necessary, proportionate and effective measures in dealing with the gathering, sharing, and admissibility of electronic evidence, in compliance with the [Data Protection Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/... of the European Parliament and of the Council of ...on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA)].
2016/04/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 177 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 17 a (new)
(17a) A comprehensive policy to prevent the radicalisation and recruitment of citizens of the Union by terrorist organisations can only be successfully put in place if accompanied by long-term proactive de-radicalisation processes in the judicial sphere. Strategies on social inclusion, education, employment and housing and policies tackling discrimination and exclusion to stop vulnerable individuals joining violent extremist organisations are crucial to countering terrorism. Member States should therefore share good practices on the setting-up of de-radicalisation structures and their judicial approach in this regard notably through Eurojust. They should share such good practices not only among each other but also with third countries which have already acquired experience and achieved positive results in this area.
2016/04/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 192 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
(19) This Directive should respects the principles recognised, inter alia, by Articles 2 and 6 of the Treaty on the European Union, should respects fundamental rights and freedoms and should observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including those set out in Chapters II, III, V and VI thereof which encompass inter alia the right to liberty and security, freedom of expression and information, freedom of assembly and association and freedom of thought conscience and religion, the general prohibition of discrimination in particular on grounds of race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, the right to respect for private and family life and the right to protection of personal data, the principle of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties, covering also the requirement of precision, clarity and foreseeability in criminal law, the presumption of innocence, should respect the principles recognised in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as freedom of movement as set forth in Article 21(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Directive 2004/38/EC. This Directive has to be implemennterpreted in accordance with these rights and principles.
2016/04/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 194 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19 a (new)
(19a) Nothing in this Directive should be interpreted as being intended to reduce or restrict the dissemination of information for scientific, academic, journalistic or reporting purposes. The expression of radical, polemic or controversial views in the public debate on sensitive political questions falls outside the scope of this Directive and in particular of the definition of public provocation to commit terrorist offences.
2016/04/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 197 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
(20) The implementation of the criminalisation under this Directive should be proportional to the nature and circumstances of the offenceach case, with respect to the legitimate aims pursued and to their necessity in a democratic society, and should exclude any form of arbitrariness or discrimination.
2016/04/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 210 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) "Structured group" shall mean a group that is not randomly formed for the immediate commission of an offence and that does not need to have formally defined roles for its members, or continuity of its membership or a developed structure.
2016/04/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 219 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) unduly compellingsing violence or the threat of violence to compel or seek to compel a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act,
2016/04/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 228 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
2016/04/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 237 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point i
(i) seriously threatening to commit any of the acts listed in points (a) to (h), on the basis of objective, factual circumstances.
2016/04/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 246 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Member States shall ensure that the provision of humanitarian assistance by impartial humanitarian organisations recognised by international humanitarian law shall not be considered as participating in the activities of a terrorist group.
2016/04/08
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 251 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the distribution, or otherwise making available, of a message to the public, with the clear intent to incite the commission of one of the offences listed in points (a) to (h) of Article 3(2), where such conduct, whether or not directexpressly advocating the commission of terrorist offences, causes amanifestly causes a clear and substantial danger that one or more such offences may be committed, is punishable as a criminal offence when committed intentionally and unlawfully.
2016/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 287 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Member States shall ensure that the defendant does not in any circumstances bear the burden of proof in establishing that his or her travel to another country is for a legitimate purpose.
2016/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 316 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 a (new)
Article 14a Measures against websites publicly inciting to commit a terrorist offence 1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure the prompt removal of webpages publicly inciting to commit a terrorist offence, as referred to in Article 5, hosted in their territory and to endeavour to obtain the removal of such pages hosted outside of their territory. 2. Where the measures described in paragraph 1 cannot be achieved, Member States may take measures to block access to webpages publicly inciting to commit a terrorist offence towards the Internet users within their territory. These measures must be provided for by law, subject to initial judicial control and periodic review, set by transparent procedures and provide adequate safeguards, in particular to ensure that the restriction is limited to what is demonstrably necessary and proportionate and that users are informed of the reason for the restriction. Those safeguards shall also include the possibility of judicial redress.
2016/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 328 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 2
2. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that inciting an offence referred to in Articles 3to 14 is made punishable.deleted
2016/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 339 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 a (new)
Article 17a Right to effective remedies 1. Any person whose fundamental rights and freedoms have been violated in the exercise of counter-terrorism powers or the application of counter-terrorism law has a right to a speedy, effective and enforceable remedy. 2. Member States' judicial authorities shall have the ultimate responsibility to ensure that this right is effective.
2016/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 408 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 23 a (new)
Article 23a Proportionality, necessity and fundamental rights 1. In the implementation of this Directive, Member States shall ensure that criminalisation is provided for by law, proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued and necessary in a democratic society and shall exclude any form of arbitrariness and discrimination. This Directive shall not result in arbitrary decisions or in discriminatory policies and practices based on perceived nationality, religion, ethnic or racial origin. 2. This Directive shall not have the effect of altering the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as well as in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other obligations under international humanitarian law. 3. This Directive shall not have the effect of altering the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Articles 2 and 6 of the Treaty on European Union.
2016/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 414 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 23 b (new)
Article 23b Fundamental principles relating to freedom of expression 1. Nothing in this Directive may be interpreted as being intended to reduce or restrict the dissemination of information for the expression of an opinion. The expression of radical, polemical or controversial views in the public debate on sensitive political questions, including terrorism, falls outside the scope of this Directive and, in particular, of the definition of public provocation to commit a terrorist offence. 2. This Directive shall not have the effect of requiring Member States to take measures in contradiction of fundamental principles relating to freedom of expression, in particular freedom of the press and the freedom of expression in other media as they result from constitutional traditions or rules governing the rights and responsibilities of, and the procedural guarantees for, the press or other media where these rules relate to the determination or limitation of liability.
2016/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 417 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 23 c (new)
Article 23c Non-discrimination This Directive shall not have the effect of requiring Member States to take measures which could result in direct or indirect discrimination or which would be based on religious practice and ethnic criteria.
2016/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 419 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 23 d (new)
Article 23d Emergency situations and fundamental rights In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation, Member States may take measures to derogate from certain rights, in line with Union and international law. Such circumstances do not relieve the authorities from demonstrating that the measures undertaken are applied solely for the purpose of combating terrorism and are directly related to the specific objective of combating terrorism.
2016/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 422 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – title
Transposition and review mechanisms by Member States
2016/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 424 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.
2016/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 425 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Member States shall conduct annual independent reviews of and reporting on the exercise of powers under the laws falling within the scope of this Directive.
2016/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 429 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall, by [24 months after the deadline for implementation of this Directive], submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council, assessing the extent to which the Member States have taken the necessary measures to comply with this Directive. Regular evaluation of the Directive implementation should include assessment of a potential disproportionate impact of measures on groups of the population, and remedial procedures to correct discriminatory practices.
2016/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 431 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall, by [4812 months after the deadline for implementation of this Directive], submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council, assessing the impact and added value of this Directive on combating terrorism and its impact on fundamental rights and freedoms and the rule of law. The Commission shall take into account the information provided by Member States under Decision 2005/671/JHA and any other relevant information regarding the exercise of powers under counter-terrorism laws related to the transposition and implementation of this Directive.
2016/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 435 #

2015/0281(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. In light of the independent reports of the European Commission, Member States shall conduct parliamentary periodic reviews.
2016/04/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 5 #

2015/0076(NLE)

Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Calls upon the Commission to assess, three year18 months after the date of entry into force of this Agreement, the application of this Agreement and present a report to the European Parliament and the Council, accompanied where appropriate by proposals for its review;
2015/09/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 6 #

2015/0076(NLE)

Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Calls upon the Commission to keep the European Parliament informed in case of any change or new development in the final steps of the conclusion of this agreement;
2015/09/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 125 #

2014/0017(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) the members of the ESCB and other Member States’ bodies performing similar functions and other Union public bodies charged with or intervening in the management of the public debt, with the exception of the requirement to supply the data referred to in Article 16a;
2015/02/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 174 #

2014/0017(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – title
Investment fund's tTransparency in periodical reports
2015/02/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 177 #

2014/0017(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Management companies of UCITS, UCITS investment companies and AIFMs shall inform their investors on their use they make of SFTs as well asof SFTs and their re-use of collateral in SFTs by disclosing all of other financing structures information listed in Section A of the Annex to this Regulation:
2015/02/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 179 #

2014/0017(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Credit institutions established in a Member State and authorised in accordance with Directive 2013/36/EC shall inform their shareholders bi- annually, where applicable as part of their half-yearly and annual corporate report, of their use of SFTs and their re-use of collateral in SFTs by disclosing all of the information listed in Section A of the Annex to this Regulation.
2015/02/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 180 #

2014/0017(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Undertakings admitted to trading on a regulated market or on a multilateral trading facility shall inform their shareholders bi-annually, where applicable as part of their half-yearly and annual corporate report, of their use of SFTs and their re-use of collateral in SFTs by disclosing all of the information listed in Section A of the Annex to this Regulation.
2015/02/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 188 #

2014/0017(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1a (new)
The Commission shall be empowered to adopt implementing acts to ensure uniformity in the disclosure of the information referred to in paragraphs 1, 1a and 1b.
2015/02/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 194 #

2014/0017(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Chapter 5 – title
Transparency of rehypothecation and minimum standards for collateral management
2015/02/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 209 #

2014/0017(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 a (new)
Article 15a Minimum Standards for Collateral Haircuts 1. Counterparties shall implement methodologies for the calculation of collateral haircuts on an individual asset basis or on a consolidated portfolio basis, depending on the nature of their trading activities. 2. In order to ensure the consistent application of paragraph 1, ESMA, in close cooperation with the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) and taking into account international regulatory developments, shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the methodologies to be used by counterparties to determine: (a) the appropriate calculation method (individual asset basis or on a consolidated portfolio basis), depending on the type of counterparty and of its trading activities; (b) the appropriate degree of variation of haircuts to prevent procyclicality; (c) the minimum time period for historical data to take as reference in calculating haircuts; (d) the liquidation risk when liquidating large concentrated positions; (e) the "wrong-way" risk when the exposure to a single counterparty and the probability of default of the issuer of the collateral are positively correlated; (f) portfolio margin requirements and stress testing of these requirements. 3. Credit institutions which engage in non-centrally cleared SFTs with other counterparties that are not credit institutions against collateral other than government securities shall apply minimum numerical haircuts to the collateral received or collect minimum excess margin amounts consistent with the minimum numerical haircuts. 4. Institutions other than credit institutions which engage in SFTs with other counterparties that are not credit institutions shall apply minimum numerical haircuts to the collateral received. 5. In order to ensure the consistent application of paragraphs 3 and 4, ESMA, in close cooperation with the ESCB and EBA and taking into account international regulatory developments and the need for an harmonised international approach, shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying: (a) the haircut levels for corporate and other issuers and for securitised products, depending on the residual maturity of the collateral; (b) the conditions for exempting cash- collateralised securities lending from the haircut levels; (c) the conditions for exempting "collateral upgrade" transactions from the haircut levels; (d) the approach of a competent authority in a Member State to implement these haircut levels, whether at product level or at entity level; (e) the liquidation risk when liquidating large concentrated positions; (f) the "wrong-way" risk when the exposure to a single counterparty and the probability of default of the issuer of the collateral are positively correlated; (g) portfolio margin requirements and stress testing of these requirements. 6. The technical standards referred to in paragraphs 2 and 5 shall take into account the technical specificities of different counterparties and portfolios. They shall ensure compliance with the most recent internationally agreed standards. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by ...* . Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in Article 15(3b) and (3e) of this Regulation in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. ______________ * OJ: please insert a date: 6 months from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
2015/02/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 211 #

2014/0017(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 b (new)
Article 15b Collateral Stress Tests 1. A counterparty shall subject its collateral management for SFTs to rigorous and frequent stress tests to assess its ability to meet foreseeable and unexpected calls for the return of cash collateral on an ongoing basis and in extreme but plausible market conditions and shall perform back tests to assess the reliability of the methodology adopted. These stress tests shall include an assessment of the lender’s ability to liquidate part or the entire reinvestment portfolio under a range of stressed market scenarios, including interest rate changes, higher cash collateral recalls from securities borrowers, higher redemptions by investors in the funds being lent, and changes in the credit quality of the portfolio. Counterparties shall obtain independent validation of such stress tests, shall inform their competent authority and ESMA of the results of the tests performed and shall obtain their validation before adopting any significant change to the models and parameters. 2. Counterparties shall publicly disclose key information on their collateral risk- management model and assumptions adopted to perform the stress tests referred to in paragraph 1. 3. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall, after consulting EBA, other relevant competent authorities and the members of the ESCB, develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying: (a) the type of tests to be undertaken for different classes of financial instruments and portfolios; (b) the frequency of the tests; (c) the time horizons of the tests; (d) the key information referred to in paragraph 2. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by ...*. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph, in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. _________________ * OJ: please insert a date: 6 months from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
2015/02/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 214 #

2014/0017(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 a (new)
Article 16a Aggregate Reporting of SFT 1. ESMA shall produce an annual report on aggregate SFT volumes by type of counterparty and transaction based on data reported in accordance with and aggregate data supplied by the entities referred to in Article 2 (2)(a). 2. Aggregated repo data to be reported shall include: range of repo rates, size of market activity, currency breakdown of market activity (both cash and collateral), tenor composition of market activity (total or by collateral asset class), collateral composition by asset class and by quality, haircut ranges (total or by collateral asset class), market concentration metrics, and market segment (e.g. bilateral, centrally- cleared or tri-party). 3. Aggregated securities lending data to be reported may include: range of lending rates, volume and value of securities on loan, breakdown of activity by currency, tenor, collateral quality, collateral and/or counterparty type and beneficial owner type as well as the type of security lent and the asset type and maturity in which cash collateral is reinvested. 4. ESMA shall, by ...* define the format in which the entities referred to in Article 2 (2)(a) shall supply the data referred to in paragraph 1. ________________ * OJ: please insert date: 6 months from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
2015/02/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 242 #

2014/0017(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1a (new)
1a. Two years after the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission shall, after consulting ESMA, report on the feasibility and potential benefits and costs in terms of systemic stability of : (a) an harmonised regime for insolvency with regard to SFT and, in particular, repo transactions to facilitate insolvency or resolution proceedings; (b) a specific framework for the resolution of failed SFT counterparties, with an emphasis on repo transactions, including the possibility of a "repo resolution authority", to ensure the orderly resolution of SFT portfolios and prevent procyclical firesales of collateral.
2015/02/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 14 #

2013/2740(RSP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Believes that, in order to address effectively the prevailing imbalances in the world trading system, developing countries, and specifically LDCs, should be fully involved in the ongoing trade negotiations in the run up to the Bali Conference so as to secure consensus and ownership of any final results; against this background, expresses its concern that the interests of LDCs are currently marginalised; urges the EU to contribute to finding a satisfactory solution on their four areas of concerns, namely: a) the implementation of the duty-free and quota-free market access Decision (DFQF Decision) taken by Members at the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference in 2005; b) preferential rules of origin; c) cotton; and d) operationalization of the LDC Services waiver.
2013/09/24
Committee: INTA
Amendment 33 #

2013/2740(RSP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Recognises the importance of the agricultural sector to developing countries and notendorses the proposals made by the G33 group of countries on the issue of food security; in particular, takes the view that small-holder farmers should be entitled to use their production to create stocks for food security purposes, which requires the use of subsidies; believes that the EU should support measures which restore food stocks for developing countries in the wake of the harmful speculation and price volatility in recent years; recalls that in this regard the EU should ensure coherence between the various EU policies as enshrined notably in Articles 207 and 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, namely development policy, the CAP and the common commercial policy, taking account of the needs and concerns of both EU Member States and those of developing countries; recalls that European agricultural export subsidies hampers the agricultural development of poor countries by generating unfair competition with their local agriculture;
2013/09/24
Committee: INTA
Amendment 49 #

2013/2740(RSP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Is pleased that there was a positive decision taken in June 2013 to extend the TRIPS exemption by another eight years until 1 July 2021 for LDCs which is a further; deplores, however, the positioning of the EU against an unconditional waiver; is of the opinion that LDCs should be able to decide themselves about their readiness to apply TRIPS, as a way of ensuring that the world trading system doesn't adopt a one size fits all approach but rather takes account of the specificities of each developing countriesy;
2013/09/24
Committee: INTA
Amendment 62 #

2013/2740(RSP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Recalls, in this sense, the importance to fulfil the commitments taken by developed countries at the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference in 2005, which reflect priorities for LDCs, in particular the so-called "2005 Decision'" to provide duty-free and quota-free (DFQF) market access on a lasting basis for all products originating from LDCs, and the commitment to phase out agricultural export subsidies by 2013; recalls also, in this sense, the 2004 commitment to phase out domestic subsidies on cotton production;
2013/09/24
Committee: INTA
Amendment 64 #

2013/2740(RSP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)
14b. Notes that preferential market access rules did little in practice to foster developing countries' exports and economic diversification; in particular, points out that while developed countries committed to provide duty-free and quota- free market access for at least 97% of products originating from LDCs, the remaining 3% which are not included tend to cover a substantial part of the products exported by LDCs, such as textiles and clothing for which they have competitive gains;
2013/09/24
Committee: INTA
Amendment 65 #

2013/2740(RSP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 c (new)
14c. Points out that LDCs are usually not able to take advantage of preferential market access provisions under the DFQF as rules of origin are not adapted to the globalisation of production; reiterates that, in providing duty-free quota-free market access to LDC exports, Members shall ensure that preferential rules of origins applicable to imports from LDCs are transparent and simple, and contribute effectively to facilitating market access;
2013/09/24
Committee: INTA
Amendment 66 #

2013/2740(RSP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 d (new)
14d. Recalls that cotton subsidies applied by developed countries do not only have distortive effects on trade but they also have a negative impact on development of cotton-producing developing countries; takes the view that a decision in Bali to phase out domestic subsidies on cotton would give a signal that the intention of the Doha Round is to implement the development agenda seriously;
2013/09/24
Committee: INTA
Amendment 8 #

2013/2168(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Remains deeply concerned about the quality of education and in a related manner the alarming situation of women in many parts of Pakistan; calls for concrete and visible measures to enhance education based on international standards for curricula and teacher training and to enforce women's fundamental rights in the society;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 10 #

2013/2168(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the democratic consolidation that was demonstrated by the first-ever peaceful transition of power from one democratically elected government to another after general elections in May 2013, but raises concerns about the volatile security situation, the risk of Islamic radicalism and the continued terrorist attacks targeting both Christian and Muslim communitiemoderate Muslims and religious minority communities such as Ahmadis, Shiites and Christians;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 12 #

2013/2168(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Takes note that the Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud was killed by a US operated drone on 4 November 2013, while the Pakistani Parliament and the new government have formally opposed such interventions; underlines that under these circumstances such drone attacks, which reportedly have killed hundreds of civilians in Pakistan alone, have to be considered a breach of international law, should be halted and the limits to the use of drone attacks should be framed more clearly in international law;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 16 #

2013/2168(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that the EU is the major export partner for Pakistani goods (22.6 % in 2012); calls fordeems that EU trade-related support to Pakistan to continue with a view to helping the country to integrate fully into the world’s should help to promote the processing and diversification of production, assist regional integration and tecohnomy, to diversify its export base and to expand significantly its exports of goods and services.logy transfers, and help facilitate the establishment or development of domestic productive capacity and reduce income inequality;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 17 #

2013/2168(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Calls on the Pakistani authorities to take effective steps towards the implementation of the 36 ILO Conventions which the country has ratified in order, notably, to allow labour unions to operate, to improve work conditions and safety standards, to eradicate child labour and to combat the most severe forms of exploitation of the some 3 million female domestic workers;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 2 #

2013/2152(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls on the EU to uphold the indivisibility of human rights, which includes the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in conformity with art. 21 of the Lisbon Treaty; General Provisions on the Union's External Action;
2013/10/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 3 #

2013/2152(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Is of the view that national parliaments and civil society organisations play an important role in implementing effectively human rights provisions and stresses that favourable conditions are necessary for their participation in decision making in order to reinforce genuine ownership of development strategy policy choice;
2013/10/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 3 #

2013/2148(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1a (new)
1a. Points out that, while the overall objective of EU-ASEAN cooperation in the period 2011-2013 is to contribute to ASEAN regional integration, i.e. by enabling the setting-up of the ASEAN Community by 2015, cross-sectoral programmes include, among others, negotiating Free Trade Agreements; against this background, reiterates that a "pro-growth strategy" should not be confused with a long term development strategy that entails the financing of long- term objectives, such as health, education, access to energy in rural areas, support of small farmers, etc.; in particular, urges the Commission, in a context where there is no automaticity between the promotion of an export-oriented growth, achieved through the liberalisation of trade, and the reduction of poverty, to ensure that programmes financed under the DCI have a direct link with the overriding objective of eradication of poverty, in line with Policy Coherence for Development, as enshrined in article 208 of the Lisbon Treaty;
2013/07/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 9 #

2013/2148(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3a (new)
3a. Welcomes the fact that ASEAN Charter stresses the importance of the rule of law, good governance, democracy and constitutional government; regrets however that the Charter lacks mechanisms for dispute settlements and sanctions in case of human rights violations;
2013/07/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 11 #

2013/2148(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that the ASEAN countries should advance towards a new phase of inclusive economic and social development, with particular emphasis on promoting their peoples’ human, social, labour and economic rights, in order to ensure fairer and more equal societies; to achieve this, considers that they should use their increased economic wealth to strengthen their social security and protection networks; urges equally the EU to enhance its cooperation on human rights so as to contribute to making the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) effective for the promotion and protection of human rights;
2013/07/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 13 #

2013/2148(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4a (new)
4a. Urges the EU to upgrade its assistance and cooperation to combat corruption, through, inter alia, encouraging the ratification and implementation of the UN Convention Against Corruption;
2013/07/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 17 #

2013/2148(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5a (new)
5a. Expresses its concern about the current global land-grab in Southeast Asia where in some specific countries (e.g. Cambodia, Indonesia, East Timor, Laos, Philippines, Malaysia) it represents a major development problem; underlines that even if the EU does not engage extensively in direct land-grabbing, it contributes to it in various ways, i.e. through banking and finance (via the increasing interest by financial capital on farmland and agricultural investments globally) as well as its trade policy; for instance, points out that Cambodia, that can export their goods without tariffs under the EU's "Everything But Arms" (EBA) Agreement with LDCs, has seen an escalation of human rights abuses as a result of land concessions being granted for agro-industrial development linked to the export of agricultural goods to the EU;
2013/07/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 18 #

2013/2148(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5b (new)
5b. Denounces equally the negative impact of EU biofuel policy on land- grabbing in South Asia, whereby EU Member States constitute a key driving force for the rapid expansion of oil palm production (especially in Indonesia and Malaysia), leading to dispossession and/or adverse incorporation of the rural poor into oil palm plantation; in contrast, deems essential to support, within the context of development aid, the rights to land resources of poor people in developing countries, following a right- based approach;
2013/07/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 19 #

2013/2148(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5c (new)
5c. Urges for the activation of the EU 2004 Land Policy Guidelines to counter land-grabbing; in particular, stresses that donors should engage in land policy which are geared towards the defence and strengthening of small-scale family agriculture;
2013/07/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 5 #

2013/2135(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Stresses upon the need to ensure, as a priority, that developed countries cut their own emissions first and fast and provide necessary financial flows to developing countries for adaptation and mitigation; but warns against using instead offsetting mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) considering that such mechanisms have not proven to be effective tools for reducing greenhouse emissions, and that they delay essential structural change in developed country economies;
2013/10/15
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 9 #

2013/2135(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Member States to adopt three binding targets for 2030: a 50 t least 60% reduction in GHG emissions, at least 405 % share of renewable energy and at least 305 % increase in energy efficiency;
2013/10/15
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 12 #

2013/2135(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. NEmphasises the need to reduce the carbon footprint of the transport sector; in this respect, notes that biofuels are failing to live up to expectations as regards GHG emission reductions, drive up food prices by competing for land and threaten access to vital resources, including land and water, of local and indigenous communities in developing countries; takes the view that no biofuel targets or subsidies should exist after 2020 andin order to avoid negative impacts on the right to food, public incentives for the production of crop- based biofuels (such as the binding 10% EU target for renewable energy in transport or subsidies) must be reduced and removed no later than 2020; in particular, calls for effective measures to prevent harmful social and environmental impacts of biomass production for European marketsfor energy production;
2013/10/15
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 15 #

2013/2135(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses upon the need to reduce energy consumption in the transport sector as a percentage target for energy from renewable sources is likely to become increasingly difficult to achieve sustainably if overall demand for energy for transport continues to rise;
2013/10/15
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 16 #

2013/2135(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Stresses upon the need to reconcile development and climate change goals; underlines that climate change threatens the ability of entire regions to feed themselves, thereby demonstrating the links between the aim of global poverty eradication underlying the Millennium Development Goals and the Sustainable Development Goals process launched by the Rio+20 conference; calls for these two processes to be integrated into a single, overarching post-2015 framework;
2013/10/15
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 19 #

2013/2135(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. CEmphasises the critical role of finance in enabling developing countries to take ambitious climate action; hence, insists upon the need to build up a coherent financial architecture for climate change; calls for greater efforts by the Member States to help fulfil the commitment made by developed countries to provide USD 100 billion per year in climate financing, additional to Official Development Assistance, by 2020;
2013/10/15
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 24 #

2013/2135(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses upon the need to address the growing impact of airline emissions on climate change; accordingly, deplores the fact that the EU has temporarily frozen the implementation of the EU emissions trading scheme for non-intra EU flights, stresses the need for an expanded, better- functioning Emissions Trading System which ensures a meaningful price for CO2, reflects the true cost of fossil fuels; provides effective incentives for GHG emission reductions and raises climate finance.
2013/10/15
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 5 #

2013/2110(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses that the EU's long term resilience approach should address the deterioration of the ecosystem, particularly agriculture, water, biodiversity and fish resources, and calls on the EU to adopt a coherent policy to reduce vulnerability through its risk reduction strategy, which can be achieved by adopting sustainable agricultural production methods and systems, such as crop-rotation, agro-ecology, agro-forestry, organic agriculture and small-holder farming;
2013/10/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 6 #

2013/2110(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7a (new)
7a. Insists that disaster prone countries should play a leading role and should be the main actor in defining their priorities and transition strategies from humanitarian aid to a long- term development strategy, as they are better placed to know the local reality to define what is best for their own communities;
2013/10/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 13 #

2013/2110(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Calls on the EU to draw lessons from past decades of its cooperation policy and to put forward proposals to promote Policy Coherence for Development in practice by linking development aid and other EU policy areas, such as agriculture, trade, taxations, climate change and investment;
2013/10/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 14 #

2013/2110(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 b (new)
22b. Urges the Commission to integrate the land grabbing issue in its policy dialogue with developing countries in order to make Policy Coherence the corner stone of development cooperation at national level as well as at international level and to avoid the expropriation of small farmers, further vulnerability of the poor in rural areas and unsustainable use of land and water;
2013/10/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 16 #

2013/2110(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Is of the view that the EU's Action plan for resilience should aim at implementing Policy Coherence for Development and address issues relating to food security and climate resilience by eliminating unsustainable practices such as dumping of agricultural products and unfair trade rules ; calls on the EU to address sustainable agriculture in a holistic manner at national and international level;
2013/10/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 31 #

2013/2090(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Underlines the need to support mechanisms which will allow for a proper and transparent usedistribution and management of oil revenues ; calls on the South-Sudanese authorities and the National Legislative Assembly, as well as international partners and companies present in South Sudan to contribute to greater transparency in the generation and use of those revenues; welcomes the recent passing of the Petroleum Revenue Management Bill by the National Legislative Assembly; calls for the quick adoption into law by the President and quick implementation of all modalities of the Act;
2013/10/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 36 #

2013/2090(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses that ensuring human security for all South-Sudanese people requires a renewed effort by the Government of South Sudan and its international partners to follow through with the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) of armed groups and to undertake broader security sector reform (SSR) leading to a reduction in the size of the standing army, as well as its professionalisation, full respect for civilian control and the chain of command, as well as greater respect for human rights among the armed forces; Stresses the need to engage constructively and frequently with South Sudanese civil society and women's associations to deal with the problem of insecurity and promote respect for human rights including women's rights;
2013/10/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 10 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas the consolidated financial statement of the Eurosystem reached EUR 3 trillion at the end of 2012, representing an increase of approximately 12 % over the course of 2012;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 11 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas non-marketable assets represented the largest component of assets put forward as collateral to the Eurosystem in the course of 2012, amounting to around 25% of the total; whereas non-marketable securities, together with asset-backed securities, represent more than 40 % of total assets put forward as collateral;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 14 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)
Eb. whereas Emergency Liquidity Assistance lines provided by National Central Banks as represented under the item 'other claims on euro area credit institutions denominated in euro' of the Eurosystem consolidated financial statement reached unprecedented levels over 2012 and amounted to EUR 206 billion at the end of 2012;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 15 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E c (new)
Ec. whereas the ECB's long-term refinancing operations of February 2012 provided EUR 529.5 billion to the Euro area based financial institutions in loans with a maturity of 3 years and an initial 1% interest rate;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 22 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G
G. whereas Article 282 TFEU states that the primary objective of the ECB is to maintain price stability and that the ECB should support general economic policies of the Union without prejudice to price stability; whereas the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) works under the auspices of the ECB in the area ofCB is conferred specific tasks regarding the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) in the area of macro-prudential policy and financial stability;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 41 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Is deeply concerned about the fact that persistently weak economic conditions are becoming the norm in Europe,experienced across the EU which creatinge overwhelming discontent among European citizens and therefore jeopardising the whole European project;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 44 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Welcomes the readiness of the ECB to do whatever it takes to save the Euro; underlines and welcomes the fact that the ECB Governing Council considers that its mandate allows it to fight excessive borrowing costs for Euro area Member States;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 45 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Notes that the recourse to the main refinancing operations, the medium and long-term refinancing operations with full allotment at fixed rates, the recourse to the marginal lending facility, the ELAs and the deposit facility remained all at significantly high levels throughout 2012 signalling a severe impairment of the monetary transmission mechanism and the Eurozone interbank lending market, albeit a significant improvement in the situation signalled by the stabilization of spreads and TARGET II imbalances was observed over the second half of the year;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 51 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Underlines that the overall price stability objective in the Euro area is not undermined by non conventional policies implemented by the ECB given that an expansion of reserves in excess of compulsory requirement does not give banks more resources to expand lending nor represent idle resources but merely changes the composition of liquid assets of the banking system;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 54 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that the three-year LTRO settled on March 2012 contributed to stabilising the banking system, but that this ishould be a temporary measure; notes that, despite the liquidity injected inunprecedented level of support and implicit subsidies provided by the Eurosystem to the banking system by the LTRO, the credit available to the real economy is still well below pre-crisis levels; suggests that it would bunderlines the fact that ECB Governing Council has expressed its readiness to use, where appropriate, for the ECB to reduce its deposit faciliturther measures to restore the monetary trate to negative values in order to encourage banking lending to the real economynsmission mechanism such as a further reduction of interest rates, including a reduction of its deposit facility rate to negative values;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 67 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that the availability of the ECB to provide further support to the financial and banking system must be properly subject to conditionality, in particularUnderlines that institutions which have benefited from extraordinary central bank liquidity support should be subject to conditionality, in particular by establishing, in the same vein as the 'funding for lending' scheme implemented in the UK, loan targets to the real economy and requiring the commitment by institutions benefiting from such support to increase levels of credit to small and medium-sized enterprises and to householdsthe real economy, without which such efforts would prove to be ineffective;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 71 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Recalls its position on the CRD IV negotiation process to impose additional conditions to institutions having benefited from ECB liquidity support; underlines that such conditionality should be directly linked to the economic benefits provided to banks by means of the non- conventional monetary policy measures, among which the three and one years maturity funding (LTRO), the decrease in the levels of compulsory reserves, the full allotment at fixed rates for its refinancing operations and the enlargement of the spectrum of eligible collateral;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 82 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines the important, albeit, limited role played by the SMP in addressing the malfunctioning of certain eurozone sovereign debt securities market segments;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 89 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Welcomes the setting-up of the OMTs, with no ex ante quantitative limits, in order to safeguard monetary policy transmission, but deplorestakes note of the decision to link the activation of the OMT to strict conditionalities attached to an EFSF/ESM programme; calls on the ECB to activate OMTs independently from strict conditionalitytakes note of the ECB President's commitment that the OMT legal documentation will be disclosed whenever there is an application to the programme; underlines that new mechanisms should be created so as to increase the democratic accountability of ESM programmes; stresses the need to avoid designing assistance programmes under overoptimistic assumptions and scenarios which may result in self- defeating and pro-cyclical effects;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 102 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Considers unnecessary theNotes that the planned full sterilisation of the liquidity injected by the OMTs, asthat might be injected by any future activation of the OMT programme, aims at reducing the levels of excess reserves; point out that inflation expectations remain extremely low in a context of weak economic activity;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 117 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that the monetary policy tools that the ECB has used since the beginning of the crisis, while providing a welcome relief in distressed financial markets, have revealed their limits as regards stimulating growth and improving the situation on the labour marketing the real economy; considers, therefore, that the ECB could investigate the possibilities of implementing new unconventional measures aimed at participating in a large, EU-wide pro-growth programme, including the use of the Emergency Liquidity Assistance facility totargeting inter alia better funding conditions for SMEs; understake an ‘overt money financing’ of government debt in order to finance tax cuts targeted on low-income households and/or new spending programmes focused on the Europe 2020 objectivends that the ECB is currently working with the EIB so as to create such a framework in the form of joint risk sharing arrangements; calls on the ECB and the EIB to speed up such process;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 139 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Remains worried by the significant levels of non-marketable assets and asset- backed securities put forward as collateral to the eurosystem in the framework of its refinancing operations; asks the ECB to provide information on which central banks have accepted such securities as well as to disclose valuation methods regarding such assets; underlines that such disclosure would be beneficial for the purpose of parliamentary scrutiny of supervisory tasks conferred to the ECB;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 141 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Underlines that ELA lines are reported under the category 'other claims on Euro area credit institutions denominated in Euro' in the Eurosystem consolidated balance sheets without providing further disclosure and more granular information on such lines as well as on the underlying operations and conditions attached to them; asks the ECB to improve the reporting provided on ELAs developments on a country-by- country basis on its website;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 142 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 c (new)
10c. Is encouraged by the stabilization of the levels of TARGET II imbalances over the second half of 2012; underlines that the TARGET II settlement system has played a crucial role for safeguarding the integrity of the euro area financial system; remains, nevertheless, concerned by the ongoing fragmentation of financial markets within the Euro area;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 143 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 d (new)
10d. Stresses that stable inflation rates, in line with the medium term rate objective defined by the ECB, may be associated with unsustainable debt dynamics, underlying the importance to manage asset bubbles and the growth of credit even when price stability is guaranteed;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 144 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 e (new)
10e. Is concerned by the persistent inflation and yield curve differentials within the Euro area; recommends that the ECB follow a proactive macroprudential approach associated with its monetary policy instruments so as to deal with regional asset bubbles and imbalances; asks the ECB to explore whether regional fine-tuning regarding collateral, haircut and reserve requirements may be appropriate for coping with asymmetric shocks, thereby enhancing financial stability within the monetary union while preserving price stability;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 145 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 f (new)
10f. Looks forward to the announced ECB assessment of the 'Irish Promissory Notes' deal and its consistency with the Treaty provisions regarding monetary financing;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 146 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 g (new)
10g. Asks the ECB to disclose to the European Parliament the secret 'Agreements on Net Financial Assets' between the National central banks and the ECB regarding inter alia the amounts of different classes of assets, including government bonds that an Euro area central bank can hold in its balance sheet;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 154 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Argues that the conduct of monetary policy should be democratic and should result from deliberation between different viewpoints and approaches; believes that the ongoing crisis has highlighted the need to increase theoretical diversity within central banks; requests the ECB to report in its next annual report on how it intends to proceed in order to diversify the analytical background of its staff;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 162 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Invites the ECBTroika to pay more attention to the contractionary effects on GDP, employment and social welfare created by austerity policies carried out by national governments in the framework of Economic Assistance Programmes involving the ECB; calls for a thorough assessment of the Troika modus operandi and the ECB involvement in such framework with a view to clarifying and redefining the scope of responsibilities and increasing the democratic accountability of the adoption and implementation of assistance programmes;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 171 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Underlines that the ECB's independence should not justify lack of democratic accountability should be ready to comply with the highest standards of accountability when performing its monetary policy tasks and its supervisory tasks vis-à-vis the European Parliament;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 193 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Notes that the European Banking Ssystem is still fragile and needs to be reformed in structural terms and consolidated through the development of a true banking union; is deeply concerned by the delays in setting up the building blocks of the banking union; is of the opinion that it is crucial to complement a genuine supervision of systemic and cross-border institutions at the supranational level with a meaningful supranational backstop and burden- sharing capacity commensurate with the requirements of a functional and effective monetary union;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 196 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Welcomes the progress achieved on the negotiations on the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) regulation conferring on the ECB the power of supervision over eurozone credit institutions; believes the setting-up of the SSM will contribute to severing the link between banks and sovereigns and will help develop a common European approach to crisis managementthis will represent a key step towards a genuine European Banking Union;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 199 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Welcomes the fact that the ECB President has repeatedly emphasised that the SSM should be complemented by a single resolution mechanism (SRM); also welcomes the call by the ECB and the Commission to include in such a framework a common resolution fund for institutions under a future single resolution authority as an integral part of the SRM;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 205 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Notes that the strengthening of the ECB resulting from the establishment of the Single Supervisory Mechanism needs to be balanced by greater democratic accountability vis-à-vis national parliaments and the European Parliament; insists that the highest standards regarding accountability of supervisors in National Parliaments should be applied in the case of the SSM accountability to the European Parliament;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 211 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Looks forward to the adoption of an interinstitutional arrangement with the ECB formalizing EP scrutiny of the ECB Supervisory Board; is of the opinion that such arrangement should include scrutiny powers on ELAs, LTRO and other monetary tools presenting a potential of conflict of interest between the ECB's role in determining the solvency of an institution and its obligation to lend only to solvent institutions; stresses the need to set up an appropriate mechanism for identifying and resolving potential conflicts of interest between monetary policy and supervisory powers;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 212 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 b (new)
21b. Points out that the concept of 'insolvency' underpinning the provision of central bank liquidity to institutions in the Euro area lacks a sufficient level of clarity as the concept refers both to a situation arising in a bank after a judicial determination of insolvency or alternatively as the situation where competent supervisory authorities determine that an institution does not comply with minimum requirements defined in the CRD/CRR framework; underlines that such a lack of clarity needs to be addressed so as to guarantee legal certainty and foster financial stability;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 220 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Considers it urgent to approve the establishment of a European Resolution System in order toMechanism as well as to enhance the EU standards on deposit guarantee schemes in order to reduce taxpayers involvement to the maximum extent possible, protect depositors and prevent further banking crises;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 227 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
25. Notes that in order to strengthen the stability of the banking system and avoid the development of the 'too big to fail' syndrome, consideration should be given to introducing a full separation between deposit and investment banks, on the lines of the ‘Volcker Rule’ in the USa mandatory separation of banks' essential services to the real economy and other activities by means of a transparent and credible 'ring fence';
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 238 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
27. Is deeply concerned at the contempt shown by the Council towards Parliament's resolution of 25 October 20123 on the appointment of a new Member of the executive board of the ECB, and notes that dueis consideration should be given to both the expertise and the gender of members in the appointment of ECB top managementtrary to the Commission's and Parliament's recommendations for improving gender parity in high-level decision boards in the economic sector;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 242 #

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Asks the ECB to provide a detailed reaction to the annual European Parliament's report on the ECB in its subsequent annual reports;
2013/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 3 #

2013/2074(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. believes that corruption is not only limited to bribery of public officials but also covers tax avoidance and tax evasion operating under secrecy which undermine public interest;
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 11 #

2013/2074(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2d. Calls for transparent, fair trade and equitable investment policy to fight against illicit financial flows without which the quality of governance including the ability to collect tax is undermined and the right of the population such as the right to have access to education and health can not be fulfilled,
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 14 #

2013/2074(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that corruption is a global phenomenon and that the EU needs to fight both the external and the internal dimension of corruption in order to limit the chances that the EU exports corruptionEU development aid is used in non transparent way; calls, in this context, for greater accountability regarding the use of EU aid money and for the establishment of a framework for initiating legal proceedings against EU companies suspected of engaging in corruption in third countries;
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 15 #

2013/2074(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Is of the opinion that fighting corruption implies eradication of tax heavens, tax evasion and illicit capital flights from developing countries, by putting legislation in place, which obliges transnational corporate companies to automatically disclose their profits and the taxes paid, in every developing countries where they operate;,
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 17 #

2013/2074(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3 c. Stresses the important role that national parliaments and civil society organisations can play in holding accountable their respective governments by monitoring government revenue, transnational corporate companies tax payment and investment contracts; calls on developing countries to create favourable conditions in a way that the parliaments and civil society organisations play their watch dog role;
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 21 #

2013/2074(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Calls on the EU and Member States to provide political, legal and technical assistance to developing countries that wish to recover stolen assets (or assets accumulated illegally by dictatorships) in the territory of the European Union;
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 23 #

2013/2074(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that fighting corruption, including tax heavens, tax evasion and illicit capital flights, is part of broader efforts to promote good governance, which is defined as one of the key priorities to enhance the effectiveness of EU development policy in the 2011 Agenda for Change (COM(2011)637).
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 2 #

2013/2058(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital -A a (new)
-Aa. whereas Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union states that EU action on the international scene must promote fundamental principles and objectives such as respect for human rights and the eradication of poverty in developing countries;
2014/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 3 #

2013/2058(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital -A b (new)
-Ab. whereas the EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy adopted in 2012 states that the EU will work in favour of human rights in all areas of its external action without exception;
2014/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 5 #

2013/2058(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas PCD is now recognized as an obligation and regarded as a tool of a comprehensive policy and a process which seeks to incorporate the multiple dimensions of development at all stages of policy formulation;
2014/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 11 #

2013/2058(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the European Union, the Member States and their partner institutions to ensure that the new ‘post- 2015’ framework includes a PCD objective which makes it possible to develop reliable indicators to measure the progress of donors and southern partners and to assess the impact of the various policies on development, in particular by applying a ‘PCD lens’ to key issues such as population growth, global food security, illicit financial flows, migration, climate and green growth;
2014/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 15 #

2013/2058(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to maintain its commitment to the field of development and to the respect for economic, social and human rights of the populations, and recalls the Commission’s role in imparting impetus to the Union’s policies and coordinating them; considers that the Commission should actively promote a coherent and modern vision of human development in order to attain the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the follow-up post-2015 framework and the human rights, and honour the commitments given;
2014/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 24 #

2013/2058(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that immigration, like development, should become an element in the European Union’s foreign policy, which requires a strategy that will revitalise the Union’s overall relations with its immediate neighbours;deleted
2014/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 36 #

2013/2058(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Calls for systematic assessment of the impact of the common agricultural policy on the local economies of developing countriesand Trade policies, including the ongoing negative effects of current EU biofuel policy on food security, on the local economies of developing countries as well as on social, economic, environmental and human rights of the population;
2014/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 39 #

2013/2058(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. While recognizing the attention paid to several aspects of policy coherence for development within the annual report on the implementation of the Raw Materials Initiative, calls upon the Commission to include in this report also information on the impact of new agreements, programs and initiatives on resource rich developing countries, with special attention to economic diversification and social and environmental aspects of natural resources exploitation;
2014/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 44 #

2013/2058(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Recalls that in the light of PCD, the EU should take concrete steps in combatting tax evasion and tackling tax havens, in order to support their efforts to raise domestic resources;
2014/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 2 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 a (new)
- having regard to the UN-Habitat Study "Secure Land Rights for All" of 2008 and UN-Habitat guide on "How to Develop a Pro-Poor Land Policy: Process, Guide and Lessons";
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 3 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 b (new)
- having regard to the report of the UN Special Rapporteur Olivier De Schutter on the Right to Food "Large-scale land acquisitions and leases: a set of core principles and measures to address the human rights challenge" of 11 June 2009;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 12 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
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 assets through formal law or customary provisionsaccording to the UN-Habitat, land tenure and property rights can be formal (freehold, leasehold, public and private rental), customary or religious in origin; they can also include various types of unauthorised/informal tenure or settlement;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 14 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the EU Land Policy Guidelines 2004 defines land tenure as a "system of access to and control over land and related resources", and that land rights are not limited to private ownership in the strict sense, but can be a very diverse balance between individual rights and duties, and collective regulations at different levels;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 15 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas 1.2 billion people worldwide inhabit property for which they do not hold formal rights and live without permanent homes or access to land; in particular, whereas more than 90% of the rural population in sub-Saharan Africa (of which 370 million people are considered to be poor) access land and natural resources via legally insecure customary and informal tenure systems;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 19 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas efforts to achieve MDG7 (Target 11), which is aimed at improving the lives of 100 million slum inhabitants by 2020, is drastically behind schedule; whereas Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights recognises a universal right to housing and to continuous improvement of living conditions; whereas the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) estimates that as many as one billion people live in slums, and it is thought that an estimated three billion people will reside in slums by 2050;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 20 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas in rural areas, some 200 million people (almost 20 per cent of the world's poor) have no access to sufficient land to make a living; whereas rural land is coming under multiple pressures: they include population growth, land use conversion, commercial investments, environmental degradation due to drought, soil erosion and nutrient depletion, as well as natural disasters and conflicts; and whereas securing land rights is needed to promote social stability by reducing uncertainty and conflicts over land;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 21 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas private investors and governments have shown a growing interest in the acquisition or long-term lease of large portions of arable land in countries, mostly in developing countries in Africa and Latin America;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 22 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D c (new)
Dc. whereas by setting mandatory targets and subsidizing biofuels, the EU contributes at least indirectly to land- grabbing in developing countries, given that it encourages speculation on arable land, particularly the most fertile ones and those located nearby ports or roads; whereas consequently, the threats to the security of tenure for small-holders are further increased, with potential negative consequences on the food security of local communities;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 25 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) states that women and spouses shall have equal rights in respect of the ownership and acquisition of property; but whereas many land tenure and property rights regime discriminate against women either formally or in practise;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 27 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G
G. whereas providing secure land rights for women is important for poverty reduction, in view of women's roles as food producers in rural and peri-urban areas, their responsibilities for feeding family members; whereas women, who represent 70 % of Africa's farmers, formally own as little as 2 % of the land; whereas recent programmes throughout India, Kenya and Honduras show that low- income female-headed households have better nutrition figures than higher-income households headed by men;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 30 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the rights of everyone to own property either alone or in association with others, and that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of their property;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 31 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G b (new)
Gb. whereas access to land for indigenous people has been given specific forms of protection under the 1989 ILO Convention (n° 169) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 32 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G c (new)
Gc. whereas Article 10 of the UN Declaration on the Right to Indigenous People guarantee to indigenous people the right not to be forcibly removed from their lands or territories, and no relocation shall take place without their free, prior and informed consent and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 35 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1
PropertyLand rights and wealth creation
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 38 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Emphasises that securing land rights and greater equity in land access provide a secure foundation for livelihoods, economic opportunities, and in rural areas, for household food production;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 39 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Underlines that besides individual land titling a variety of alternative tenure options, including building on customary tenure systems to legally secure rights to house plots, farmland and natural resources, should be recognised, as advocated by UN-Habitat;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 40 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Notes that in rural and peri-urban areas in many countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa and in parts of South-east Asia, customary tenure is the main way of accessing land; but notes that land titling has been popular with many international agencies, as a way to provide land security; points out however that various studies, such as those of UN- Habitat or UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food, demonstrates that giving priority to such tenure policy entails limitations: it distorts land and housing markets unless granted on a large scale; it entails risks of abuse and nepotism if granted on a small scale; it may stimulate litigation over competing claims, and undermines pre-existing land rights; it does not necessarily improve access to bank loans and may expose poor residents to unaffordable property taxes and service charges.
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 41 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Points out equally that the EU Land Policy Guidelines 2004 also states that land titling is not always the best way of increasing tenure security, and nor does it automatically lead to greater investment and productivity;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 42 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notes with concern that cultural traditions often leave women dependent on male relatives for tenure security and without legal protection; stresses upon international obligations of States to ensure minimum economic social and cultural rights, which includes government's obligation to ensure that land management is not discriminatory, particularly with regard to women and the poor, and does not violate other human rights;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 49 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Highlights the fact that EU biofuel policy as enshrined in the Renewable Energy Directive forms an (indirect) impetus for land-grabbing activities.
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 50 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Stresses that the removal of public incentives for the production of crop- based biofuels and subsidies is one way to combat land grabbing;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 51 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Notes also with concern that the EU trade policy may contribute to land- grabbing; in particular, regrets that the Everything but Arms (EBA) trade initiative, which confers unlimited, duty- free and quota-free access, triggered for instance land grabbing in Cambodia for sugar cane exports or that EU's FTA with Central America increase land pressures and land conflicts in Central America;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 52 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 d (new)
4d. Recalls that when land rights are not secure and governance is weak, they bring high risks for local communities, in terms of food security, risk of displacement and eviction of farmers and herders; urges accordingly the EU Member States to support the national capacity of developing countries to strengthen their governance system;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 53 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1 a (new)
The negotiations of large-scale leases or acquisitions of land through investment agreement and the rights of local people.
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 54 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 e (new)
4e. Highlights that both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognize the right to self-determination, defined as the right of all people to freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources, and that both stipulate that no people may be deprived of its own means of subsistence; accordingly, stresses that the negotiation of large-scale leases or acquisition of lands must duly reflect the right to development, which entails transparency, adequate and informed participation of the local communities concerned by land leases or purchases and accountability in the use of revenues, that should benefit local population;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 55 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 f (new)
4f. Highlights the fact that EU investment policies may contribute to land grabbing, as international investment agreements usually define investment very broadly, thereby applying to agricultural investment and land acquisitions; recalls that Bilateral Investment Treaties usually provide extensive legal protection to investment against adverse host state action; believes that full environmental and social impact assessment of land use changes should be implemented before any land sale or lease takes place; calls on the EU to upgrade its assistance to developing countries related to the framing of investments agreements so as to enable the host country to regulate in the public interest in the remit of land deals;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 56 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 g (new)
4g. Stresses that investment agreements on large-scale land acquisitions or leases should duly take into account the right of current land-users, as well as the rights of workers employed on the farms; takes the view that the obligations of investors should be defined in clear terms and should be enforceable, for instance by the inclusion of sanction mechanisms in cases of non-compliance of human rights; considers that all land deals should also include a legal obligation that a certain minimum percentage of crops produced should be sold on the local market.
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 58 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2
Roadmap to formal propertysecure land rights and sustainable land governance in the developing world
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 60 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Highlights the fact that land reform requires flexibility, tailored to local, social and cultural conditions, and should be focused on empowering the most vulnerable, regularising tenure security for urban squatters and bringing pastoralist societies into the scope of formal property law;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 64 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
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 technologieWarns against applying a one-size-fits- all approach to achieve land security; underlines that formal land administration services are most effective when provided at local level; takes the view that effective delivery of secure land rights may therefore depend on reform of centralised State land agencies with a view to devolving responsibilities to local and customary institutions; considers that land registration can then be improved by computerization of land records and cadastral systems;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 68 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Recalls that agriculture remains a fundamental source of livelihood, subsistence and food security for rural people; but notes that rural land is coming under multiple pressures, because of population growth, land use conversion, commercial investments, environmental degradation due to drought, soil erosion and nutrient depletion, as well as natural disasters and conflicts; believes in this context that securing land tenure for rural people is essential to achieve MDGs; takes the view that a range of policy instruments can help address these challenges, and they must be adapted to meet local conditions;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 69 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Considers that government officials should first identify those land management and tenure systems that already exist; secondly, they should build on these systems for the benefit of the poor and vulnerable groups.
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 70 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Stresses that any shift in land use should only take place with the free, prior and informed consent of the local communities concerned; recalls that indigenous people have been granted specific forms of protection of their rights on land under international law; in line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, insists that States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for, any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing indigenous peoples of their lands, territories or resources;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 72 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. CRecalls that tenure security can be safeguarded under various forms provided the rights of land users and owners are clear: in addition to formal titles, security can be achieved through clear, long-term rental contracts, or formal recognition of customary rights and informal settlements, with accessible and effective dispute settlement mechanisms; calls for the EU to channel support towards capacity development and training programmes in land management, with the aim to secure land rights for the poor and vulnerable groups, including through cadastral surveying, registration, and efforts to equip educational institutions in developing countries;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 77 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Highlights the fact that building sound fiscal policies in developing countries by strengthening land registration and delineating valuation functions significantly increases annual land transaction revenue, such as in Thailand where it increased six-fold over a period of 10 yearsthe design of sound land taxation systems in developing countries must be coherent with poverty reduction and social equity objectives; hence takes the view that land taxes should be a means to promote social and environmental objectives, discourage under-utilisation of land and prevent tax speculation;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 81 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3
Placing propertyland rights at the heart of EU development policy
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 82 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Highlights the fact that large-scale land acquisitions are among others a direct consequence of weak land governance in developing countries; emphasises that empowering people through clear and secure property rights will open contractual arrangementEU aid should contribute to building the institutional capability required for the granting of secure land rights, so as to tackle rent-seeking, bureaucratic inertia as well as corrupt, unaccountable practices tso scrutiny andas to prevent land grabbing;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 85 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Recommends that an update be made toUrges the EU to activate the EU 2004 EU Land Policy Guidelines in coordination with Member States in order to assess current tenure challenges and assist with the implementation of new low-cost technologies in land mapping and administrationand push for redistributive types of land policies;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 86 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Calls for the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines for the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests (VGGT);
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 87 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Urges the Commission to set a clearly defined budget line for property rights, shifting from a small-scale perspective to long-term land governance reform, with a view to streamlining land tenureStresses that the challenge of providing secure land rights for displaced people and refugees is likely to increase under climate change; stresses equally that the establishment of legitimate institutions governing access to land for re-settlement of migrants and refugees is essential, as is the case of restitution to original owners; hence, urges the EU to upgrade its assistance regarding the inclusion of land rights in humanitarian and development response to disasters or civil conflicts, whereby land policies must guarantee secure land rights to different ethnic, social or generational groups in an equitable way;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 91 #

2013/2026(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Recalls that securing land rights for all are best achieved where they are nested within coherent governance frameworks; recommends that an overarching legal accountability mechanism be developed under the auspices of the UN with the express purpose of supporting land reform, monitoring land governance in a transparent and accountable fashion and encouraging states to respect and pursue land claims made by individuals and communities;
2013/11/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 117 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) It is important that UCITS and AIFs that have the characteristics of MMFs be identified as MMFs and that their capacity to comply on an on-going basis with the new uniform rules on MMFs be explicitly verified. For this purpose competent authorities should authorise MMFs. For UCITS the authorisation as MMF should be part of the authorisation as UCITS in accordance with the harmonised procedures envisaged in Directive 2009/65/EC. For AIFs, as they are not subject to harmonised authorisation and supervision procedures under Directive 2011/61/EU, it is necessary to provide for common basic rules on authorisation that mirror the existing UCITS harmonised rules. Such procedures should ensure that an AIF authorised as a MMF has as manager an alternative investment fund manager (AIFM) authorised in accordance with Directive 2011/61/EU.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 120 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
(22) Money market instruments are transferable instruments normally dealt in on the money market, such as treasury and local authority bills, certificates of deposits, commercial papers, bankers' acceptances or medium- or short-term notes. They should be eligible for investment by MMFs only insofar as they comply with maturity limits and are considered by the MMF to be of high credit quality.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 128 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
(23) Asset Backed Commercial Papers (ABCPs) should be considered eligible money market instruments to the extent that they respect additional requirements. Due to the fact that during the crisis certain securitisations were particularly unstable, it is necessary to impose maturity limits and quality criteria on the underlying assets. Not all categories of underlying assets as well as to ensure that the pool of exposures is sufficiently diversified should be eligible because some were more confronted to instability than others. For this reason the underlying assets should be exclusively composed of short-term and liquid debt instruments that have been issued by corporates in the course of their business activity, such as trade receivables. Instruments such as auto loans and leases, equipment leases, consumer loans, residential mortgage loans, credit card receivables or any other type of instrument linked to the acquisition or financing of services or goods by consumers should not be eligible. ESMA in close cooperation with EBA should be entrusted with drafting regulatory technical standards to be submitted for endorsement by the Commission with regard to the conditions and circumstances under which the underlying exposure or pool of exposures is considered to exclusively consist of corporate debt and the conditions, whether it is sufficiently diversified as well as the and numerical thresholds determining when corporate debt is of high credit quality and liquid.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 130 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
(25) Financial derivative instruments eligible for investment by a MMF should only serve the purpose of hedging interest rate and currency risk and should only have as an underlying instrument interest rates, exchange currencies or indices representing these categories. Any use of derivatives for another purpose or on other underlying assets should be prohibited. Derivatives should only be used as a complement to the fund strategy but not as the main tool for achieving the fund's objectives. Should a MMF invest in assets labelled in another currency than the currency of the fund, it is expected that the MMF manager would hedge the entire currency risk exposure, including via derivatives. MMFs should be allowed to invest in financial derivative instruments if those instruments are submitted to the clearing obligation as defined in Regulation (EU) No 648/2012. ESMA should be entrusted with drafting regulatory technical standards to be submitted for endorsement by the Commission with regard to the conditions and circumstances under which derivative instruments are considered to serve the purpose of hedging the duration and exchange risks inherent to other investments of the MMF.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 131 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
(26) Reverse repurchase agreements could be used by MMFs as a means to invest excess cash on a very short-term basis, provided that the position is fully collateralized. In order to protect the interests of the investors it is necessary to ensure that the collateral provided in the framework of reverse repurchase agreements be of high quality. All other efficient portfolio management techniques, including securities lending and borrowing, should not be used by the MMF as they are likely to impinge on achieving the investment objectives of the MMF. ESMA in close cooperation with EBA should be entrusted with drafting regulatory technical standards to be submitted for endorsement by the Commission with regard to the quantitative and qualitative requirements applicable to the collateral provided in the framework of reverse repurchase agreements.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 134 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
(27) In order to limit risk-taking by MMFs it is essential to reduce counterparty risk by subjecting the portfolio of MMFs to clear diversification requirements. To this effect it is also necessary that the reverse repurchase agreements be fully collateralized and that, for limiting the operational risk, one reverse repurchase agreement counterparty cannot account for more than 210% of the MMF's assets. All over-the-derivatives counter (OTC) derivativeracts should be subject to Regulation (EU) No 648/20125. __________________ 5 Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (OJ L 201, 27.7.2012, p. 1).
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 135 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
(28) For prudential reasons and for avoiding the exercise of significant influence over the management of an issuing body by the MMF, it is necessary to avoid excessive concentration by a MMF in investments issued by the same issuing body. For the purpose of this Regulation a body shall consist of an entity or group of connected entities that meets the definition of a group of connected clients in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 146 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
(31) In order to develop a transparent and coherent internal rating system, the manager should document the procedures used for the internal assessment. This should ensure that the procedure follows a clear set of rules that can be monitored and that the methodologies employed are notified to the competent authority, ESMA and communicated upon request to the interested stakeholders.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 148 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38 a (new)
(38a) In exceptional circumstances justified by systemic implications or adverse market conditions, ESMA should have the power to impose the temporary suspension of redemption of units or shares of a MMF.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 153 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
(39) It is important that the risk management of MMFs not be biased by short-term decisions influenced by the possible rating of the MMF. Therefore, it is necessary to prohibit a MMF or its manager from requesting that the MMF is rated by a credit rating agency in order to avoid that this external rating is used for marketing purposes. The MMF or the manager of the MMF should also not rely on external rating for establishing or updating its internal assessment procedure. The MMF or its manager should also refrain from using alternative methods for obtaining a rating of the MMF. Should the MMF be awarded an external rating, either on the own initiative of the credit rating agency or following request by a third party that is independent of the MMF or the manager and does not act on behalf of any of them, the MMF manager should refrain from relying on criteria that would be attached to that external rating. For ensuring appropriate liquidity management it is necessary that the MMFs establish sound policies and procedures to know their investors. The policies that the manager has to put in place should help understanding the MMF's investor base, to the extent that large redemptions could be anticipated. In order to avoid that the MMF faces sudden massive redemptions, particular attention should be paid to large investors representing a substantial portion of the MMF's assets, as with one investor representing more than the proportion of daily maturing assets. In this case the MMF should increase its proportion of daily maturing assets to the proportion of that investor. The manager should whenever possible look at the identity of the investors, even if they are represented by nominee accounts, portals or any other indirect buyer.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 156 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40
(40) As part of a prudent risk management, MMFs should periodically conduct stress testingand at least on a yearly basis conduct stress testing and develop plans for different possible scenarios including a recovery plan. The managers of MMFs are expected to act in order to strengthen the MMF's robustness whenever the results of stress testing point to vulnerabilities.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 168 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 43
(43) To allow for the specificities of CNAV MMFs it is necessary that CNAV MMFs be permitted to use also the amortised cost accounting method for the purpose of determining the constant net asset value (NAV) per unit or share. Amortised cost accounting should be applied only where it is deemed to allow for an appropriate approximation of the price of the instrument. The use of amortisation should be restricted to instruments with low residual maturity that do not present significant vulnerability to market risks such as credit or interest rate risks. A residual maturity of 60 days should be considered as the maximum. Materiality thresholds of 10 basis points and escalation procedures should be in place to ensure that corrective actions are promptly taken when the amortised cost no longer provides a reliable approximation of the price of the instruments. This notwithstanding, for the purpose of ensuring at all times the monitoring of the difference between the constant NAV per unit or share and the NAV per unit or share, as well as its disclosure on the MMF website on a daily basis, a CNAV MMF should also calculate the value of its assets on the basis of the marking to market or marking to model methods.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 183 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 45
(45) In order to be able to absorb day-to- day fluctuations in the value of a CNAV MMF's assets and allow it to offer a constant NAV per unit or share, the CNAV MMF should have at all times a NAV buffer amounting to at least 3% of its assets. The NAV buffer should serve as an absorbing mechanism for maintaining the constant NAV. All negative differences between the constant NAV per unit or share and the NAV per unit or share should be neutralized by using the NAV buffer. During stressed market situations, when the differences can rapidly increase, a procedure should ensure that the whole chain of management is involved. This escalation procedure should permit the senior management to take rapid remedy actions. Each CNAV MMF should also establish an additional countercyclical buffer to be filled whenever there are positive differences between the constant NAV per unit or share and the NAV per unit or share. Five years after the entry into force of this Regulation, all CNAV MMF established, managed or marketed in the Union shall be converted into VNAV or a variable share constant CNAV MMF unless such a CNAV MMF applies for and obtains authorisation as a credit institution in accordance with Article 8 of Directive 2013/36/EU on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms and complies with the prudential requirements established in that Directive and in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 198 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 47
(47) External support provided to a MMF other than a CNAV MMF with the intention of ensuring either liquidity or stability of the MMF or de facto having such effects increases the contagion risk between the MMF sector and the rest of the financial sector. Third parties providing such support have an interest in doing so, either because they have an economic interest in the management company managing the MMF or because they want to avoid any reputational damage should their name be associated with the failure of a MMF. Because these third parties do not commit explicitly to providing or guaranteeing the support, there is uncertainty whether such support will be granted when the MMF needs it. In these circumstances, the discretionary nature of sponsor support contributes to uncertainty among market participants about who will bear losses of the MMF when they do occur. This uncertainty likely makes MMFs even more vulnerable to runs during periods of financial instability, when broader financial risks are most pronounced and when concerns arise about the health of the sponsors and their ability to provide support to affiliated MMFs. For these reasons, MMFs should not rely on external support in order to maintain their liquidity and the stability of their NAV per unit or share unless the competent authority of the MMF has specifically allowed the external support in order to maintain stability of financial markets. In order to avoid putting at risk taxpayers' money, Member States should ensure that external support is not given by any sovereign, regional or local public authority. Against this background, ESMA should elaborate detailed guidelines by 31 July 2015 on the maximum amount that sponsors may grant, the applicable conditions, the characteristics of the financial sponsorship provided in accordance with this Regulation and the maximum duration of the sponsorship.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 210 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48
(48) Investors should be clearly informed, before they invest in a MMF, if the MMF is of a short-term nature or of a standard nature and if the MMF is of a CNAV type or not. In order to avoid misplaced expectations from the investor it must also be clearly stated in any marketing document that MMFs are not a guaranteed investment vehicle. CNAV MMFs should clearly explain to investors the buffers mechanism they are applying to maintain the constant NAV per unit or share.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 213 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 49
(49) To ensure that competent authorities are able to detect, monitor and respond to risks in the MMF market, MMFs should report to their competent authorities a detailed list of information, in addition to reporting already required under Directives 2009/65/EC or 2011/61/EU. Competent authorities should collect these data in a consistent way throughout the Union in order to obtain a substantive knowledge of the main evolutions of the MMF market. To facilitate a collective analysis of potential impacts of the MMF market in the Union, such data should be transmitted to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) who should create a central database for MMFs and publish annually a report identifying the main developments of MMFs in the Union.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 227 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall not add any additional requirements in the field covered by this Regulation.deleted
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 232 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2
(2) 'money market instruments' means money markettransferable instruments as definedreferred to in Article 2(1)(o) of Directive 2009/65/EC normally dealt in on the money market, such as treasury and local authority bills, certificates of deposits, commercial papers, bankers' acceptances or medium- or short-term notes;
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 234 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
(4) ‘repurchase agreement’ means any agreement in which one party transfers purchases securities or any rights related to that title to a counterparty, subject to a commitment to repurchase them at a specified price on a future date specified or to be specified;
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 241 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 12
(12) "constant Net Assets Value Money Market Fund" (CNAV MMF) means a money market fund that maintains an unchanging value NAV per unit or share; where income in the fund is accrued daily or can either be paid out to the investor, and where assets are generally valued according to the amortised cost method or the NAV is rounded to the nearest percentage point or its equivalent in currency term; "a variable share constant CNAV MMF means an MMF which in order to maintain a stable net asset value per share, cancels an appropriate number of shares when asset values decline or net investment income is negative",
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 252 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 17 a (new)
(17a) "MMF Host Member State" means the Member States where a significant proportion of MMF units or shares are marketed;
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 261 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the definitions of paragraph 1. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 31 December 2015. Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 262 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
An MMF or an MMF manager may be established in a third country or jurisdiction provided that that third country or jurisdiction is not a country or jurisdiction: - where there are no or nominal taxes, - where there is a lack of effective exchange of information with foreign tax authorities, - where there is a lack of transparency in legislative, judicial or administrative provisions, - where there is no requirement for a substantive local presence, or - which acts as an offshore financial centre.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 264 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. An MMF or an MMF manager may be established in a third country or jurisdiction provided that that third country or jurisdiction is not a country or jurisdiction: - where there is a lack of effective exchange of information with foreign tax authorities, - where there is a lack of transparency in legislative, judicial or administrative provisions, - where there is no requirement for a substantive local presence, or - which acts as an offshore financial centre. - which does not provide for tax measures which entail no or nominal taxes or where advantages are granted even without any real economic activity and substantial economic presence within the third country offering such tax advantages; - which has appropriate cooperation arrangements with the competent authorities of the home Member State of the MMF manager which entails that an efficient exchange of information can be ensured allowing competent authorities to carry out their duties in accordance with this Regulation; - which is not listed as a Non-Cooperative Country and Territory by FATF; - which has signed an agreement with the home Member State of the MMF manager and with each other Member State in which the units or shares of the MMF are intended to be marketed, so that it is ensured that the third country fully complies with the standards laid down in Article 26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital and ensures an effective exchange of information in tax matters, including any multilateral tax agreements;
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 265 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. A collective investment undertaking that requires authorisation as a UCITS under Directive 2009/65/EC shall be authorised as a MMF as part of the authorisation procedure pursuant to Directive 2009/65/EC provided that it performs MMF activities pursuant to this Regulation within 12 months after its authorisation.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 266 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5 – point f
(f) any other information or document requested by the competent authority of the home or host MMF to verify compliance with the requirements of this Regulation.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 268 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft implementing technical standards defining the format of information to be provided in accordance with paragraphs 5, 6 and 7. ESMA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by 31 December 2015. Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 269 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. An AIF shall be authorised as a MMF only if its competent authority has approved the application of an AIFM authorised under Directive 2011/61/EU to manage the AIF, the fund rules and the choice of the depositary provided that it performs MMF activities pursuant to this Regulation within 12 months after its authorisation.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 271 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. An AIF MMF or an AIFM of a MMF may be established in a third country or jurisdiction provided that the third country or jurisdiction is not a country: - where there are no or nominal taxes, - where there is a lack of effective exchange of information with foreign tax authorities, - where there is a lack of transparency in legislative, judicial or administrative provisions, - where there is no requirement for a substantive local presence, - which acts as an offshore financial centre.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 272 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of paragraph 2, ESMA shall develop draft implementing technical standards defining the format of information to be provided in accordance with paragraphs 2. ESMA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by 31 December 2015. Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 277 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 5
5. This Regulation shall not prevent MMFs from applying investment limits that are stricter than those required by this Regulation. In such case the MMF shall inform the competent authority of the stricter investment limits applied.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 288 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) taking direct or indirect exposure to equity, bonds, ETFs or commodities, including via derivatives, certificates representing them, indices based on them or any other mean or instrument that would give an exposure to them;
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 294 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point e
(e) borrowing and lending cash.deleted
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 314 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the underlying corporate debt is of high credit quality and liquid and the pool of exposure is sufficiently diversified according to the principle of risk spreading and as demonstrated by a low average default correlation;
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 329 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) the conditions and circumstances under which the underlying exposure or pool of exposures is considered to exclusively consist of corporate debt and whether it is considered to be sufficiently diversified;
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 339 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the deposit matures in no more than 12 months or 24 months for standard MMF;
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 344 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
A financial derivative instrument shall be eligible for investment by a MMF if it is dealt in on a regulated market referred to in Article 50(1)(a), (b) or (c) of Directive 2009/65/EC or over-the-counter (OTC) , provided that all of the following conditions are in any case fulfilled:is subject to the clearing obligation referred to in Regulation (EU) No 648/2012.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 347 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the counterparties to OTC derivative transactions are institutions subject to prudential regulation and supervision and belonging to the categories approved by the competent authorities of the MMF's home Member State;
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 350 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) the OTC derivatives are subject to reliable and verifiable valuation on a daily basis and can be sold, liquidated or closed by an offsetting transaction at any time at their fair value at the MMF's initiative.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 351 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 a (new)
For the purpose of a consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the conditions and circumstances under which the derivative instrument serves the purpose of hedging the duration and exchange risks inherent to other investments of the MMF ESMA shall submit the draft regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph to the Commission by [...]. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 354 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts ESMA in close cooperation with EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying accordance with Article 44 specifyingppropriate margining requirements for the purpose of paragraph 1(b), quantitative and qualitative liquidity requirements applicable to assets referred to in paragraph 5 and quantitative and qualitative credit quality requirements applicable to assets referred to in paragraph 5(a).
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 355 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2
For this purpose the CommissionESMA and EBA shall take into account the report referred to in Article [509(3)] of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 356 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
ESMA shall submit the draft regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph to the Commission by [...]. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 363 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. A MMF shall invest no more than 54% of its assets in any of the following:
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 364 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. For the purpose of this Regulation a body shall consist of an entity or group of connected entities that meets the definition of a group of connected clients in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013;
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 369 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. The aggregate of all exposures to securitisations shall not exceed 105% of the assets of a MMF.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 370 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. A MMF shall invest no more than 20% of its asset in eligible assets issued in a third country currency.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 373 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3
3. The aggregate risk exposure to the same counterparty of the MMF stemming from OTC derivative transactions shall not exceed 52% of its assets.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 375 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 4
4. The aggregate amount of cash provided to the same counterparty of a MMF in reverse repurchase agreements shall not exceed 2015% of its assets.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 383 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5 – point c
(c) OTC financial derivative instruments giving counterparty risk exposure to that body.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 386 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2 – point a
(a) the MMF holds money market instruments from at least sixten different issues by the respective issuer;
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 387 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2 – point b
(b) the MMF limits the investment in money market instruments from the same issue to maximum 320% of its assets;
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 393 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
1. A MMF may not hold more than 105% of the money market instruments issued by a single body.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 409 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) a manager of a MMF shall monitor its assignments of internal ratings on an ongoing basis and review all assignments of internal rating at least annualquarterly. That manager shall review the assignment every time there is a material change that could have an impact on an internal credit rating. The manager shall establish internal arrangements to monitor the impact on its internal credit ratings of changes in macroeconomic, financial market or issuer specific conditions;
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 414 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point e
(e) assignment methodologies shall be reviewed at least annually to determine whether they remain appropriate for the current portfolio and external conditions and shall be transmitted to competent authorities. The competent authority shall send the assignment methodologies to ESMA;
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 418 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1
1. Each issuer of a money market instrument in which a MMF intends to invest shall be assigned an internal rating pursuant to the internal assessment procedure established in conformity with the MMF internal rating system.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 419 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) comprise at least quantitative and qualitative indicators on the issuer of the instrument, including idiosyncratic characteristics of the issuer and the macro-economic and financial market situation;
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 420 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point c a (new)
(ca) the rating system shall apply more than one methodology and include a mechanism for combing their results.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 421 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point c b (new)
(cb) identify the sensitivity of the resulting rating values to a range of plausible changes in input values. The assumptions shall be reported with each rating and regularly reviewed.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 425 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2
2. The internal assessment procedure shall be detailed in the fund rules or rules of incorporation of the MMF and all documents referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made available upon request by the competent authorities of the MMF and the competent authorities of the manager of the MMF. The internal rating system shall be transmitted to the competent authority. The competent authority shall send the internal rating system to ESMA.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 462 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2
2. ABy way of derogation from Article 14 a standard MMF may invest up to 10% of its assets in money market instruments issued by a single body.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 465 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Notwithstanding the individual limit laid down in paragraph 2, and by way of derogation from Article 14 a standard MMF may combine, where this would lead to investment of up to 15% of its assets in a single body, any of the following:
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 466 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) OTC financial derivative instruments giving counterparty risk exposure to that body.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 477 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1
The MMF or the manager of the MMF shall not solicit or finance a credit rating agency for rating the MMF. and shall not rely on any external rating for establishing or updating its internal assessment procedure referred to in article 16.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 492 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 a (new)
Article 24 a Temporary suspension of redemption 1. In exceptional circumstances justified by systemic implications or adverse market conditions the competent authority may require the temporary suspension of redemption of units or shares of a MMF; 2. For the purpose of a consistent application of paragraph 1, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the conditions and circumstances under which the temporary suspension of redemption may be required; ESMA shall submit the draft regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph to the Commission by [...]. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 495 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
For each MMF there shall be in place sound stress testing processes that allow identifying possible events or future changes in economic conditions that could have unfavourable effects on the MMF. The manager of a MMF shall regularly and at least on a yearly basis conduct stress testing and develop action plans for different possible scenarios including a recovery plan. The action plans shall be approved by the competent authorities.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 496 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
The Board of Directors of the manager of the MMF is authorized to establish additional scenarios or reference parameters on which the tests should be based and to tailor the tests, as appropriate, for different market conditions and potential risks that the MMF may face;
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 497 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point c
(c) hypothetical movements of theincreases in short-term interest rates;
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 498 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point d
(d) hypothetical levels ofincreases in shareholders redemption.s
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 499 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point d a (new)
(da) hypothetical widening or narrowing of spreads among indexes to which interest rates of portfolio securities are tied
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 500 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point d b (new)
(db) hypothetical macro systemic shocks affecting the economy as a whole.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 511 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 7
7. ESMA shall issue guidelines with a view to establishingdevelop draft regulatory technical standards after consultation with the ESRB specifying economic scenarios, including baseline, adverse, and severely adverse scenarios, that are to be used in MMF stress testing and other common reference parameters of the stress test scenarios to be included in the stress tests taking into account the factors specifiedreferred to in paragraph 1. The guidelines shall beregulatory technical standards shall be reviewed and if required updated at least every year taking into account the latest market developments. and macro financial developments. ESMA shall submit the draft regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph to the Commission by [...]. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 526 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 5
5. In addition to the marking to market method referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 and marking to model method referred to in paragraph 4, the assets of a CNAV MMF may also be valued by using the amortised cost method. Amortised cost accounting shall be applied only where it is deemed to allow for an appropriate approximation of the price of the instrument. As the risk of mispricing increases with longer term underlying assets, the use of amortisation shall be restricted to instruments with low residual maturity and in the absence of any particular sensitivity of the instruments to market factors. A residual maturity of 90 days shall be considered to be the maximum. Materiality thresholds and escalation procedures shall be in place to ensure that corrective actions are promptly taken when the amortised cost no longer provides a reliable approximation of the price of the instruments: at the level of the overall portfolio, thresholds of 10 basis points shall be deemed to be appropriate.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 529 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. ESMA shall develop draft Regulatory technical standards specifying what instruments are to be considered as significantly vulnerable to market risks as referred to in paragraph 5. Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the Regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 549 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 6
6. The difference between the constant NAV per unit or share and NAV per unit or share of a CNAV MMF shall be continuously monitored and published on the MMF website on a daily basis.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 577 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) it has established a NAV buffers in accordance with the requirements in Article 30;
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 589 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) the competent authority of the CNAV MMF is satisfied with the CNAV MMF's arrangements to replenish the buffer and to fill the countercyclical buffer and with the financial strength of the entity expected to fund the replenishment;
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 596 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 2 – point f
(f) the CNAV MMF has established clear and effective communication tools towards investors that ensure prompt information in relation to any use or replenishment of the NAV buffers and the conversion of the CNAV MMF;
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 601 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 2 – point g
(g) the rules or instruments of incorporation of the CNAV MMF state clearly that the CNAV MMF cannot receive external support other than through the NAV buffers.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 615 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – title
NAV buffers
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 620 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Each CNAV MMF shall establish and maintain by 31 December 2015 a NAV buffer amounting at all times to at least 3% of the total value of the CNAV MMF's assets. The total value of the CNAV MMF's assets shall be calculated as the sum of the values of each asset of the MMF determined in accordance with Article 26(3) or (4). By [OJ please insert date: five years after entry into force of this Regulation], all CNAV MMF established, managed or marketed in the Union shall be converted into VNAV or a variable share constant CNAV MMF unless such a CNAV MMF applies for and obtains authorisation as a credit institution in accordance with Article 8 of Directive 2013/36/EU on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms and complies with the prudential requirements established in that Directive and in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms .
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 622 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The NAV buffers shall be used exclusively to cover differences between the CNAV MMF's constant NAV per unit or share and the CNAV MMF's NAV per unit or share as laid down in Article 31.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 624 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 2
2. The amounts in the NAV buffers shall not be included in the calculation of the NAV or constant NAV of the CNAV MMF.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 625 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 3
3. The NAV buffers shall be composed only of cash.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 626 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
The NAV buffers shall be held in a protected reserve account opened with a credit institution that fulfils the requirements in Article 11(c), in the name and on behalf of the MMF.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 627 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
The reserve account shall be segregated from any other account of the MMF, from the accounts of the manager of the MMF, from the accounts of the other clients of the credit institution, and from the accounts of any other entity financing the NAV buffers.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 628 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
The reserve account or any amounts in the reserve account shall not be subject to any pledge, lien or collateral arrangement. In the event of the insolvency of the manager of the MMF or of the credit institution where the account is opened or of any entity that financed the NAV buffers, the reserve account shall not be available for distribution among or realisation for the benefit of creditors of the insolvent entity.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 648 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1
1. A CNAV MMF shall establish and implement an escalation procedure that ensures that the negative difference between the constant NAV per unit or share and the NAV per unit or share is considered by persons competent to act for the fund in a timely manner. The escalation procedure shall be included in the recovery plan referred to in article 25.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 651 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) the competent persons assess the cause of the negative difference and take appropriate action including, as appropriate, the actions identified to in the recovery plan referred to in article 25 to reduce the negative effects.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 663 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
The CNAV MMF shall inform immediately the competent authority and ESMA as well as each investor thereof in writing and in a clear and comprehensible way.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 677 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 4
4. Following the notification in paragraph 2, the competent authority shall control that the NAV buffer has been replenished within any specified period by the competent authority or the MMF has ceased to hold itself as a CNAV MMF and informed accordingly its investors.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 678 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 4
4. Following the notification in paragraph 2, the competent authority shall control that the NAV buffer has been replenished within any specified period by the competent authority or the MMF has ceased to hold itself as a CNAV MMF and informed accordingly its investors.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 698 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
External support shall mean a direct or indirect support offered by a third party that is intended for or in effect would result in guaranteeing the liquidity of the MMF or stabilising the NAV per unit or share of the MMF. External support shall not be given by any sovereign, regional or local public authority.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 708 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. In exceptional circumstances justified by systemic implications or adverse market conditions the competent authority or ESMA may allow a MMF other than a CNAV MMF to receive external support referred to in Article 35 that is intended for or in effect would result in guaranteeing the liquidity of the MMF or stabilising the NAV per unit or share of the MMF provided that all of the following conditions are fulfilled:
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 710 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. External support shall not be given by any sovereign, regional or local public authority.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 711 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 2
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1(c), in case the provider of the external support is an entity subject to prudential supervision the agreement of the supervisory authority of that entity shall be sought in view of ensuring that the support to be granted by the entity is subject to adequate own funds provided by that entity and is in line with the risk management system of that entity and provided that any possible losses resulting from the external support would not put the support provider in a situation of early intervention as referred to in article 23 of Directive [BRRD] or of being failing or likely to fail as defined in Directive [BRRD].
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 712 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Where the conditions referred to in paragraph 1 for receiving external support are fulfilled the competent authority shall inform all relevant authorities from other Member States, ESMA, EBA and the ESRB
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 714 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 3
3. Where the conditions referred to in paragraph 1 for receiving external support are fulfilled the MMF shall immediately inform each investor thereof in writing and in a clear and comprehensible way. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards in order to specify the maximum amounts to be provided by means of external support as well as the conditions referred to in paragraph 1. ESMA shall submit the draft regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph to the Commission by [...]. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 728 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 5
5. In addition to the information to be provided in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 4, a CNAV MMF shall explain clearly to investors and potential investors the use of the amortised cost method and/or of rounding. A CNAV MMF shall indicate the amount of its NAV buffer, the procedure to equalise the constant NAV per unit or share and the NAV per unit or share and shall state clearly the role of the buffer and the risks related to it. The CNAV MMF shall clearly indicate the modalities of replenishing the NAV buffer and the entity expected to fund the replenishment. It shall make available to investors all information concerning compliance with the conditions set out in Article 29(2)(a) to (g). The CNAV MMF shall publish on its website its NAV in accordance with paragraph 2a of article 38.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 741 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) the action plans referred to in article 25;
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 742 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
If necessary and duly justified, competent authorities or ESMA may solicit additional information.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 743 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. In addition, for each MMF managed, the manager of the MMF shall disclose daily on a public website the following information: (a) daily and weekly liquid assets as of previous business day, with chart or graph showing six-month history; (b) previous day's net inflow or outflow, with chart or graph showing six-month history; (c) previous day's NAV per share, with chart or graph showing six-month history;
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 744 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
ESMA shall collect the information to create a central database of all MMFs established, managed or marketed in the Union. The European Central Bank shall have right to access this database for statistical purposes only. On the basis of the information collected, ESMA shall publish an annual report identifying the main developments of MMF in the Union including inter alia its market size and the main features regarding assets and liabilities of EU MMFs.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 745 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 a (new)
Article 38 a Obligations concerning the remuneration policy of MMFs 1. The remuneration policy of MMFs shall be transparent. Accordingly, MMFs shall establish and apply remuneration policies and practices that are consistent with and that promote sound and effective risk management and do not encourage risk-taking which is inconsistent with the risk profiles, rules or instruments of incorporation of the MMF they manage. 2. The remuneration policies and practices shall cover fixed and variable components of salaries and discretionary pension benefits. 3. The variable component of salaries shall not exceed 100 % of the fixed component of the total remuneration for each individual. Member States may set a lower maximum percentage. 4. The remuneration policies and practices shall apply to those categories of staff, including employees and other members of staff such as, but not limited to, temporary or contractual staff, at fund or subfund level who are: (a) fund managers; (b) persons other than fund managers, who take investment decisions that affect the risk position of the fund; (c) persons other than fund managers, who have the power to exercise influence on staff, including investment policy advisors and analysts; (d) senior management, risk takers, personnel in control functions; and (e) any other employee or member of staff such as, but not limited to, temporary or contractual staff receiving total remuneration that falls within the remuneration bracket of senior management and decision takers and whose professional activities have a material impact on the risk profiles of the management companies or of the MMF they manage.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 747 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 1
1. The competent authoritiesMMFs with more than EUR 10 billion of assets under management shall be supervised by ESMA on the compliance with this Regulation on an on-going basis. Other funds shall fall under the supervision of the competent authorities on an on-going basis.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 748 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 2
2. The competent authority of the MMF shall be responsible for supervisensuring compliance with the rules laid down in Chapters II to VII.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 749 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1
1. Competent authorities and ESMA shall have all supervisory and investigatory powers that are necessary for the exercise of their functions pursuant to this Regulation.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 750 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – title
Cooperation between authorities and ESMA binding mediation
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 751 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 1
1. The competent authority of the MMF and, the competent authority of the manager, if different and host competent authorities shall cooperate with each other and exchange information for the purpose of carrying out their duties under this Regulation.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 753 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 2
2. Competent authorities and ESMA shall cooperate with each other for the purpose of carrying out their respective duties under this Regulation in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. In case of disagreement between competent authorities regarding the implementation of this Regulation, any relevant home, host or the manager competent authority may request ESMA to proceed to a binding mediation in accordance with article 19 of Regulation [ESMA]
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 755 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 3
3. Competent authorities and, ESMA, EBA and the ESMARB shall exchange all information and documentation necessary to carry out their respective duties under this Regulation in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, in particular to identify and remedy breaches of this Regulation.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 763 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1
1. Within the sixthree months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation, an existing UCITS or AIF that invests in short term assets and has as distinct or cumulative objectives offering returns in line with money market rates or preserving the value of the investment shall submit an application to its competent authority together with all documents and evidence necessary to demonstrate the compliance with this Regulation.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 773 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 3
3. By way of derogation from the first sentence of Article 30(1), an existing UCITS or AIF that meets the criteria for the definition of a CNAV MMF set out in Article 2(10) shall establish a NAV buffer of at least (a) 1% of the total value of the CNAV MMF's assets, within one year from the entry into force of this Regulation; (b) 2% of the total value of the CNAV MMF's assets, within two years from the entry into force of this Regulation; (c) 3% of the total value of the CNAV MMF's assets, within three years from the date of entry into force of this Regulationdeleted
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 774 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 3 - introductory part
3. By way of derogation from the first sentence of Article 30(1), an existing UCITS or AIF that meets the criteria for the definition of a CNAV MMF set out in Article 2(10) shall establish a NAV buffer of at leastdeleted
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 776 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) 1% of the total value of the CNAV MMF's assets, within one year from the entry into force of this Regulation;deleted
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 778 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) 2% of the total value of the CNAV MMF's assets, within two years from the entry into force of this Regulation;deleted
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 780 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) 3% of the total value of the CNAV MMF's assets, within three years from the date of entry into force of this Regulationdeleted
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 789 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 4
4. For the purposes of paragraph 3 of this Article, the reference to 3% in Articles 33 and 34 shall be interpreted as referring to the amounts of the NAV buffer mentioned in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 3 respectively.deleted
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 798 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
By three years after the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission shall review the adequacy of this Regulation from a prudential and economic point of view. In particular the review shall consider the operation of the CNAV buffers and the operation of the CNAV buffers to those CNAV MMFs that, in future, might concentrate their portfolios on debt issued or guaranteed by the Member States. The review shall:
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 190 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
(5) Whilst the European Public Prosecutor's Office should have exclusive competence to investigate and prosecute crimes affecting the Union's financial interests, Eurojust should be able to support national authorities when they are investigating and prosecuting these forms of crime in accordance with the Regulation establishing the European Public Prosecutor's Office.deleted
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 196 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5 a (new)
(5a) Considering the creation of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office by means of an enhanced cooperation, the division of competences between that Office and Eurojust with respect to crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union needs to be clearly established. Eurojust should be able to exercise its competence in such cases where they involve both Member States participating in enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and Members States which do not. In such cases, Eurojust should act at the request of those non- participating Member States or at the request of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Eurojust remains in any case competent for offences affecting the financial interest of the Union whenever the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is not competent or, being competent, does not exercise its competence. The Members States which do not participate in enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office may continue to request Eurojust’s support in all cases regarding offences affecting the financial interest of the Union
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 204 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
(20) Whilst tThe processing of personal data at Eurojust falls under the scope of Regulation (EC) 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data13 , t. The processing of personal data by the Member State's authorities and the transfer of such data to Eurojust arfalls under the scovered by the Council of Europe Convention 108 [to be replaced by the relevant Directive in force at the moment of adoption]. _________________ 13pe of Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA. Any processing of personal data carried out by the Member State's authorities that does not fall under the scope of Directive (EU) 2016/680, and the transfer of such data to Eurojust, should be in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC) . _________________ 13 OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1 OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 207 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
(21) When Eurojust transfers personal data to an authority of a third country or to an international organisation or, including Interpol, by virtue of an international agreement concluded pursuant to Article 218 of the Treaty the adequate safeguards adduced with respect to the protection of privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals have to ensure that the data protection provisions of this Regulation are complied with, it should respect Union law on data transfers, including the safeguards in Directive (EU) 2016/680 or Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 208 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
(23) Eurojust should be given the opportunity to extend the deadlines for storage of personal data, subject to observance of the purpose limitation principle applicable to processing of personal data in the context of all activities of Eurojust, in order to achieve its objectives. Such decisions should be taken following careful consideration of all interests at stake, including those of the data subjects. Any extension of deadlines for processing personal data, where prosecution is statute barred in all Member States concerned, should be decideformally decided, with giving reasons, and only where there is a specific and clearly justifiable need to provide assistance under this Regulation.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 213 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25 a (new)
(25a) The European Public Prosecutor should have the right to participate in all Eurojust meetings provided that matters which the Prosecutor considers relevant to the functioning of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office are discussed.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 214 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
(26) To enhance operational cooperation between Eurojust and Europol, and particularly to establish links between data already in the possession of either body, Eurojust should enable Europol to have access to and be able to search against data available at Eurojust, and reciprocally, in conformity with their respective mandates, and in full respect of data protection rules and in particular the principle of purpose limitation. Any access to data should be limited to information falling within the respective mandates of those Union bodies and be subject to appropriate safeguards.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 222 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. Eurojust shall support and strengthen coordination and cooperation between national investigating and prosecuting authorities in relation to serious crime affecting two or more Member States, or requiring a prosecution on common bases, on the basis of operations conducted and information supplied by the Member States' authorities, by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, and by Europol.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 226 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Eurojust's competence shall cover the forms of crime listed in Annex 1. However, its competence shall not include the crimes for which the European Public Prosecutor's Office is competentEurojust shall not exercise its competence with regard to crimes for which the European Public Prosecutor's Office exercises its competence, except in cases also involving Member States participating in enhanced cooperation, but in respect of which the European Public Prosecutor's Office does not exercise its competence, or involving Member States which do not participate in enhanced cooperation on the establishment of that Office. To this end, Eurojust, the European Public Prosecutor's Office and the Member States concerned shall consult and cooperate with each other. The practical details on the exercise of competence in accordance with this paragraph shall be regulated by a working arrangement as referred to in Article 38(2a).
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 233 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
a) inform the competent authorities of the Member States and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office of investigations and prosecutions of which it has been informed and which have repercussions at Union level or which might affect Member States other than those directly concerned;
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 235 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b
b) assist the competent authorities of the Member States in ensuring the best possible coordination of investigations and prosecutions;
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 237 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point c
c) give assistance in order to improve cooperation between the competent authorities of the Member States, in particular on the basis of Europol's analyses;
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 239 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
e a) support, and where appropriate participate in, the Union centres of specialised expertise developed by Europol and other Union bodies and agencies;
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 241 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point e b (new)
e b) cooperate closely with and assist the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in accordance with Article 41.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 272 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3
3. The European Public Prosecutor shall receive the agendas of all College meetings and shall be entitled to participate in such meetings, without the right to vote, whenever issues are discussed which he or she considers to be of relevance for the functioning of the European Public Prosecutor's Office.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 287 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 7
7. The European Public Prosecutor shall receive the agendas of all Executive Board meetings and shall be free to participate in such meetings, without the right to vote, whenever issues are discussed which he or she considers to be of relevance for the functioning of the European Public Prosecutor's Office.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 308 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1
1. The competent authorities of the Member States shall exchange with Eurojust any information necessary for the performance of its tasks in accordance with Articles 2 and 4 as well as with the rulesUnion law on data protection set out in this Regulation. This shall at least include the information referred to in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 310 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 5
5. The national competent authorities shall inform their national members without undue delay of any case concerning crimes under the competence of Eurojust affecting at least threewo Member States and for which requests for or decisions on judicial cooperation, including those based on instruments giving effect to the principle of mutual recognition, have been transmitted to at least two Member States.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 312 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1
The competent national authorities shall respond without undue delay to Eurojust's requests and opinions made under Article 4. Where the competent authorities of the Member States concerned decide not to comply with a request referred to in Article 4(2) or decide not to follow a written opinion referred to in Article 4(4) or (5), they shall inform Eurojust without undue delay of their decision and of the reasons for it. Where it is not possible to give the reasons for refusing to comply with a request because to do so would harm essential national security interests or would jeopardise the safety of individuals, the competent authorities of the Member States may cite operational reasons.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 314 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – point c
c) facilitate the monitoring of lawfulness and compliance with the provisions of this RegulationUnion law concerning the processing of personal data.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 315 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 4
4. The index shall contain references to temporary work files processed within the framework of Eurojust and may contain no personal data other than those referred to in points (1)(a) to (i), (k) and (m) and (2) of Annex 2.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 316 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 6
6. For the processing of operational personal data, Eurojust may not establish any automated data file other than the Case Management System or a temporary work file.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 319 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 3
3. The national member who has opened a temporary work file shall decide which information related to this temporary work file, and in accordance with Article 24(4), shall be introduced in the index.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 324 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1
1. Insofar as it is necessary to achieve its explicitly stated task, Eurojust may, within the framework of its competence and in order to carry out its operational functions, process by automated means or in structured manual files in accordance with this Regulation only the personal data listed in point 1 of Annex 2, on persons who, under the national legislation of the Member States concerned are suspected of having committed or having taken part in a criminal offence in respect of which Eurojust is competent or who have been convicted of such an offence.deleted
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 325 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 2
2. Eurojust may process only the personal data listed in point 2 of Annex 2, on persons who, under the national legislation of the Member States concerned, are regarded as witnesses or victims in a criminal investigation or prosecution regarding one or more of the types of crime and the offences referred to in Article 3, or persons under the age of 18. The processing of such personal data may only take place if it is strictly necessary for the achievement of the expressly stated task of Eurojust, within the framework of its competence and in order to carry out its operational functions.deleted
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 326 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 3
3. In exceptional cases, Eurojust may also, for a limited period of time which shall not exceed the time needed for the conclusion of the case related to which the data are processed, process personal data other than those referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 relating to the circumstances of an offence where they are immediately relevant to and included in on-going investigations which Eurojust is coordinating or helping to coordinate and when their processing is strictly necessary for the purposes specified in paragraph 1. The Data Protection Officer referred to in Article 31 shall be informed immediately of recourse to this paragraph and of the specific circumstances which justify the necessity of the processing of such personal data. Where such other data refer to witnesses or victims within the meaning of paragraph 2, the decision to process them shall be taken jointly by at least two national members.deleted
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 327 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 4
4. Personal data, processed by automated or other means, revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, and data concerning health or sex life may be processed by Eurojust only when such data are strictly necessary for the national investigations concerned as well as for coordination within Eurojust and if they supplement other personal data already processed. The Data Protection Officer shall be informed immediately of recourse to this paragraph. Such data may not be processed in the Index referred to in Article 24(4). Where such other data refer to witnesses or victims within the meaning of paragraph 3, the decision to process them shall be taken by the College.deleted
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 328 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 5
5. The processing of personal data at Eurojust falls under the scope of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 shall apply to the processing of personal data by Eurojust in the context of its activities. This Regulation particularisof the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data. The processing of personal data by the Member State's authorities and the transfer of such data to Eurojust falls under the scope of Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and complements Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 in as far as personal data processed by Eurojust for its operational tasks are concernedon the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA. Any processing of personal data carried out by the Member State's authorities that does not fall under the scope of Directive (EU) 2016/680, and the transfer of such data to Eurojust, shall be in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC).
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 334 #

2013/0256(COD)

c) threone years after the date on which the judicial decision of the last of the Member States concerned by the investigation or prosecutions became final;
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 335 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point e
e) three years after the date on which data were transmitted in accordance with Article 21(6) or (7).
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 336 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 2
2. Observance of the storage deadlines referred to in points (a), (b), (c) and (d) of paragraph 1 shall be reviewed constantly by appropriate automated processing. Nevertheless, a review of the need to store the data shall be carried out every three years after they were entered. If data concerning persons referred to in Article 27(4)special categories of personal data are stored for a period exceeding fivthree years, the European Data Protection Supervisor shall be informed accordingly.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 337 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 4
4. Where, in accordance with paragraph 3, data have been stored beyond the dates referred to in paragraph 1, a review of the need to store those data shall take place every three years by European Data Protection Supervisor.deleted
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 354 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29
Logging and documentation 1. For the purposes of verification of the lawfulness of the data processing, self- monitoring and ensuring proper data integrity and security, Eurojust shall keep records of any collection, alteration, access, disclosure, combination or erasure of personal data used for operational purposes. Such logs or documentation shall be deleted after 18 months, unless the data are further required for on-going control. 2. Logs or documentation prepared under paragraph 1 shall be communicated on request to the European Data Protection Supervisor. The European Data Protection Supervisor shall use this information only for the purpose of data protection control, ensuring proper data processing, and data integrity and security.Article 29 deleted
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 357 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 31
Appointment of the Data Protection 1. The Executive Board shall appoint a Data Protection Officer in accordance with Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001. 2. When complying with the obligations set out in Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, the Data Protection Officer shall: a) ensure that a written record of the transfer of personal data is kept; b) cooperate with Eurojust staff responsible for procedures, training and advice on data processing; c) prepare an annual report and communicate that report to the College and to the European Data Protection Supervisor. 3. In the performance of his or her tasks, the Data Protection Officer shall have access to all the data processed by Eurojust and to all Eurojust premises. 4. Eurojust's staff members assisting the Data Protection Officer in the performance of his or her duties shall have access to the personal data processed at Eurojust and to Eurojust premises to the extent necessary for the performance of their tasks. 5. If the Data Protection Officer considers that the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 or this Regulation related to the processing of personal data have not been complied with, he or she shall inform the Administrative Director, requiring him or her to resolve the non-compliance within a specified time. If the Administrative Director does not resolve the non- compliance of the processing within the specified time, the Data Protection Officer shall inform the College and shall agree with the College a specified time for a response. If the College does not resolve the non-compliance of the processing within the specified time, the Data Protection Officer shall refer the matter to the European Data Protection Supervisor. 6. The Executive Board shall adopt the implementing rules referred to in Article 24(8) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.rticle 31 deleted Officer
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 359 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 4
4. When the right of access is restricted in accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, Eurojust shall inform the data subject in accordance with Article 20(3) of that Regulation in writing. The information about the principal reasons may be omitted where the provision of such information would deprive the restriction of its effect. The data subject shall at least be informed that all necessary verifications by the European Data Protection Supervisor have taken place.deleted
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 360 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 7
7. When in application of Article 46 and 47 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, the European Data Protection Supervisor checks the lawfulness of the processing performed by Eurojust, he or she shall inform the data subject at least that all necessary verifications by the European Data Protection Supervisor have taken place.deleted
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 361 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33
Right to rectification, erasure and restrictions on processing 1. If the personal data that have to be rectified, erased or whose processing has to be restricted in accordance with Articles 14, 15 or 16 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 have been provided to Eurojust by third countries, international organisations, private parties, private persons or are the results of Eurojust’s own analyses, Eurojust shall rectify, erase or restrict the processing of such data. 2. If the personal data that have to be rectified, erased or whose processing has to be restricted in accordance with Article 14, 15 and 16 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 have been provided directly to Eurojust by Member States, Eurojust shall rectify, erase or restrict the processing of such data in collaboration with Member States. 3. If incorrect data were transmitted by another appropriate means or if the errors in the data supplied by Member States are due to faulty transfer or were transmitted in breach of this Regulation or if they result from their being input, taken over or stored in an incorrect manner or in breach of this Regulation by Eurojust, Eurojust shall rectify or erase the data in collaboration with the Member States concerned. 4. In the cases referred to in Articles 14, 15 or 16 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, all addressees of such data shall be notified forthwith in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001. In accordance with rules applicable to them, the addressees shall then rectify, erase or restrict the processing of those data in their systems. 5. Eurojust shall inform the data subject in writing without undue delay and in any case within three months of the receipt of the request that data concerning him or her have been rectified, erased or their processing restricted. 6. Eurojust shall inform the data subject in writing on any refusal of rectification, of erasure or of restrictions to the processing, and the possibility of lodging a complaint with the European Data Protection Supervisor and seeking a judicial remedy.Article 33 deleted
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 364 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 2
2. The responsibility for the quality of personal data shall lie with the Member State which provided the personal data to Eurojust and with Eurojust for personal data provided by EU bodies, third countries or international organisations, from the moment of the transfer of data to Eurojust, as well for personal data retrieved by Eurojust from publicly available sources.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 365 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 3
3. The responsibility for compliance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and this Regulation shall lie with Eurojust. The responsibility for the legality of transfer of personal data provided by the Member States to Eurojust shall lie with the Member State which provides the personal data, and with Eurojust for the personal data provided to Member States, EU bodies and third countries or organisations by EurojustUnion law on data protection shall lie with Eurojust, as far as all personal data processed by Eurojust are concerned.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 366 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 4
4. Subject to other provisions in this Regulation, Eurojust shall be responsible for all data processed by it.deleted
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 367 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1
1. The European Data Protection Supervisor shall act in close cooperation with national authorities competent for data protection supervision with respect to specific issues requiring national involvement, in particular if the European Data Protection Supervisor or a national authority competent for data protection supervision finds major discrepancies between practices of the Member States or potentially unlawful transfers using Eurojust’s communication channels, or in the context of questions raised by one or more national supervisory authorities on the implementation and interpretation of this RegulationNational supervisory authorities and the EDPS shall, each acting within their respective competences, cooperate with each other in accordance with Article 62 of Regulation (EU) 2017/xxx on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation EC 45/2001.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 370 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 2
2. In cases referred to under paragraph 1 the European Data Protection Supervisor and the national authorities competent for data protection supervision may, each acting within the scope of their respective competences, exchange relevant information, assist each other in carrying out audits and inspections, examine difficulties of interpretation or application of this Regulation, study problems related to the exercise of independent supervision or to the exercise of the rights of data subjects, draw up harmonised proposals for joint solutions to any problems and promote awareness of data protection rights, as necessary.deleted
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 371 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 3
3. The National Supervisory Authorities and the European Data Protection Supervisor shall meet for the purposes outlined in this Article, as needed. The costs and servicing of these meetings shall be for the account of the European Data Protection Supervisor. Rules of procedure shall be adopted at the first meeting. Further working methods shall be developed jointly as necessary.deleted
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 374 #

2013/0256(COD)

European Data Protection Supervisor 1. Where a complaint introduced by a data subject pursuant to Article 32(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 relates to a decision as referred to in Article 32 or 33, the European Data Protection Supervisor shall consult the national supervisory bodies or the competent judicial body in the Member State which was the source of the data or the Member State directly concerned. The decision of the European Data Protection Supervisor, which may extend to a refusal to communicate any information, shall be taken in close cooperation with the national supervisory body or competent judicial body. 2. Where a complaint relates to the processing of data provided by a Member State to Eurojust, the European Data Protection Supervisor shall ensure that the necessary checks have been carried out correctly in close cooperation with the national supervisory body of the Member State which has provided the data. 3. Where a complaint relates to the processing of data provided to Eurojust by EU bodies, third countries or organisations or private parties, the European Data Protection Supervisor shall ensure that the necessary checks have been carried out by Eurojust.Article 36 deleted Right to lodge a complaint with the
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 375 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37
Liability for unauthorised or incorrect 1. Eurojust shall be liable, in accordance with Article 340 of the Treaty, for any damage caused to an individual which results from unauthorised or incorrect processing of data carried out by it. 2. Complaints against Eurojust pursuant to the liability referred to in paragraph 1 shall be heard by the Court of Justice in accordance with Article 268 of the Treaty. 3. Each Member State shall be liable, in accordance with its national law, for any damage caused to an individual, which results from unauthorised or incorrect processing carried out by it of data which were communicated to Eurojust.Article 37 deleted processing of data
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 379 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 1
1. In so far as necessary for the performance of its tasks, Eurojust may establish and maintain cooperative relations with Union bodies and agencies in accordance with the objectives of those bodies or agencies, the competent authorities of third countries, international organisations andincluding the International Criminal Police Organisation (Interpol).
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 380 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 3
3. Eurojust may, in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, receive and process personal data received from the entities referred to in paragraph 1 in so far as necessary for the performance of its tasks and subject to the provisions of Section IV.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 381 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. Personal data shall only be transferred by Eurojust to third countries, and international organisations, and Interpol if this is necessary for preventing and combating crime that falls under Eurojust's competence and in accordance with this Regulation. If the data to be transferred have been provided by a Member State, Eurojust shall seek that Member State's consent, unless: in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and relevant Union law on the transfer of personal data outside the Union.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 382 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 4 – point a
a) the authorisation can be assumed as the Member State has not expressly limited the possibility of onward transfers; ordeleted
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 383 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 4 – point b
b) the Member State has granted its prior authorisation to such onward transfer, either in general terms or subject to specific conditions. Such consent may be withdrawn any moment.deleted
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 384 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 5
5. Onward transfers to third parties of personal data received from Eurojust by Member States, Union bodies or agencies, third countries and international organisations or Interpol shall be prohibited unless Eurojust has given its explicit consent after considering the circumstances of the case at hand, for a specific purpose that is not incompatible with the purpose for which the data was transmitted.deleted
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 385 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Chapter 5 – section 2 – title
RELATIONS WITH PARTNERS WITHIN THE UNION
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 387 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 2
2. Searches of information in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be made only for the purpose of identifying whether information available at Eurojust matches with information processed at Europol. In case of a hit, Europol shall specify which data it needs and Eurojust may share the data with Europol only to the extent that the data that generated the hit are necessary for the legitimate performance of its tasks.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 388 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 2
2. Eurojust shall treat any request for support emanating from the European Public Prosecutor's Office without undue delay, and shall deal with such requests, where appropriate, as if they had been received from a national authority competent for judicial cooperation.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 391 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office may rely on the support and resources of the administration of Eurojust. To this end, Eurojust may provide services of common interest to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. The details shall be regulated by an arrangement.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 392 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 7
7. Eurojust shall support the functioning of the European Public Prosecutor's Office through services to be supplied by its staff. Such support shall in any case include: a) technical support in the preparation of the annual budget, the programming document containing the annual and multiannual programming and the management plan; b) technical support in staff recruitment and career-management; c) security services; d) Information Technology services; e) financial management, accounting and audit services; f) any other services of common interest. The details of the services to be provided shall be laid down in an agreement between Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor's Office.deleted
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 399 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Chapter 5 – section 4 – title
TRANSFERS OF PERSONAL DATAJUDICIAL COOPERATION WITH THIRD COUNTRIES
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 401 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 44
Transfer of personal data to Union bodies Subject to any possible restrictions pursuant to Article 21(8) Eurojust may directly transfer personal data to Union bodies or agencies in so far as it is necessary for the performance of its tasks or those of the recipient Union body or agency.Article 44 deleted or agencies
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 402 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45
[...]deleted
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 413 #

2013/0256(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 64 – paragraph 3
3. In the case of non-contractual liability, Eurojust shall, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States and independently of any liability under Article 37Union law, make good any damage caused by the College or the staff of Eurojust in the performance of their duties.
2017/09/05
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 24 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 11
(11) Improving access to financing for SMEs, including SMEs from the Union investing in the regions covered by this Decision, can play an essential role in stimulating economic development and in combating unemployment. In order to effectively reach out to SMEs, the EIB should cooperate with local financial intermediary institutions in the eligible countries, under the condition that such intermediaries are embedded in the local economy and contribute with local resources, in particular to ensure that part of the financial benefits is passed on to their clients and provide added value compared to other sources of finance. Through its cooperation agreements with those intermediary institutions, the EIB should make sure that their client's projects can be checked against criteria which reflect the Union's development goals and the Bank's standards. The financial intermediaries' activities in support of SMEs should be fully transparent and checked regularly by the EIB.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 28 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 10
(10) In order to respect developing country ownership, all EIB investments should be aligned to country owned development strategies. Against this background, in order to enhance the coherence and the focus of the EIB external financing activity on supporting Union policies, and for the maximum benefit of beneficiaries, Decision No 1080/2011/EU set out general objectives for EIB financing operations across all eligible regions and countries, i.e. local private sector development, in particular in support of small and medium- sized enterprises (SMEs), social and economic infrastructure and climate change mitigation and adaptation, building on the comparative strengths of the EIB in areas where it has a well-proven track record. These objectives should be maintained in this Decision.
2013/09/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 28 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 13
(13) The EIB should continue to finance investment projects in the areas of social, environmental and economic infrastructure, and should consider increasinge its activity in support of health and education infrastructure when there is clear added value in doing so.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 29 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 11
(11) Improving access to financing for SMEs, including SMEs from the Union investing in the regions covered by this Decision, can play an essential role in stimulating economic development and in combating unemployment. ITo ensure that investments in the private sector have the greatest development impact, they should be targeted towards domestic entreprises owned and domiciled with developing countries. To this end, in order to effectively reach out to SMEs, the EIB should cooperate with local financial intermediary institutions in the eligible countries, in particular to ensure that part of the financial benefits is passed on to their clients and provide added value compared to other sources of finance. The reliance on financial intermediaries must be complemented by increased transparency to ensure that they are engaging in programmes with clear development impacts. In particular, the EIB should work with financial intermediaries that have substantial local ownership, and ensure that the projects financed through intermediaries support sustainable development and that the operations are done in a transparent manner. The EIB should also ensure that financing to the private sector goes where it is most needed, taking into account the priorities of the partner countries.
2013/09/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 29 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 14
(14) The EIB should also continue to finance investment projects in support of climate change mitigation and adaptation, to further the promotion of the Union's climate goals on a global scale, taking due care that investments have a net positive impact on climate and putting in place effective provisions to this end. Priority should be given to small-scale, off-grid decentralised renewable energy projects.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 30 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 11 a (new)
(11 a) When operating under the Community guarantee, the EIB should only cooperate with financial intermediaries not operating in offshore financial centres, which have substantial local ownership and are equipped to implement a pro-development approach supporting the specificity of SMEs in the countries of operation.
2013/09/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 31 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 11 b (new)
(11 b) The EIB shall not cooperate with financial intermediaries with negative track record in terms of transparency, fraud, corruption and environmental and social impacts. A stringent list of criteria for selection of financial intermediaries shall be established by the EIB jointly with the European Commission and be publicly available.
2013/09/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 33 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 14
(14) The EIB should also continue to finance investment projects in support of climate change mitigation and adaptation, to further the promotion of the Union's climate goals on a global scale. To this end, priority should be given to small- scale, off-grid decentralised renewable energy projects, to ensure energy access to rural areas, while avoiding potential negative social and environmental impact of large-scale energy infrastructure.
2013/09/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 33 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 15 a (new)
(15 a) In supporting climate change mitigation projects in eligible third countries, the EIB should take into account the conclusions of the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh and present by 2014 a road map and timeline to phase out by 2016 environmentally or economically harmful subsidies, including for fossil fuels, and prevent from financing projects which could have a negative impact to foster this goal.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 34 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 16
(16) The practical measures for linking the general objectives of the EU guarantee and their implementation are to be set out in regional technical operational guidelines. Such guidelines should be consistent with the external action goals of the Union according to Article 21 TEU and the wider Union regional policy framework. The regional technical operational guidelines should be reviewed following consultation with relevant stakeholder and authorities at national and local level from beneficiary countries and further updated following the review of this Decision in order to adapt to the developments in the Union external policies and priorities.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 35 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 21
(21) Union external relations should be supported by new instruments from 2014, including an umbrella Regulation establishing common rules and procedures for the implementation of the Union's instruments for external action. With a view to enhancing the coherence of overall Union support in the regions concerned, and provided that blending activities have a clear sustainable development impact, that can be effectively monitored, opportunities should be seized to combine EIB financing with Union budgetary resources when and as appropriate, in the form of financial instruments provided for in Title VIII of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 and technical assistance for project preparation and implementation, through the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance II (IPA II), the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI), the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI), the Partnership Instrument for cooperation with third countries, the Instrument for the promotion of Democracy and Human Rights worldwide, the Instrument for Stability, and the Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation. Following Decision No 1080/2011/EU, the Commission established an EU Platform for Blending in External Cooperation with a view to optimising the functioning of mechanisms for the blending of grants and loans outside the Union.
2013/09/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 35 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 17
(17) In accordance with Article 19 of the Statute of the EIB, applications made directly to the EIB for EIB financing operations to be carried out under this Decision are to be submitted to the Commission for an opinion on the conformity with relevant EU legislation and policies. In the event that the Commission delivers a negative opinion on an EIB financing operation in the framework of the Article 19 procedure, the operation shall not be covered by the EU guarantee or by any financial instrument covered by the EIB's own capital.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 36 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 22
(22) IThe mechanism of blending loans and grants must be evaluated particularly in terms of development and financial additionality, transparency and accountability, local ownership and debt risk. Provided that it has a clear sustainable development impact, the EIB should, in its financing operations outside the Union that fall within the scope of this Decision, the EIB should endeavour further to enhance coordination and cooperation with European Financial Institutions and International Financial Institutions, notably those participating in the EU Platform for Blending in External Cooperation. This cooperation includes, where appropriate, cooperation on sector conditionality and mutual reliance on procedures, use of joint co-financing and participation in global initiatives, such as those promoting aid coordination and effectiveness. Such coordination and cooperation should strive to minimise possible duplication of costs and unnecessary overlap. The tripartite Memorandum of Understanding between the Commission, the EIB Group and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in respect of cooperation outside the Union, which allows the EIB Group and the EBRD to act in a complementary way by relying on their respective comparative advantages, was updated in 2012 to cover the extension of EBRD's geographical scope to the Mediterranean region and should continue to be applied. The principles set out in this Decision should also be applied when EIB financing is implemented through cooperation agreements with other European Financial Institutions and International Financial Institutions, including regarding consistency with Union's development objectives, aid effectiveness principles, transparency and democratic scrutiny.
2013/09/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 37 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 18
(18) While the EIB's strength remains its distinctiveness as an investment bank, EIB financing operations should contribute to the general principles guiding Union external action, as referred to in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), of promoting and consolidating democracy and the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to the implementation of international environmental agreements to which the Union is a party. In particular, in relation to developing countries, EIB financing operations should foster their sustainable economic, social and environmental development, particularly in the most disadvantaged amongst them, their smooth and gradual integration into the world economy, the campaign against poverty, as well as compliance with objectives approved by the Union in the context of the United Nations and other competent international organisations. While contributing to the implementation of the measures necessary to further the objectives of Union development cooperation policy in accordance with Article 209(3) of the Treaty, the EIB should strive to support indirectly the achievement of the UN's 2015 Millennium Development Goals in all regions where it is active.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 38 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 1 a (new)
Article 1 a EIB financing operations implemented through the Union guarantee granted to the EIB in developing countries, shall have as primary objective the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty. In particular, EIB financing operations shall be consistent with: - EU commitments and obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as well as the attainment of the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); - social, labour and environmental standards as embodied in international agreements.
2013/09/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 38 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 19
(19) The EIB activity under this Decision should support the Agenda for Change proposed by the Commission and be coherent with the relevant principles of the European Consensus on Development and the principles of aid effectiveness outlined in the Paris Declaration of 2005, the Accra Agenda for Action of 2008 and the Busan Partnership Agreement of 2011. Furthermore, it should be coherent with the EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy adopted by the Council on 25 June 2012 and international environmental agreements including biodiversity commitments. It should be implemented through a number of concrete measures, in particular by reinforcing the EIB's capacity to appraise environmental, social and development aspects of investment projects, including human rights and conflict-related risks, and by promoting local consultation with public authorities and civil society. In this context, the EIB should implement and further develop its Results Measurement framework (REM) which provides a detailed set of performance indicators measuring the economic, environmental, social, and development impact of its financing operations throughout the lifecycle of the underlying investment. The implementation of the REM should be evaluated as part of the mid-term review of this Decision. When carrying out due diligence in respect of an investment project, the EIB should, where appropriate and in line with the Union's social and environmental principles, as well as in full respect of legislation and environmental and social standards of the beneficiary country, require the investment project promoter to carry out local consultations and disclose their results to the public. EIB financing agreements involving public counterparts should explicitly include the possibility to suspend disbursements in case of revocation of eligibility under this Decision of the country in which the investment project takes place.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 40 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 3 – paragraph 5
5. EIB financing operations supporting the objectives provided for in paragraph 1(a) mayTo ensure that investments in the private sector have the greatest development impact, EIB financing operations supporting the objectives provided for in paragraph 1(a) shall target domestic companies owned and domiciled within developing countries whenever possible, but may also include support to investment projects by SMEs from the Union.
2013/09/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 40 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 22
(22) In its financing operations outside the Union that fall within the scope of this Decision, the EIB should endeavour further to enhance coordination and cooperation with European Financial Institutions and International Financial Institutions, notably those participating in the EU Platform for Blending in External Cooperation. This cooperation includes, where appropriate, cooperation on sector conditionality and mutual reliance on procedures, use of joint co-financing and participation in global initiatives, such as those promoting aid coordination and effectiveness. Such coordination and cooperation should strive to minimise possible duplication of costs and unnecessary overlap. The tripartite Memorandum of Understanding between the Commission, the EIB Group and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in respect of cooperation outside the Union, which allows the EIB Group and the EBRD to act in a complementary way by relying on their respective comparative advantages, was updated in 2012 to cover the extension of EBRD's geographical scope to the Mediterranean region and should continue to be applied. The principles set out in this Decision should also be applied when EIB financing is implemented through cooperation agreements with other European Financial Institutions and International Financial Institutions. In the medium term the European Public Banking System should be rationalised and rendered more effective by inter alia dissolving the EBRD and integrating its value added operations and resources into the EIB and World Bank respectively.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 41 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 3 – paragraph 6
6. EIB financing operations supporting the objectives provided for in paragraph 1(b) shall support investment projects in the areas of transport, energy, including decentralised off-grid renewable energy, energy systems transformation enabling a switch to lower carbon intensive technologies and fuels, energy security and energy infrastructure, including for gas production and transportation to EU energy market, environmental infrastructure, including water and sanitation and green infrastructure, information and communication technology, including telecommunications and broadband network infrastructure, health and education. Compliance with the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters should be ensured by the EIB at the different relevant stages of projects.
2013/09/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 42 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 3 – paragraph 7
7. EIB financing operations supporting the objectives provided for in paragraph 1(c) shall support investment projects in climate change mitigation and adaptation which contribute to the overall objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, in particular by avoiding or reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the areas of renewable energy, energy efficiency and sustainable transport, or by increasing resilience to the adverse impacts of climate change on vulnerable countries, sectors and communities. To this end, an analysis of the carbon footprint ought to be included in the environmental assessment procedure to determine whether project proposals maximize energy-efficiency improvements. Over the period covered by the Decision, the volume of these operations shall represent at least 25% of total EIB financing operations.
2013/09/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 43 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 12 a (new)
Article 12 a In its financial operations, the EIB must ensure that all companies and financial institutions involved in the transaction disclose information regarding beneficial ownership of any legal structure directly or indirectly related to the company, including trusts, foundations and bank accounts.
2013/09/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 43 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 23
(23) The EIB should be encouraged to increase its operations and to diversify its operations outside the Union without recourse to the EU guarantee so that the use of the EU guarantee can be focused on countries and investment projects with poor access to the market, taking into account debt sustainability considerations, where the EU guarantee therefore provides greater added value. Consequently, and always with the aim of supporting the objectives of the Union external policies, the EIB should be encouraged to lend at its own risk, including in support of Union economic interestglobal public goods, in countries and in favour of investment projects having a sufficient creditworthiness according to the assessment of the EIB and taking into account its own risk absorption capacity.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 44 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 12 – paragraph 1 a (new)
In order to be eligible for EIB financing and investment, all companies and financial institutions involved in the transaction must disclose reliable annual information related to sales, employees, profits made and taxes paid in the country.
2013/09/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 45 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 16 – paragraph 1
1. The EIB shall inform OLAF immediately when, at any stage of the preparation, implementation or closure of projects subject to the EU guarantee, it detects a potential case of fraud, corruption or other illegal activity that may affect the financial interests of the EU. In such cases, the disbursement of loans should be immediately suspended until OLAF investigation findings are available. Where corruption is proven, the EIB shall assist asset recovery efforts by disclosing to the relevant authorities any assets held by the EIB that relate to such corruption or that derive from it.
2013/09/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 47 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. In developing countries, as defined in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) list of official development assistance (ODA) recipients, EIB financing operations shall contribute indirectly to the objectives of the Union policy in development cooperation as referred to in Article 208 TFEU.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 48 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 16 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. The contracts signed in relation to projects subject to the EU guarantee shall include stringent clauses enabling the suspension of financing support from the EIB to project's promoters and financial intermediaries where fraud, corruption or other illegal activity are under formal investigation, and its cancellation in the event of such illegal activity being proven.
2013/09/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 49 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 3 – paragraph 6
6. EIB financing operations supporting the objectives provided for in paragraph 1(b) shall support investment projects in the areas of transport, energy, including renewable energy, energy systems transformation enabling a switch to lower carbon intensive technologies and fuels, energy security and energy infrastructure, including for gas production and transportation to EU energy market, environmental infrastructure, including water and sanitation and green infrastructure, information and communication technology, including telecommunications and broadband network infrastructure, health and education.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 50 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 3 – paragraph 7
7. EIB financing operations supporting the objectives provided for in paragraph 1(c) shall support investment projects in climate change mitigation and adaptation which contribute to the overall objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, in particular by avoiding or reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the areas of renewable energy, energy efficiency and sustainable transport, or by increasing resilience to the adverse impacts of climate change on vulnerable countries, sectors and communities. The eligibility criteria for climate action projects shall be further defined in the next revision of the Regional Operational Technical Guidelines, after thorough public consultations, and be reflected in the climate change strategy of the Bank during the midterm review of this decision. Over the period covered by the Decision, the volume of these operations shall represent at least 25% of total EIB financing operations.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 52 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 3 – paragraph 8
8. In line with Union and international climate change objectives, before the end of 20164, the EIB, in cooperation with the Commission and following a public consultation, shall update its climate change strategy as regards EIB financing operations and present a road map containing concrete mesurable actions to phase out financing projects detrimental to the achievement of EU's climate objectives by 2016 and step up efforts to support renewable energy sources and energy efficiency.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 53 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 17 concerning amendments to Annex III. The Commission's decisions shall be based on an overall economic, social, environmental and political assessment, including aspects related to the democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as the relevant European Parliament resolutions and Council decisions and conclusions.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 54 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 4 – paragraph 5
5. The EU guarantee shall cover only EIB financing operations carried out in eligible countries that have concluded a framework agreement with the EIB establishing the legal conditions under which such operations are to be carried out. Legal conditions under which operations are to be carried out shall also include environmental, social, human rights and labour standards.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 55 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The Commission shall update, together with the EIB, the existing regional technical operational guidelines for EIB financing operations within one year following the adoption of this Decision. Further updates shall be completed on a bi-annual basis.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 56 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
In updating these guidelines, the Commission and the EIB shall take into account relevant European Parliament resolutions and Council decisions and conclusions. The EEAS shall also be consulted on policy issues, as appropriate. Consultations at regional level, including with local civil society, shall also be part of the process.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 57 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. An EIB financing operation shall not be covered by the EU guarantee or any financial instrument covered by the EIB's own capital in the event that the Commission delivers a negative opinion on such an operation within the framework of the procedure provided for in Article 19 of the Statute of the EIB.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 58 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 7 – title
Cooperation with other European Financial Institutions and, International Financial Institutions and Financial Intermediaries.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 59 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. To fully realise the portential of maximising synergies, cooperation and efficiency while enhancing accountability and transparency, the Commission shall present by 2015 a plan to progressively disolve the EBRD by 2018 and integrate its value added operations and resources into the EIB and World Bank respectively.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 60 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 7 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. The EIB shall not cooperate with financial intermediaries with negative track record in terms of transparency, fraud, corruption and environmental and social impacts. A stringent list of criteria for selection of financial intermediaries shall be established by the EIB jointly with the European Commission and be publicly available.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 61 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 7 – paragraph 2 c (new)
Cooperation with financial intermediaries 2 c. When operating under the Community guarantee, the EIB should only cooperate with financial intermediaries that have substantial local ownership, that are equipped to implement a pro-development approach supporting the specificity of SMEs in the countries of operation, and that are neither operating or established in a jurisduction that - does provide for tax measures which entail no or nominal taxes or where advantages are granted even without any real economic activity and substantial economic presence within the jurisdiction offering such tax advantages; - does not fully comply with the standards laid down in Article 26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital and ensures an effective exchange of information in tax matters, including any multilateral tax agreements; - is listed as a Non-Cooperative Country and Territory by FATF;
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 62 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 8 – paragraph 5
5. The Commission and the EIB shall set out in the agreement referred to in Article 13 a method allowing the EIB to identify, within its external activity, the operations to be financed under this Decision and the operations to be financed at the own risk of the EIB. The method shall be based on the creditworthiness of EIB financing operations as assessed by the EIB, the regions and ceilings as defined in Annex I, the nature of the counterparty (whether a sovereign/State, a sub-sovereign as referred to in paragraph 1 or private), EIB risk absorption capacity and other relevant criteria, including added value of the EU Guarantee. The allocation policy shall be publicly available on the EIB website. For each operation to be financed by the EIB outside of the EU, the EIB website shall after the project approval stage indicate whether a EU guarantee will be used or not.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 63 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The EIB shall carry out thorough due diligence and, where appropriate and in line with Union social and environmental principles, require appropriate local public consultation, on development-related aspects of investment projects covered by the EU guarantee.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 64 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
The EIB's own rules and procedures shall include the necessary provisions on assessment of environmental and social impact of investment projects and of aspects related to human rights and conflict prevention, in line with relevant Union legislations as well as legislation and environmental and social standards of the beneficiary countries, to ensure that only investment projects that are economically, financially, environmentally and socially sustainable are supported under this Decision.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 65 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 9 – paragraph 3
3. The EIB monitoring shall also cover the implementation of intermediated operations and the performance and development impact of financial intermediaries in support of SMEs.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 66 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(d a) an assessment of the impact of EIB lending through financial intermediaries, demonstrating how intermediated lending contributes to the poverty eradication, and social and environmental objectives of EU external action. Information about final beneficiaries of EIB operations shall be disclosed.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 67 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 10 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. The Commission, in cooperation with the European External Action Service (EEAS), shall establish a framework and methodology for annual reporting by the EIB on compliance with the general principles guiding Union external action as enshrined in Article 21 TEU in its operations covered by the Community Guarantee. The methodology shall be developed by the Commission during the 1st year following the entry into force of this Decision and shall build on reporting on human rights compliance by the EIB, as requested by the EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan for Human Rights. Based on the annual reporting from the EIB, the Commission shall produce each year a publically evaluation of the information provided by the EIB and recommend changes to the policies and procedures. Recommendations by the European Commission and the European Parliament on how to improve EIB reporting to this end shall be reflected during the updating of the Regional Technical Operational Guidelines.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 68 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. In accordance with itsEU legislation own transparency policyaccess to documents and information, the EIB shall make publicly available on its website information relating to:
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 70 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) unless confidentiality requirements apply, any memoranda of understanding between the EIB and other European Financial Institutions or International Financial Institutions having a bearing on EIB financing operations under this Decision.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 71 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(b a) framework agreements concluded between the EIB and a recipient country
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 72 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 12 – paragraph 1
In its financing operations, the EIB shall not tolerate any activities carried out for illegal purposes, including money laundering, financing of terrorism, tax fraud and tax evasion, corruption, and fraud affecting the financial interests of the EU. In particular the EIB shall not participate in any financing operation implemented in an eligible country through a foreign non-cooperative jurisdiction identified as such by the OECD, the Financial Action Task Force or other relevant international organisations. The EIB shall also not cooperate with companies pursuing aggressive tax planning as defined by Commission recommendation C(2012) 8806. In particular the EIB shall not participate in any financing operation implemented in an eligible country through a jurisdiction that - does provide for tax measures which entail no or nominal taxes or where advantages are granted even without any real economic activity and substantial economic presence within the jurisdiction offering such tax advantages; - does not fully comply with the standards laid down in Article 26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital and ensures an effective exchange of information in tax matters, including any multilateral tax agreements; - is listed as a Non-Cooperative Country and Territory by FATF;
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 74 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 16 – paragraph 2
2. OLAF may carry out investigations, including on-the-spot checks and inspections, in accordance with the provisions and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999, Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 in order to protect the financial interests of the European Union, with a view to establishing whether there has been fraud, corruption, money laundering or any other illegal activity affecting the financial Interests of the Union in connection with any financing operations. In such cases, the disbursement of loans shall be immediately suspended until OLAF investigation findings are available. Where corruption is proven, the EIB shall assist asset recovery efforts by disclosing to the relevant authorities any assets held by the EIB that relate to such corruption or that derive from it.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 75 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 16 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. The EIB shall designate an anti- corruption officer who serves as contact point for all stakeholders, including concerned populations and organised civil society as well as internally.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 76 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 16 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. The contracts signed in relation to projects subject to the EU guarantee shall include stringent clauses enabling the suspension of financing support from the EIB to project's promoters and financial intermediaries where fraud, corruption or other illegal activity are under formal investigation, and their cancellation in the event of such illegal activity being proven.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 77 #

2013/0152(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 17 – paragraph 4
4. AOne month prior to its adoption, the Commission shall transmit a draft decision to the European Parliament and to the Council, and as soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.
2013/09/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1 #

2013/0086(NLE)

The Committee on Development calls on the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to propose that Parliament givdecline its consent.
2013/08/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 31 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
(1) Massive flows of dirtyillicit money can damage the stability and reputation of the financial sector and threaten the single market as well as international development, and terrorism shakes the very foundations of our society. Crucial facilitators of illicit money flows are secretive corporate structures operating in and through secrecy jurisdictions, often also referred to as tax havens. In addition to the criminal law approach, a preventive effort via the financial system can produce results.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 36 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
(11) The need for accurate and up-to-date information on the beneficial owner of legal persons, trusts, foundations, mutuals, holdings and all other similar existing or future legal arrangements is a key factor in tracing criminals who might otherwise hide their identity behind a corporate structure. Member States should therefore ensure that companies retain information on their beneficial ownership and makeensure that this information available to competent authorities and obliged entitiesis made publically available in form of a public registry. In addition, trustees should declare their status to obliged entities.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 37 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
(21) This is particularly true of business or beneficial relationships with individuals holding, or having held, important public positions and important positions in foundations and mutuals, particularly those from countries where corruption is widespread, within the Union and internationally. Such relationships may expose the financial sector in particular to significant reputational and legal risks. The international effort to combat corruption also justifies the need to pay special attention to such cases and to apply appropriate enhanced customer due diligence measures in respect of persons who hold or have held prominent functions domestically or abroad and senior figures in international organisations.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 39 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
(29) There have been a number of cases of whistleblowers and employees who report their suspicions of money laundering being subjected to threats or hostile action. Although this Directive cannot interfere with Member States' judicial procedures, this is a crucial issue for the effectiveness of the anti- money laundering and anti- terrorist financing system. Member States should be aware of this problem and should do whatever they can to protect whistleblowers and employees from such threats or hostile action.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 40 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new)
(2a) the European Investment Bank
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 41 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 b (new)
(2b) The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 42 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 c (new)
(2c) Central Banks of the Member States when performing or facilitating commercial or private transactions
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 43 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 d (new)
(2d) Central Settlement Systems
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 44 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b – point v
(v) creation, operation or management of trusts, companies, foundations, mutuals or similar structures;
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 45 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point f a (new)
(fa) Member States shall prohibit cash transfers exceeding 10000 Euros, whether the transaction is carried out in a single operation or in several operations which appear to be linked.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 47 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a – point i – paragraph 1
A percentage of 2510 % plus one share shall be evidence of ownership or control through shareholding and applies to every level of direct and indirect ownership;
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 48 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b – point i
(i) the natural person(s) who exercises control over 2510 % or more of the property of a legal arrangement or entity; and
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 49 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b – point ii
(ii) where the future beneficiaries have already been determined, the natural person(s) who is the beneficiary of 2510 % or more of the property of a legal arrangement or entity; or
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 50 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development shall adopt and publish on their website an anti-money laundering policy, containing detailed procedures that give effect to provisions under this Directive.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 51 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5 a Equivalence 1. The Commission shall by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 58a adopt decisions on the recognition of the legal and supervisory framework of jurisdictions outside the Union as compliant with minimum standards of good governance in tax matters as defined by Commission Recommendation C(2012) 8805 and equivalent to the minimum requirements of this Directive. 2. As of January 2018, corporate or legal entities, including trusts, foundations, mutuals, holdings and all other similar, in terms of structure or function, existing or future legal arrangements, established, or governed under the law of, jurisdictions outside the Union not deemed compliant and equivalent, shall be prohibited from operating within the Union.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 52 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall make the opinion available publicly to assist Member States and obliged entities to identify, manage and mitigate the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, and to allow other stakeholders including legislators to better understand the financial risks.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 53 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) identifyingFurther to the identification of the beneficial owners ands listed in the public registry pursuant to article 29, taking reasonable measures to verify histheir identity so that the institution or person covered by this Directive is fully satisfied that it knows who the beneficial owner iss are, including, as regards legal persons, trusts and similar, foundations, mutuals, holdings and all other similar existing or future legal arrangements, taking reasonableall necessary measures to understand the ownership and control structure of the customer;
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 54 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may allow the verification of the identity of the customer and the beneficial owner to be completed during the establishment of a business relationship if this is necessary not to interrupt the normal conduct of business and where there is little risk of money laundering or terrorist financing occurring. In such situations these procedures shall be completed as soon as practicable after the initial contact.deleted
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 55 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 3
3. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2, Member States may allow the opening of a bank account provided that there are adequate safeguards in place to ensure that transactions are not carried out by the customer or on its behalf until full compliance with paragraphs 1 and 2 is obtained.deleted
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 56 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall require obliged entities to examine, as far as reasonably possible, the background and purpose of all complex, unusual large transactions, and all unusual patterns of transactions, which have no apparent economic or lawful purpose, or which constitute tax crimes amounting to criminal activity within the meaning of Article 3(4)(f), or which are constitutive of aggressive tax planning as defined by Commission recommendation C(2012) 8806. In particular, they shall increase the degree and nature of monitoring of the business relationship, in order to determine whether those transactions or activities appear unusual or suspicious. In case an obliged entity determines such unusual or suspicious transaction or activity, it shall without delay inform the FIUs of all Member States that might be concerned.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 57 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 18 a (new)
Article 18 a Moreover, EBA, EIOPA and ESMA shall provide a qualified list of intra –EU Politically Exposed Persons.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 58 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that corporate or legal entities established within their territory obtain and hold adequate, accurate and current information on their beneficial ownership, including trusts, foundations, mutuals, holdings and all other similar, in terms of structure or function, existing or future legal arrangements established within their territory, or governed under their law obtain, hold and transmit to a public registry pursuant to paragraph 4 of this article, adequate, accurate and current information on their beneficial ownership, at the moment of establishment or any changes thereof. The public registry shall contain but not be limited to the following information: a) name and legal form of the corporate or legal entity, b) address c) basic regulatory powers d) list of directors e) shareholder information including names, dates of birth and addresses, the number of shares per shareholder, and categories of shares. The requirements stipulated in this paragraph are without prejudice to the customer due diligence provisions of this directive.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 59 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that the information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article can be accessed in a timely manner by competent authoritRegarding trusts or other types of legal entity and arrangements with a similar structure to and function of trusts, the information shall also include the identity of the settler, of the trustee(s), of the protector (if relevant), of the beneficiaries or class of beneficiaries, and by obliged entities. of any other natural person exercising effective control over the trust.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 63 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Member States shall ensure that trustees disclose their status to obliged entities when, as a trustee, the trustee forms a business relationship or carries out an occasional transaction above the threshold set out in points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 10.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 64 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Member States shall ensure that the information referred to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this article is displayed in a public beneficial ownership registry in a timely, comprehensive and comprehensible manner before end of 2014. Any changes to the information required shall be clearly indicated in the registry without delay and at latest within 30 days.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 65 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. For the purposes of this article, Member States shall establish effective anti-abuse measures with a view to preventing misuse based on bearer shares and bearer share warrants.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 66 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 2 d (new)
2d. Sanctions for non-compliance with this article shall be applied in accordance with article 55 of this directive.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 67 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 30
Article 30 1. Member States shall ensure that trustees of any express trust governed under their law obtain and hold adequate, accurate and current information on beneficial ownership regarding the trust. This information shall include the identity of the settlor, of the trustee(s), of the protector (if relevant), of the beneficiaries or class of beneficiaries, and of any other natural person exercising effective control over the trust. 2. Member States shall ensure that trustees disclose their status to obliged entities when, as a trustee, the trustee forms a business relationship or carries out an occasional transaction above the threshold set out in points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 10. 3. Member States shall ensure that the information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article can be accessed in a timely manner by competent authorities and by obliged entities. 4. Member States shall ensure that measures corresponding to those in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 apply to other types of legal entity and arrangement with a similar structure and function to trusts.deleted
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 70 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 37 – paragraph 1
Member States shall take all appropriate measures in order to protect employees of the obliged entity who report suspicions of money laundering or terrorist financing either internally or to the FIU from being exposed to threats or hostile action. EBA, EIOPA, ESMA and the FIU shall provide one or more secure communication channel for persons to report suspicions of laundering or terrorist financing. Such channels shall ensure that the identity of persons providing information is known only to EBA; EIOPA, ESMA or the FIU.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 72 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 47 – paragraph 1
TWithout prejudice to data protection rules, EBA, EIOPA or ESMA may request, and the competent authorities shall provide EBA, EIOPA and ESMA with all thethe relevant information necessary to carry out their duties under this Directive.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 73 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 48 – paragraph 1
The Commission may lend such assistance as may be needed to facilitate coordination, including the exchange of information between FIUs within the Union. It mayshall regularly convene meetings with representatives from Member States' FIUs, EBA, EIOPA and ESMA to facilitate co- operation and to exchange views on co- operation related issues.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 75 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 55 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that obliged entities and any legal entity pursuant to Article 29, can be held liable for breaches of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 76 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 55 – paragraph 2
2. Without prejudice to the right of Member States to impose criminal penalties, Member States shall ensure that competent authorities may take appropriate administrative measures and impose administrative sanctions where obliged entities, or any legal entity pursuant to Article 29, breach the national provisions, adopted in the implementation of this Directive, and shall ensure that they are applied. Those measures and sanctions shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 77 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 56 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. This Article shall at least apply to situations where obliged entities, or any legal entity pursuant to Article 29, demonstrate systematic failings in relation to the requirements of the following Articles:
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 78 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 56 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) 29 (information on beneficial ownership)
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 79 #

2013/0025(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 58 a (new)
Article 58 a Delegated Powers 1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article. 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 5a(1) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from the date referred to in Article 62. 3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 5a(1) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of that decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force. 4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council. 5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 5a(1) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 8 #

2013/0024(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
(1) Flows of dirty money through transfers of funds canMassive flows of illicit money damage the stability and reputation of the financial sector and threaten the internal market. Terrorism shakes the very foundations of our societysingle market as well as international development, and terrorism shakes the very foundations of our society. Crucial facilitators of illicit money flows are secretive corporate structures operating in and through secrecy jurisdictions, often also referred to as tax havens. The soundness, integrity and stability of the system of transfers of funds and confidence in the financial system as a whole could beis being seriously jeopardised by the efforts of criminals and their associates either to disguise the origin of criminal proceeds or to transfer funds for terrorist purposes.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 9 #

2013/0024(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
(2) In order to facilitate their criminal activities, money launderers and terrorist financers could try toare takeing advantage of the freedom of capital movements entailed by the integrated financial area, unless certain coordinating measures are adopted at Union level. By its scale, Union action should ensure that Recommendation 16 on wire transfers of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), adopted in February 2012 is transposed uniformly throughout the Union, and, in particular, that there is no discrimination between national payments within a Member State and cross border payments between Member States. Uncoordinated action by Member States alone in the field of cross border transfers of funds could have a significant impact on the smooth functioning of payment systems at Union level and therefore damage the internal market in the field of financial services.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 12 #

2013/0024(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
(9) It is appropriate to exclude from the scope of this Regulation transfers of funds that represent a low risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. Such exclusions should cover credit or debit cards, mobile telephones or other digital or information technology (IT) devices, Automated Teller Machine (ATM) withdrawals, payments of taxes, fines or other levies, and transfers of funds where both the payer and the payee are payment service providers acting on their own behalf. In addition, in order to reflect the special characteristics of national payment systems, Member States may exempt electronic giro payments, provided that it is always possible to trace the transfer of funds back to the payer. However, every exemption should be reviewed periodically, and there must be no exemption when a debit or credit card, a mobile telephone or other digital or IT prepaid or postpaid device is used in order to effect a person-to-person transfer.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 17 #

2013/0024(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
This Regulation shall not apply to transfers of funds carried out using a credit or debit card, or a mobile telephone or any other digital or information technology (IT) device, where the following conditions are fulfilled:. Based on periodic reviews of these exemptions, the Commission is empowered to adopt a delegated act limiting further these exemptions.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 18 #

2013/0024(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
However, this Regulation shall apply when a credit or debit card, or a mobile telephone, or any other digital or IT prepaid or postpaid device is used in order to eaffect a person-to-person transfer of funds.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 19 #

2013/0024(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – title
Cooperation obligations and Equivalence
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 21 #

2013/0024(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Payment service providers established in the Union shall apply this regulation with regard to their subsidiaries and branches operating in jurisdictions outside the Union that are not deemed equivalent. The Commission shall by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 22a adopt decisions on the recognition of the legal and supervisory framework of jurisdictions outside the Union as equivalent to the requirements of this Regulation.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 22 #

2013/0024(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Exercise of a delegation 1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article. 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 15(1a) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from the date referred to in Article 26. 3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 15(1a) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of that decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force. 4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council. 5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 15(1a) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 23 #

2013/0024(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The Commission mayWithout prejudice to article 15,1 a (new) the Commission may, in cases of attested equivalence in accordance with article 15,1 (new), authorise any Member State to conclude agreements with a country or territory which does not form part of the territory of the Union mentioned in Article 355 of the Treaty, which contain derogations from this Regulation, in order to allow for transfers of funds between that country or territory and the Member State concerned to be treated as transfers of funds within that Member State.
2013/09/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 47 #

2013/0024(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
(1) Flows of dirty money through transfers of funds can damage theMassive flows of illicit money damage the structure, stability and reputation of the financial sector and threaten the internal market. Terrorism shakes the very foundations of our societysingle market as well as international development, and terrorism shakes the very foundations of our society. Crucial facilitators of illicit money flows are secretive corporate structures operating in and through secrecy jurisdiction, often also referred to as tax havens. The soundness, integrity and stability of the system of transfers of funds and confidence in the financial system as a whole could beis being seriously jeopardised by the efforts of criminals and their associates either to disguise the origin of criminal proceeds or to transfer funds for terrorist purposes.
2013/12/11
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 48 #

2013/0024(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
(2) In order to facilitate their criminal activities, money launderers and terrorist financers could try toare takeing advantage of the freedom of capital movements entailed by the integrated financial area, unless certain coordinating measures are adopted at Union level. By its scale, Union action should ensure that Recommendation 16 on wire transfers of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), adopted in February 2012 is transposed uniformly throughout the Union, and, in particular, that there is no discrimination between national payments within a Member State and cross border payments between Member States. Uncoordinated action by Member States alone in the field of cross border transfers of funds could have a significant impact on the smooth functioning of payment systems at Union level and therefore damage the internal market in the field of financial services.
2013/12/11
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 56 #

2013/0024(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
(9) It is appropriate to exclude from the scope of this Regulation transfers of funds that represent a low risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. Such exclusions should cover credit or debit cards, mobile telephones or other digital or information technology (IT) devices, Automated Teller Machine (ATM) withdrawals, payments of taxes, fines or other levies, and transfers of funds where both the payer and the payee are payment service providers acting on their own behalf. In addition, in order to reflect the special characteristics of national payment systems, Member States may exempt electronic giro payments, provided that it is always possible to trace the transfer of funds back to the payer. However, every exemption should be reviewed periodically, and there must be no exemption when a debit or credit card, a mobile telephone or other digital or IT prepaid or postpaid device is used in order to effect a person-to-person transfer.
2013/12/11
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 71 #

2013/0024(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
However, this Regulation shall apply when a credit or debit card, or a mobile telephone, e-money or any other digital or IT prepaid or postpaid device is used in order to effect a person-to-person transfer of funds.
2013/12/11
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 122 #

2013/0024(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – title
Cooperation obligations and equivalence
2013/12/11
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 125 #

2013/0024(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Payment service providers established in the Union shall apply this regulation with regard to their subsidiaries and branches operating in jurisdictions outside the Union that are not deemed equivalent. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 22a concerning the recognition of the legal and supervisory framework of jurisdictions outside the Union as equivalent to the requirements of this Regulation.
2013/12/11
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 143 #

2013/0024(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 a (new)
Article 22a Exercise of the delegation 1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article. 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 15(1a) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from the date referred to in Article 26. 3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 15(1a) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of that decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force. 4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council. 5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 15(1a) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.
2013/12/11
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 145 #

2013/0024(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The Commission mayWithout prejudice to Article 15(1a), the Commission may, in cases of attested equivalence, authorise any Member State to conclude agreements with a country or territory which does not form part of the territory of the Union mentioned in Article 355 of the Treaty, which contain derogations from this Regulation, in order to allow for transfers of funds between that country or territory and the Member State concerned to be treated as transfers of funds within that Member State.
2013/12/11
Committee: ECONLIBE
Amendment 6 #

2013/0000(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 9 b (new)
– having regard to its Resolution of Tuesday, 8 March 2011 on Cooperating with developing countries on promoting good governance in tax matters,
2013/03/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 44 #

2013/0000(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Ea. Whereas developing countries do not have the bargaining power to force tax havens to cooperate, exchange information and become transparent;
2013/03/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 50 #

2013/0000(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)
Eb. whereas a truly effective fight against Tax Fraud, Tax Evasion and Tax Havens requires the swift adoption of binding Community legislation in the field of taxation, the biggest procedural obstacle being that taxation is not subject to the ordinary legislative procedure;
2013/03/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 68 #

2013/0000(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on the Council and Commission to upgrade technical assistance and capacity building in developing countries to address transfer pricing manipulation, and to scale up its cooperation on tax matters amongst others by encouraging the African Tax Administration Forum (ATAF) to enhance tax mobilisation and democratic governance in Africa;
2013/03/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 105 #

2013/0000(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses that a strong commitment to reducing the tax gap and measures to tackle tax havens, evasion and avoidance would contribute to the necessary stabilisation of financial markets, help with fiscal consolidation while easing its austerity effects, increase public investment resources, improve the efficiency and fairness of national tax systems, and raise general tax compliance levels, both in the EU and in developing countries;
2013/03/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 131 #

2013/0000(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on Member States to revoke the banking licenses of financial institutions and financial advisors if they actively assist in tax fraud by offering products or services to customers enabling them to evade taxes or refuse to cooperate with tax authorities;
2013/03/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 169 #

2013/0000(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Welcomes the progress made on country-by-country reporting under the Accounting and Transparency Directives; urges the Commission to introduce country-by-country reporting for crossborder companies in all sectors, requiring disclosure of information such as turn-over, profits, number of employees, sales and purchases on a country by country basis on the trading of a group as a whole in order to monitor respect for proper transfer pricing rules;
2013/03/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 172 #

2013/0000(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission to take immediate action with regard to strengthening transparency and regulation in respect of company registries and registers ofuncil and Parliament to complement the proposal for the revision of the Anti-Money Laundering directive by introducing the obligation to maintain a public registry of the beneficial ownership of companies, trusts and foundations;
2013/03/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 186 #

2013/0000(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
25. Calls for a reviewon the Commission to present in 2013 a proposal for the revisions of the Parent- Subsidiary Directive and the Interests and Royalties Directive with view to eliminating tax evasion facilitated by hybrid entities and financial instruments in EU;
2013/03/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 190 #

2013/0000(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
26. Urges Member States to swiftly implement the Commission’s proposal for the introduction of a General Anti-Abuse Rule to counteract aggressive tax planning practices, and include a clause in their Double Taxation Conventions to prevent occurrences of double non-taxation and low effective taxation;
2013/03/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 2 #

2012/2295(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Underlines that biodiversity and ecosystems deliver collective benefits and must be considered as common goods; recalls that when properly managed and governed, biodiversity based assets can yield significant economic benefits; laments however that many policy-makers see little economic gain from conserving or investing in biodiversity; stresses therefore the value of "ecosystem services" and their contribution to economic and social development;
2013/05/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 3 #

2012/2295(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Stresses that no system for generating wealth can be sustainable if it degrades its resource base; underlines that, in parallel to the market oriented functions, the bio- economy sustains also a wide range of public goods functions, not currently rewarded by the market, that should be preserved, such as agricultural and forested landscape, farmland and forest biodiversity, water quality and availability, soil functionality, climate stability, air quality and resilience to flooding and fire;
2013/05/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 4 #

2012/2295(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Takes the view that the transition to a sustainable bio-based economy will only be successful if resource efficiency is the pillar of the economy and if genetic engineering is not the driver of this economy;
2013/05/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 5 #

2012/2295(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Believes that any bio-economy strategy should adopt the guiding principle of a biomass hierarchy and support a 'cascade utilization' of biomass first directed to ensure basic services not rewarded by the market and then to high value applications like materials (rather than bioenergy which has a lower value);
2013/05/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 6 #

2012/2295(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 e (new)
1e. Stresses that a sustainable bio-based economy must be built on modal transport and reduction of the overall consumption of biofuels to the strict minimum; in particular, underlines that in order to assess whether a specific bio-based process or product is reducing direct and indirect greenhouse gases emissions, all the stages from the extraction of the raw material to the end-use-state should be considered; stresses that the EU and national policies should promote clean alternatives to fossil fuels, such as vehicles that run on renewable electricity as well as solar and wind energy, instead of stimulating the shift to biomass in sectors where lower value is added to it (like in the production of biofuels and other bioenergy);
2013/05/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 9 #

2012/2295(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the amount of sustainable biomass from EU sources will never be enough to meet current energy demand and increasing and competing uses of biomass, and that the EU will therefore be increasingly dependent on imports from developing countries, where biomass exploitation represents a major challenge in terms of governance, as in the case of forest conservation and sustainable management of forest resources, thereby making it difficult to fulfil EU sustainability criteria and measures for imported biomass or to check their implementation through monitoring and evaluation;
2013/05/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 10 #

2012/2295(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Insists that the EU has a duty to reduce its dependency on fish from developing countries for food, as well as for feed in aquaculture, stresses that in the current reform of the CFP, priority should be given to measures that underpin an environmentally sustainable management of fisheries and the use of non-carnivorous species in aquaculture;
2013/05/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 13 #

2012/2295(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Fears that EU import dependency increases theNotes with concern that rising demand for biomass, particularly wood, may spark widespread deforestation in developing countries, where greenhouse gas emissions are not accounted for under the Kyoto Protocol; points out that while this can impact on soil quality, water cycles and biodiversity, it increases strain on global agreements, such as the CBD and UN REDD, and that; fears equally that, considering that land governance systems are weak in many developing countries, rising demand for wood products may trigger off illegal logging and weaken in return Voluntary Partnership Agreements under FLEGT;
2013/05/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 14 #

2012/2295(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Stresses the importance of mangrove, seagrass meadows, salt marshes and kelp forests as highly performing carbon sinks, warns of the rapid destruction of these coastal ecosystems due inter alia to increasing demand for seafood from aquaculture; calls for a marine equivalent of the REDD scheme to safeguard coastal and marine ecosystems as carbon sinks;
2013/05/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 18 #

2012/2295(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Recalls that the protection of biodiversity is a key component to the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals (among which Goal 1 on Eradication of Extreme Poverty and Hunger and Goal 7 on Ensuring Environmental Sustainability); in particular, stresses upon the importance of healthy biodiversity and ecosystems for primary production like agriculture, forestry and fisheries; accordingly, deems that production of biomass shall be analysed in respect with its impact on ecosystem services;
2013/05/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 19 #

2012/2295(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Fears that growing demand for biomass exacerbates food insecurity in developing countries, through land grabbing and volatile food pricesdiversion of crops and lands away from food production, deprivation of land-use rights and impoverishment as a result of land-grabs and exacerbation of food price volatility; points out that the demand for biofuels is already one of the drivers for land acquisitions in developing countries, in particular in Sub-Saharan Africa; recalls that due to these land acquisitions, indigenous people loose their access to land, and thereby their access to food and water; also underlines that while MDGs set a target of cutting by half the number of people without safe access to water by 2015, water-consuming bio-economy activities can aggravate water stress in developing countries and thereby contribute to widespread food scarcity; urges the EU to follow the recommendation of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food on agro- ecology to achieve food security, while addressing climate change;
2013/05/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 5 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 a (new)
- having regard to the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women (CEDAW) adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly, defining what constitutes discrimination against women and setting up an agenda for national action to put an end to those discriminations,
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 7 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 b (new)
- having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Human rights legal framework,
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 10 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8
– having regard to the Commission communication of 12 April 2005 entitled ‘Policy Coherence for Development’ (COM(2005)0134), and the Council conclusions entitled 'Policy Coherence for Development', 3166th Foreign Affairs Council meeting of 14 May 2012,
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 19 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas, two years from the 2015 target date for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), there has been significant progress the MDGs have raised awareness of ending global poverty as an urgent challenge and a priority for global action; whereas, two years from the 2015 target date for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), there has been significant progress; whereas, however, the current MDGs do not address the root causes of poverty and in particular fail to adequately address issues such as inequalities within and among countries, social exclusion, biodiversity and governance;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 22 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas the MDGs have helped to define poverty as a multidimensional deprivation in people's lives, covering education, health, environment, food, employment, housing and gender equality; whereas, however, there is little evidence that the existence of MDGs has had any significant impact in shaping national policies in developing countries;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 26 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas global challenges remain – hunger, lack of proper and safe sanitation, insufficient levels of primary education, high unemployment – particularly youth unemployment, lack of social protection and gender inequality;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 32 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
B a. whereas nearly one billion people in the world are undernourished and more than 200 million are unemployed; whereas only 28% of the global population is covered by comprehensive social protection systems, reflecting high degrees of informal employment and whereas an estimated 1.4 billion people lack access to sufficient energy services, hampering their ability to overcome poverty;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 35 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
B b. whereas three-quarters of the world's poor people live in middle income countries and, according to the World Development Indicators 2008 of the World Bank, income and wealth inequalities within countries have increased since the early 1980s, including in high-income countries; whereas income and job insecurity have also increased owing to patterns of globalisation based on outsourcing and weaker labour protection;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 37 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)
B c. whereas the global food, energy and financial crisis of 2007 - 2010 highlighted the fragility of global food supply systems and exposed systemic failures in the workings of financial and commodity markets and major weaknesses in the mechanisms of global governance;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 38 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B d (new)
B d. whereas sustainability concerns, regarding inter alia the urgent need to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and to achieve more equitable and sustainable management and governance of natural resources, represent the key challenge for a transformative agenda;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 39 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas it is projected that in 2015 more than 600 million people will still be using unimproved water sources and that one billion people will be living on less than USD 1.25 per day; and, if present trends continue, the MDG target to halve the proportion of people living without basic sanitation services will not be met until 2049; whereas currently almost 200 million people are unemployed – about 74 million of those are between the ages of 15 and 24 and only 20% of the world's population has adequate social security coverage, while more than half lack any coverage at all;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 44 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
C a. whereas the 1986 Declaration on the Right to Development affirms development as a fundamental human right; whereas the Declaration commits to a "human rights based" approach, characterized by the realisation of all human rights (economic, social, cultural, civil and political) and whereas the Declaration commits equally to strengthen international cooperation;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 63 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Welcomes the fact that the MDG framework has put the fight against poverty at the forefront of the global development agenda; regrets, however, that MDGs failed to address systemic issues that create unequal opportunities for people and countries, including the impact of the liberalisation agenda on poverty and inequality; recalls, for instance, that in a largely globalised economy, labour's bargaining power has been reduced through liberalisation, which jeopardises in return fulfilment of the rights listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Decent Work Agenda; against this background, regrets that the consensus on poverty as a policy priority has not led to fundamental debates about policy alternatives for reaching this global goal but that the dominant underlying economic/development strategies continue to be driven by the Washington Consensus agenda aimed at liberalisation and privatisation;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 68 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Recalls that environmental degradation jeopardises the achievement of MDGs, among which the objective of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger; in particular, recalls that persistent inequalities and struggles over scarce resources are among key drivers of conflict, hunger, insecurity and violence, which in turn are key factors that hold back human development and efforts to achieve sustainable development; calls for the adoption of a more holistic approach that reflects the outcome and follow-up of the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 82 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Stresses that inequality hampers economic development and poverty reduction efforts; in particular, recalls that high levels of inequality make it difficult to construct broad-based, redistributive and fiscally sustainable social welfare systems that are grounded on principles of social solidarity, while high levels of inequality may raise crime levels or cause violent conflict, especially in multi-ethnic societies; believes that the structural causes of poverty need to be addressed to enable a transformative change of society;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 85 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. CAcknowledges the ways in which development and poverty eradication are intertwined with the challenges of peace and security, environment, human rights, democracy and good governance; hence, calls for a renewed approach to poverty eradication which takes into consideration the importance of inclusive growtheconomic development, environmental sustainability, human rights and good governance;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 89 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Calls for the "post-MDG agenda" to be anchored to the 1986 Declaration on the Right to Development, which not only affirms development as a fundamental human right but addresses development as a process;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 92 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Stresses that inclusiveness is a dynamic concept that goes beyond a "pro- poor" strategy, and implies broadening the focus to include vulnerable populations in precarious livelihoods, which calls for anchoring development strategy into the macroeconomic framework; considers that defining qualitative indicators will be critical to monitor both the degree to which development progress is inclusive and sustainable, and the extent to which the needs of the most deprived and vulnerable groups are being addressed;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 96 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3
Health and education and social protection
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 99 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Recalls that thealth multidimensionality of human well-being needs to be fully acknowledged; recalls, in this respect, that health, social protection and education are key drivers of poverty eradication and economic growthinclusive economic development;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 109 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that universal health coverage (UHC) and quality educationquality education, universal health coverage (UHC) and universal access to adequate nutritious food should be considered to be major goals ofin the pPost- 2015 agenda;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 115 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Calls for full and productive employment and decent work to be a central goal of the post-2015 development agenda and calls for this goal to be supported through the implementation of well-designed national social protection floors for poverty reduction and resilience;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 126 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Underlines that climate change, the recent food price crisis and the global financial crisis can all be linked to the lack of adequate global governance; hence, stresses that global governance should be a key ingredient of the post- 2015 Development Agenda;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 127 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9 b. Deplores the lack of coherence between institutions of global governance, in particular regarding the multilateral trade, finance and environmental architectures; considers that, while global governance deficits have led countries to seek regional solutions as a way to respond to region-specific development needs, such arrangements require coordination to avoid policy fragmentation and incoherence with multilateral regimes and international standards; more broadly, deems that action at the global level is required to supplement national efforts;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 128 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 c (new)
9 c. Notes that, although the format of the MDG framework enabled the setting of concrete and time-bound goals and targets that could be monitored by statistically robust indicators, there is a lack of ownership of these goals; against this background, warns against imposing a one-size-fits-all approach and believes that global goals and targets must be tailored and adapted to national and regional contexts and initial conditions;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 142 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Stresses that the post-2015 UN development agenda shall respond to a human-rights based approach, which encompasses social and economic rights, while also including civil and political rights related to peace and security, as well as the right to development;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 144 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12 b. Calls on the EU to support, within the post-2015 agenda, the adoption of binding clauses on individual rights, especially women and girls' rights, including sexual and reproductive rights;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 147 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Encourages the EU to support developing countries in building up their political will and in increasingappropriate social protection floors, to increase support to efforts to improve the level of implementation of legal human rights instruments;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 152 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Stresses that armed conflict and post- conflict situations are some of the main obstacles to development and poverty reduction; stresses equally that peace and security, development and human rights are interlinked and mutually reinforcing;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 166 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. REmphasises that sustainability is an overriding challenge, where failure is likely to threaten all dimensions of human development; in particular, recognises the inseparable links between food, energy, water, sustainable land use, natural resources efficiency, marine and other ecosystem protection and biodiversity, deforestation and climate change mitigation, sustainable production and consumption, social inclusion and decent work in the anti- poverty framework;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 196 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22 a. Calls on the EU to promote the financial transaction tax and to ensure that a significant part of the revenue be used for financing for development and the fight against climate change;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 197 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Points out that the EU should promote an integrated and complementary approach to financing, including through public- private partnerships for development;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 200 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24 a. Reiterates its call for making corruption, money laundering, the fight against tax havens, illicit flows of capital and harmful tax structures an overriding priority of the EU's agenda in international finance and development institutions so as to enable developing countries to raise domestic revenues;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 202 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
25. Calls on the EU to improve and continueproperly evaluate the mechanism of blending loans and grants – particularly in terms of development and financial additionality, transparency and accountability, local ownership and debt risk - before continuing to develop blending loans and grants to boost financial resources for development, based and focu that are based on harmonised poverty reduction strategies and that have a clear sustainable development impact;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 209 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
26. CRecognises the urgent need for increased domestic resource mobilisation and therefore calls on the EU to continue toincrease its support to developing countries infor establishing effective fiscal policy and strengthening the capacity, skills and qualifications of their administrations with a view to tackling illicit financial flows, tax evasion and fraud, fraud and tax avoidance;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 211 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
27. URecalls that the quality of financial reporting is crucial to combat tax evasion effectively; hence, underlines the importance of increasing transparency in corporate reporting of profits and taxes paid, especially by companies involved in the exploitation of natural resources; therefore asks the Commission to promote the inclusion of a requirement within the International Financial Reporting Standard of the IASB that multinational corporations report their income and tax paid on a country-by-country basis; recalls that this request is consistent with the need to improve the corporate social responsibility of multinational enterprises;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 218 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
29. Points out that a new set of indicators other than GDP is necessary in order to overcome new social and environmental challenges, and should therefore include i.a. the human development index, the poverty headcount ratio, the poverty gap index and, the Gini coefficient, the carbon footprint and the ecological footprint;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 222 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
31. CStresses upon the need to implement the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, against this background, calls on developing countries to establish a genuine business regulatory framework focusing on a business code of conduct, respect for human rights, and environmental protection;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 227 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)
31 a. Urges EU-based companies with production facilities in developing countries to comply with their obligations to respect human rights and freedoms, social and environmental standards, gender equality, core labour standards, international agreements and payment of taxes in a transparent manner;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 234 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
34. Emphasises that economic growthdevelopment should contribute to decent job creation and social inclusion; calls for the establishment of anationally defined social protection mechanismfloors in developing countries;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 243 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a (new)
35 a. Takes the view that, while MDGs have certainly been a success in putting a stronger spotlight on development aid, a mere focus on aid is too narrow; considers that a new approach is needed that embraces global governance, with a strong focus on policy coherence for development and the provision of global public goods;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 244 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 b (new)
35 b. Believes that a post-2015 agenda for development needs to identify essential global public goods, set how they are financed and specify which global institutions can be held accountable for their provision;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 245 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 c (new)
35 c. Takes the view that policy coherence should move beyond a "do no harm" perspective, both in Europe and beyond, towards a more integrated approach where international trade, environment and international financial architecture are understood as global public policies that help to enhance global development objectives; supports, in this context, the idea of establishing a Global Economic Council in the context of the United Nations System;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 246 #

2012/2289(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
37. Stresses that the future development framework should contain a reference to the concept of 'development effectiveness'; in particular, takes the view that turning "aid effectiveness" into a "development effectiveness" agenda implies a combination of development aid, assistance for the provision of global public goods and adaptation of existing global governance structures in order to increase their capacity to respond to global challenges;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 10 #

2012/2288(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the recent policy evolutions at EU and international level which are focused on a more ambitious partnership with CSOs and LAs, founded on a human rights-based approach to development, including economic, social and cultural rights as well as international treaties on environment and biodiversity protection; and on a clear engagement to strengthening the democratic process and accountability;
2013/08/29
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 13 #

2012/2288(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines that creating accountable, human rights-based, and inclusivedemocratic relations among governments, LAs, CSOs, and citizens offers a unique opportunity for the EU to establish transparent and sustainable partnerships with developing countries;
2013/08/29
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 15 #

2012/2288(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Believes that Policy Coherence for Development must be the guiding principle of the EU cooperation with local authorities aiming at developing local economy to provide decent livelihood to the population at community level,
2013/08/29
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 21 #

2012/2288(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Encourages the EU to promote institutionalised mechanisms for multilevel and multiple stakeholder dialogue among CSOs, LAs and partner governments in decent work agendas, and sustainable and inclusive growth with redistribution of revenue through government budget;
2013/08/29
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 26 #

2012/2288(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission and the EEAS to allocate adequate resources in the future programming period, to allow CSOs and LAs from partner countries to raise awarenessmonitor and analyse progress towards policy coherence for development (PCD) at local, national and international level;
2013/08/29
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 28 #

2012/2288(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Stresses the important role that local authorities and civil society organisations can play in fighting corruption at all level including tax evasion and illicit financial flow from developing countries ;
2013/08/29
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 52 #

2012/2288(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Is of the view that tax revenues are essential for local economic development and considers that priority should be given to put in place effective and viable tax collection systems to ensure sustainable source of development financing,
2013/08/29
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 4 #

2012/2225(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Underlines that investment policy raises two main challenges for developing countries: at the national level, investment policy needs to be included into development strategy, incorporating sustainable development objectives; at the international level, it is necessary to strengthen the development dimension of international investment agreements (IIAs) and balancing the rights and obligations of States and investors;
2012/12/19
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 6 #

2012/2225(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Regrets that, according to UNCTAD's World Investment Report 2012, some International Investment Agreements (IIA) concluded in 2011 keep to the traditional Treaty model that focuses on investment protection as the sole aim of the Treaty; however, welcomes the fact that some new IIAs include provisions to ensure that the Treaty does not interfere with, but instead contributes to countries' sustainable development strategies that focus on the environmental and social impacts of investment;
2012/12/19
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 7 #

2012/2225(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Points out that the 2012 revision of the United States Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) turns the best-endeavour commitment not to relax domestic environmental and labour laws into a binding obligation;
2012/12/19
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 8 #

2012/2225(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Urges the EU and its Member States to strive for the integration of provisions on sustainability in its investment agreements in line with the adoption of and follow-up work on the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights; the UNCTAD/FAO/World Bank/IFAD Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment; the 2011 Revision of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises; the Doha Mandate adopted at UNCTAD's XIII Ministerial Conference in 2012 and the Rio+20 Conference in 2012;
2012/12/19
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 9 #

2012/2225(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 e (new)
1e. Underlines that UNCTAD's World Investment Report 2012 indicates that IIAs are becoming increasingly controversial and politically sensitive, primarily owing to the spread of IIA- based investor-State arbitrations, which provokes growing discontent (e.g. Australia's trade-policy statement announcing that it would stop including Investor State Dispute Settlement clauses in its future IIAs); takes note of UNCTAD's observation that this reflects deficiencies in the system (e.g. excessively wide definitions of expropriation, insufficient guarantees in relation to the qualifications of arbitrators lack of transparency and high costs of the proceeding, and an unclear relationship between ISDS and State-State proceedings); also draws attention to the broad public concern about the usefulness and legitimacy of the ISDS mechanism;
2012/12/19
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 10 #

2012/2225(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 f (new)
1f. Notes with concern the growing number of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) cases filed under IIAs, where investors have challenged core public policies, claiming that these policies have negatively affected their business prospects; against this background, considers it essential to reform IIAs to strengthen their development dimension, balancing the rights and obligations of States and investors, ensuring sufficient policy space for sustainable development policies and making investment promotion provisions more concrete and aligned with sustainable development objectives; considers that while a systematic assessment of IIAs remains to be done, multilateral dialogue on ISDS could help to develop a consensus for its reform; insists that any future European investment agreements must not cover international investor-state dispute settlement;
2012/12/19
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 12 #

2012/2225(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Recalls that mobilizing investment for sustainable development remains a major challenge for developing countries, particularly for LDCs; underlines, in this context, that UNCTAD has developed a comprehensive Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development (IPFSD) that puts a particular emphasis on the relationship between foreign investment and sustainable development;
2012/12/19
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 13 #

2012/2225(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Recalls that positive development impacts of FDI do not materialize automatically, but require i.a. adequate regulation that covers policy areas beyond investment policies per se, such as trade, taxation, intellectual property, competition, labour market regulation, environmental policies and access to land;
2012/12/19
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 17 #

2012/2225(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. SUrges the EU to design its trade agreements so as to foster responsible investor behaviour and guarantee compliance with best international practises of CSR and good corporate governance; in particular, stresses that, in order for growth to be inclusive and efficient in terms of poverty reduction, it should be pursued in sectors in which poor people are active, should benefit and empower women and should be associated with the creation of jobs as well as of micro and small businesses;
2012/12/19
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 22 #

2012/2225(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Welcomes the fact that a broad range of industries and trans-national companies have adopted codes of conduct detailing social and environmental performance standards for their global supply chains; recalls, however, that the proliferation and heterogeneous accounting, auditing and reporting standards of these codes make them difficult to compare; stresses that better implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights will contribute to EU objectives regarding specific human rights issues and core labour standards; hence, calls once more on the EU to strive for a clear international legal framework setting out the responsibilities and obligations of business with regard to human rights;
2012/12/19
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 23 #

2012/2225(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Stresses that EU assistance to governments of third countries in implementing social and environmental regulation is a necessary complement to advancing the CSR of European businesses worldwide;
2012/12/19
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 27 #

2012/2225(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. 7. Notes the flaws inat after the implementation and follow-up of the regulations laid down for the ‘Kimberley Process’; emphasises the urgent need for a solid, transparent and reliable tracking system for gems and valuable minerals, such as coltan, so as to more efficiently prevent products that contribute to systematic breaches of human rights, or fuel conflict or unrest in developing countries, from entering the EU market;of the Kimberley Process for the certification of conflict diamonds', trade in natural resources is still fuelling rebels and human rights abuses are still taking place in mining areas, therefore emphasises the urgent need for a system of due diligence for gems and valuable minerals, such as so-called conflict minerals, so as to break the resource curse and increase the benefits for developing countries to trade their commodities.
2012/12/19
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 9 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas the link between trade liberalisation and poverty reduction is not automatic; but whereas opening up trade can be one of the most effective drivers of economic growth and development, if and when the right conditions are in place;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 14 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E
E. whereas the EU's trade policy towards developing countries seeks to better integrate them into the international trading system, but lacks clearly defined development objectives; and whereas despite significant liberalization efforts, some developing countries, notably LDCs, have not been able to diversify production and exports;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 15 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas the impact of globalisation on poverty reduction is uneven; whereas a large proportion of the population in developing countries still live in extreme poverty, and particularly in the LDCs: in 1990, only 18% of the extremely poor were living in LDCs, while by 2007, that share had doubled to 36%;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 18 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas the negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements have raised major difficulties for developing countries (in terms of fiscal revenue losses, regional integration, etc.); whereas the high number of countries effectively leaving the negotiations indicates the lack of a development agenda within the Interim EPAs: some of the countries which effectively leave believe that the such EPAs would lead them towards a less favourable situation than the trade provisions of the Cotonou Agreement; whereas EPA negotiations are far behind schedule, overall progress is still weak and more than a time limit is needed to remedy this situation;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 19 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G
G. whereas poor countries have difficulties in compensating for the decline in trade taxes as a result from the current global context of trade liberalisation; and whereas there is a danger that customs tariffs on processed goods which exceed those on raw materials may help to consign developing countries to the role merely of exporters of raw materials;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 24 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Ha. whereas the expansion of agrofuels has relied overwhelmingly on the expansion of large-scale industrial monoculture, thereby extending agricultural practises that are harmful for the environment, biodiversity, soil fertility and water availability; and whereas the expansion of agrofuels may have dramatic consequences in terms of violation of land rights, loss of access to vital natural resources, deforestation and environmental degradation;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 27 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J
J. whereas Aid for Trade (AfT) is critically needed in modesigned to assist developing countries to assist in building among others trade capacity, promoting processing and diversification of production, reducing administrative barriers to trade, putting in place an efficient infrastructure for the transport of goods, and strengthening local businesses to prepare them for competition and allow them to benefit from new market opportunities; whereas Aid for Trade should help promoting processing and diversification of production; assist regional integration; technology transfers, and help facilitate the establishment or development of domestic productive capacity and reducing income inequality;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 28 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital K
K. whereas regional integration is an effective means of achieving prosperity, peace and security; and whereas, in a context of climate change, intraregional trade shall be supported, especially in a context where the development benefits of better functioning internal and regional trade may be as significant as those of increased external trade;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 31 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)
La. whereas "conflict resources" are natural resources whose systematic exploitation and trade in a context of conflict contribute to, benefit from or result in the commission of serious violations of human rights, violations of international humanitarian law or violations amounting to crimes under international law;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 45 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. WelcomesTakes note of the focus on the business environment, regional integration and world markets, as well as on social protection, health, education and jobs in the Agenda for Change (COM(2011)0637);
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 48 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Underlines that investment policy raises two main challenges for developing countries: at the national level, investment policy needs to be included into development strategy, incorporating sustainable development objectives; at the international level, it is necessary to strengthen the development dimension of international investment agreements (IIAs) and balancing the rights and obligations of States and investors;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 49 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Regrets that, according to UNCTAD's World Investment Report 2012, some International Investment Agreements (IIA) concluded in 2011 keep to the traditional Treaty model that focuses on investment protection as the sole aim of the Treaty; however, welcomes the fact that some new IIAs include provisions to ensure that the Treaty does not interfere with, but instead contributes to countries' sustainable development strategies that focus on the environmental and social impacts of investment;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 50 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Notes with concern the growing number of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) cases filed under International Investment Agreements (IIA) whereby investors have challenged core public policies, claiming that these policies have negatively affected their business prospects; underlines, in this context, that the World Investment Report (2012) of the UNCTAD indicates that IIAs are becoming increasingly controversial and politically sensitive, primarily owing to the spread of IIA- based investor-State arbitrations which provoke growing discontent (e.g. Australia's trade-policy statement announcing that it would stop including ISDS clauses in its future IIAs), and which reflect, among others, deficiencies in the system (e.g. wide scope of provisions such as expropriation, concerns regarding the qualification of arbitrators, lack of transparency and high costs of the proceeding, and the relationship between ISDS and State- State proceedings); insists accordingly that any future European investments agreements must not contain international investor-state dispute settlement;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 51 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Recalls that mobilizing investment for sustainable development remains a major challenge for developing countries, particularly for LDCs; underlines, in this context, that UNCTAD has developed a comprehensive Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development (IPFSD) that puts a particular emphasis on the relationship between foreign investment and sustainable development;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 57 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Recalls that the link between international trade and poverty reduction is not automatic; notes, in this respect, that UNCTAD states that the average level of trade integration of the LDCs, measured by the ratio of exports and imports of goods and services to GDP, has actually been higher than that of the advanced economies since the early 1990s; hence, considers that the persistence of mass poverty in the LDCs is not due to lack of integration into the global economy, insufficient trade liberalisation or insufficient policy reforms, but is rather the consequence of underdevelopment and the failure of these countries to promote structural transformation, build productive capacity, and create productive employment at the national level;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 58 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Underlines equally that UNCTAD argues that the premature and rapid trade liberalisation that many low-income developing countries were encouraged to undertake in the 1980s and 1990s led to de-industrialisation and a form of integration that intensified their dependence on and vulnerability to external markets; in reverse, the countries that have benefited the most from trade liberalisation and have experienced the largest reductions in absolute poverty are those that have opened their economies moderately, gradually in line with the development of their productive capacities, and have made progress towards structural transformation;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 69 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. SRecalls that there is considerable heterogeneity in the welfare impacts of trade and trade reforms, with both winners and losers in the process; hence, stresses the importance of combining trade reforms with well-designed public policies, notably social protection; more broadly, stresses the importance of timely and well-prepared National Development Strategies and prior impact assessments; of existing trade policy on poverty;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 79 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the EU to always ensure that its broad approach to trade negotiations, with the inclusion of issues like investment, government procurement, competition, trade in services and intellectual property rights, is in line with the respective needs and development strategies of partner countries; in particular, points out that the introduction of the reciprocity principle regarding public procurement can be extremely harmful for developing countries, as it will among others hamper the development of infant industries and processing; urges therefore the EU to define its policy in full respect of the "special and differential treatment" granted to developing countries; reasserts equally that governments and parliaments must retain the right to regulate investment, both so as to be able to discriminate in favour of investors that support the country's development and to ensure that there are obligations and duties on all investors, including foreign, so that labour, environmental, human rights and other standards are respected;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 102 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Welcomes the fact that a broad range of industries for TNCs set supplier codes of conduct detailing the social and environmental performance standards for their global supply chains; recalls however that the proliferation and heterogeneity of CSR codes present challenges, in particular, notes that owing to the heterogeneity of the concept of (CSR), with different companies having developed different standards on accounting, auditing and reporting, levels of CSR are hard to compare; hence, calls once more on the EU to strive for a clear international legal framework over the responsibilities and obligations of business with regard to human rights;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 105 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Calls for stronger EU efforts in relation to tax havensRecalls that tax fraud and tax evasion are limiting the capacity of EU Member States to raise revenues and to carry out their economic policy; calls for stronger EU efforts in relation to tax havens; in particular, calls for the adoption of an international convention with the purpose of eliminating harmful tax structures (on the model of a multilateral mechanism for automatic tax-information exchange), that would include sanctions both for non-cooperative jurisdictions and for financial institutions that operate within tax havens (i.e. by considering the possibility to withdraw banking licences from financial institutions that operate with tax havens on the model of the US Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act);
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 111 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Notes the flaws inat after the implementation and follow-up of the regulations laid down for the ‘Kimberley Process’; emphasises the urgent need for a solid, transparent and reliable tracking system for gems and valuable minerals, such as coltan, so as to more efficiently prevent products that contribute to systematic breaches of human rights, or fuel conflict or unrest in developing countries, from entering the EU marketof the Kimberley Process for the certification of conflict diamonds', trade in natural resources is still fuelling rebels and human rights abuses are still taking place in mining areas, therefore emphasises the urgent need for a system of due diligence for gems and valuable minerals, such as so- called conflict minerals, takes the view that such a measure could contribute to addressing the overriding challenge of the resource curse and increase the benefits for developing countries to trade their commodities; welcomes, in this context, that the Commissions plans to publish a Communication on conflict minerals;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 114 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Underlines that natural resources raise two main challenges for developed and developing countries: the environmental challenge to cope with impacts from using resources along their lifecycle and the socio-political challenge to cope with human rights and poverty internationally;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 115 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
19b. Strongly supports the legislative proposal for country-by-country reporting in the remit of the revision of the Accounting and Transparency Directive, in order to discourage corruption and prevent tax avoidance; calls on European extractive industries operating in developing countries to set an example of social responsibility and the promotion of decent work;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 116 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 c (new)
19c. Points out that the governance problem in the resource sector has been addressed almost entirely by voluntary initiatives, the most prominent one being the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, that attempts to improve information transparency; observes however, that that although being necessary, EITI is not sufficient to address the wider problem of corruption and bribery in the extractive sector; likewise, notes that the UN Framework on Business and Human Rights (protect, respect, access to remedy) is not yet specific with regard to extractive industries and resources; in this respect, takes the view that there is a need to add specific provisions on extractive industries to the UN Framework on Business and Human Rights: a first step might be to appoint a special rapporteur of the UN Human Rights Council on that issue, with a mandate to assess and develop recommendations;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 117 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 d (new)
19d. Takes the view that standards for transparency and certification need to be enlarged over time to fully address bribery and corruption in the extractive sector and beyond, while global overuse of natural resources ought to be addressed as well; more broadly, calls on the EU to support stronger governance mechanisms to address the environmental dimensions and human rights of resource exploitation; in particular, takes the view that an international convention for sustainable resource management is essential to lay down fundamental legal principles for sustainable resource management;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 118 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 e (new)
19e. Stresses that sustainable mining requires approaches that address the whole lifecycle of resources; points out that the complexity of the global supply chains hinder transparency; accordingly, takes the view that existing transparency initiatives should be accompanied by certification efforts in the form of product labelling along mineral supply chains;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 119 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Ddemands that European private actors involved in trade with or refinement of products from extractive industries take steps to ensure the regular, thorough and strict follow-up of CSR principles along the supply chain;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 121 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Takes the view that bilateral trade and investment policies should refer to common principles such as those provided by the Natural Resource Charter; in line with due diligence supply chain efforts, considers that this could be accompanied by sectoral provisions in areas relating to smelters and refineries, metal and recycling industries;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 122 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)
20b. Reiterates its concern about the Commission's objective to secure unrestricted supply of raw materials for EU companies; points out that such strategy is not consistent with the overarching goal of eradication of poverty and policy coherence as enshrined in Article 208 of the Lisbon Treaty, as it is likely to prevent countries from diversifying production, while reinforcing their dependence on unprocessed raw material exports; reasserts that the main priority of the EU should be to reduce its own consumption of raw materials;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 123 #

2012/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 c (new)
20c. Points out that the EU's attempts to ban or curb the use of export taxes on raw materials goes against the objective of enabling countries to generate sufficient public revenue to meet MDGs and more broadly, to secure endogenous development; hence, urges the EU to acknowledge that export restrictions can be part of some countries' development strategies or justified for environmental protection;
2013/01/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 14 #

2012/2124(REG)

Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Article 81 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Where Parliament is asked to give its consent to a proposed act, it shall take a decision on the basis of a recommendation from the committee responsible to approve or reject the act in accordance with the Treaty on European Union or the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, it shall adopt its decision taking into account a recommendation from the committee responsible to approve or reject the act. The recommendation may be accompanied by recitals, which shall not in any way amend the text of the proposed act or place conditions on its adoption or implementation.
2013/11/07
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 17 #

2012/2124(REG)

Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Article 81 – paragraph 1 - subparagraph 1 a (new)
In duly substantiated urgent situations, a time-limit may be set for the adoption of the recommendation. Rule 52(4) and (5) shall apply mutatis mutandis.
2013/11/07
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 22 #

2012/2124(REG)

Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Article 81 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Parliament shall take a decision on the act requiring its consent under the Treaty on European Union or the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by means of a single vote, and no amendments may be tabled. The majority required in plenary for the adoption of the consent shall be the majority indicated in the article of the Treaty on European Union or the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that constitutes the legal basis for the proposed act or, where no majority is indicated therein, the majority of the votes cast. If the majority required is not obtained, the proposed act shall be deemed to have been rejected.
2013/11/07
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 29 #

2012/2063(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Considers that all EU policy areas having an external impact must be designed to support developing countries' sustainable needs in order to fight poverty, guarantee decent income and livelihood as well as the fulfilment of basic human rights, including social, economic and environmental rights;
2012/08/28
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 30 #

2012/2063(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Believes that Policy Coherence for Development must be based on the recognition of the right of a country or a region to democratically define its own policies, priorities and strategies to protect their populations' livelihoods in line with the UN International covenant on Economic, social and Cultural rights;
2012/08/28
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 31 #

2012/2063(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1 c. Invites the European Ombudsman and the Commission to work together in order to ensure the availability of an effective complaints mechanism against incoherencies in the EU's development policy using the UNDP Human Development criteria as a standard against which concrete measures and actions can be evaluated;
2012/08/28
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 62 #

2012/2063(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 e (new)
10 e. Points out that fair trade between the EU and developing countries entails paying a fair price for the resources and agricultural products of the developing countries, i.e. a price which reflects the internal and external costs, while guaranteeing ILO's core labour standards for working conditions as well as international standards on environmental protection;
2012/08/28
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 64 #

2012/2063(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 f (new)
10 f. Is of the view that current bilateral Free Trade negotiations and agreements with developing countries contain commitments which circumscribe the right of these countries to choose their own development strategies, including regulatory reforms to develop their agriculture and industry without being exposed to unfair competition; believes that developing countries should protect their economy and proceed to selective market openings, as was the case in Europe;
2012/08/28
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 89 #

2012/2063(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 c (new)
14 c. Stresses that any access to fisheries resources in third countries' waters must respect not only Article 62 of UNCLOS regarding surplus stocks but also Articles 69 and 70 on the rights of land-locked and geographically disadvantaged States within the region, taking into account the nutritional and socioeconomic needs of local populations;
2012/08/28
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 91 #

2012/2063(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 d (new)
14 d. Considers that any system of attributing fishing opportunities to countries within Regional Fisheries Managements Organisations (RFMOs) must include the legitimate rights and aspirations of developing States to develop their own fisheries; insists that the EU oppose the introduction of Transferable Fishing Concessions schemes in RFMOs, since they would jeopardise the livelihood and well being of dependent communities of developing countries;
2012/08/28
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 93 #

2012/2063(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Believes that the challenges posed by climate change must be addressed through structural reforms and calls for a systematic climate change risk assessment into all aspects of EU's policy planning and decision making including trade, agriculture, food security, etc., and demands that the result of this assessment be used to formulate clear and coherent country and regional strategy papers, as well as development programmes and projects;
2012/08/28
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 10 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
(1) Given the proven negative impacts of the Union's biofuels policy on the enjoyment of the right to food in a number of developing countries, the obligation under Article 3(4) of Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable energy sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/777/EC and 2003/30/EC that requires Member States to ensure that the share of energy from renewable energy sources in all forms of transport in 2020 is at least 10% of their final energy consumption. The blending of biofuels is one of the methods available for Member States to meet this target, and is expected to be the main contributor should be removed.
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 11 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 a (new)
(1 a) The need to reduce energy consumption in the transport sector is imperative because a percentage target for energy from renewable sources is likely to become increasingly difficult to achieve sustainably if overall demand for energy for transport continues to rise. The use of electricity from renewable energy sources and blending of zero and low iLUC biofuels are other methods available for Member States to meet this target.
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 12 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
(2) In view of the Union's objectives to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the significant contribution that road transport fuels make to those emissions, Article 7a(2) of Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EC requires fuel suppliers to reduce by at least 6% by 31 December 2020 the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy ("greenhouse gas intensity") of fuels used in the Union by road vehicles, non-road mobile machinery, agricultural and forestry tractors and recreational craft when not at sea. The blending of zero or low direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions biofuels is one of the methods available for fossil fuel suppliers to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of the fossil fuels supplied.
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 14 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
(5) Based on forecasts of biofuel demand provided by the Member States and estimates of indirect land-use change emissions for different biofuel feedstocks it is likely that, greenhouse gas emissions linked to indirect land use change are significant, and couldwill negate some or all of theany greenhouse gas savings of individual biofuels. This is because almost the entire biofuel production in 2020 is expected to come from crops grown on land that could be used to satisfy food and feed markets. In orderdirect land-use changes therefore need to be taken into account so as to preduce such emissionsvent these potential sources of emissions from undermining efforts to meet the Union's renewable energy and greenhouse gas emission targets. In order to reduce indirect land-use change and land grabbing, it is appropriate therefore to distinguish between crop gland-based energy croups such as (oil crops, cereals, sugars and other starch containing crops accordingly) on the one hand, and non-land-based biofuels on the other hand. Furthermore, EU public subsidies for the biofuels industry (10 billion EUR per year) incentivise land-use change and land-grabbing and should be phased out by 2020 at the latest.
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 18 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
(6) Liquid renewable fuels are likely to be required by the transport sector in order to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Advanced biofuels, such as those made from wastes and algae, provide high greenhouse gas savings with low risk of causing indirect land use change and do not compete directly for agricultural land for the food and feed markets. It is appropriate, therefore, to encourage greater production of suchome advanced biofuels as these are currently not commercially available in large quantities, in part due to competition for public subsidies with established food crop based biofuel technologies. Further incentives should be provided by increasing the weighting of advanced biofuels towards 10% target for transport set in Directive 2009/28/EC compared to conventional biofuels. In this context, only advanced biofuels with low estimated indirect land use change impacts and high overall greenhouse gas savings should be supported as part of the post 2020 renewable energy policy framework.
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 20 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
(7) In order to ensure the long-term competitiveness of bio-based industrial sectors, and in line with the 2012 Communication 'Innovating for Sustainable growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe' and the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe , promoting integrated and diversified biorefineries across Europe, enhanced incentives under Directive 2009/28/EC should be set in a way that gives preference to the use of biomass feedstocks that do not have a high economic value for other uses than biofuels. It is also essential to make sure that EU waste policies remain consistent and that the waste hierarchy set out in Article 4 of Directive 2008/98/EC is applied. No negative incentives that could jeopardise proper implementation of this directive should be created.
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 21 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 a (new)
(7 a) The use of biomass resources involves significant opportunity costs linked to the depletion or loss of ecosystem services. Member States should refrain from subsidizing or mandating energy use of feedstocks where their diversion from existing uses would have a negative impact on land rights, food rights, biodiversity, soil or overall carbon balance. Policies should also ensure a cascade of biomass use, with safeguards to ensure that resources are not diverted from high societal added value applications to low value energy use.
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 22 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
(8) The minimumtotal greenhouse gas saving threshold foremissions from biofuels and bioliquids produced in new installations should be increased with effect from 1st July 2014progressively decreased in order to improve their overall greenhouse gas balance as well as discouraging further investments in installations with low greenhouse gas savings performance. This indecrease provides for investment safeguards in biofuels and bioliquids production capacities in conformity with Article 19(6) second subparagraph.
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 23 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
(9) To prepare for the transition towards advanced biofuels and minimiseminimise the negative impacts on land rights and land speculation, food rights and food commodities prices, biodiversity, soil and the overall indirect land use change impacts in the period to 2020, it is appropriate to limit the amount of biofuels and bioliquids obtained from food and other energy crops as set out in part A of Annex VIII to Directive 2009/28/EC and part A of Annex V to Directive 98/70/EC that can be counted towards targets set out in Directive 2009/28/EC. Without restricting the overall use of such biofuels, the share of biofuels and bioliquids produced from cereal and other starch rich crops, sugar and oil. The share of land- based biofuels and bioliquid crops that can be counted towards the targets ofransport fuel target under Directive 2009/28/EC should be limited to the share of such biofuels and bioliquids consumed in 2011progressively reduced until 2020, when this share will be equal to zero.
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 24 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
(10) The 50% limit set up in Article 3(4)d does not affect the Member States' freedom to arrange their own trajectory as to compliancey with this prescribed share of conventional biofuels within the overall 10% target. As a consequence, the access to the market of the biofuels produced by the installations in operation before the end of 2013 remains fully open. Therefore this amending directive does not affect the legitimate expectations of the operators of such installations.
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 26 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
(11) The estimatedIn order to make sure that Union targets for greenhouse gas emission savings and biofuels are meaningful and effective, indirect land-use change emissions should be included in the reportaken into account when calculating ofthe greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels under savings required under the sustainability criteria set out in Directive 2009/28/EC and Directives 98/70/EC and 2009/28/EC. Indirect land-use change emissions should also be counted towards the target set in Article 7a (2), in order to offer incentives for the production of biofuels with a low indirect land-use change impact. Biofuels made from feedstocks that do not lead to additional demand for land, such as those from waste feedstocks, should be assigned a zero emissions factor. .
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 32 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
(20) The Commission should review the effectiveness of the measures introduced by this Directive, based on the best and latest available scientific evidence, in limiting indirect land-use change greenhouse gas emissions and addressing ways to further minimise that impact, which could include the introduction of estimated indirect land-use change emission factors in the sustainability scheme as of 1st January 2021.
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 35 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 2 – point b a (new)
Directive 98/70/EC
Article 7 b – paragraph 5a (new)
(ba) The following paragraph is inserted "5a. Biofuels and bioliquids taken into account for the purposes referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be made from wastes, unless independently verified as conforming to the waste hierarchy, namely prevention, preparation for re-use and recycling before recovery for energy purposes, as outlined in Directive 2008/98/EC."
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 36 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3 – point -a (new)
Directive 98/70/CE
Article 7d – paragraph 1
(-a) Paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: "1. For the purposes of Article 7a and Article 7b(2), life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels shall be calculated as follows: (a) where a default value for greenhouse gas emission savings for the production pathway is laid down in part A or B of Annex IV and where the el value for those biofuels or bioliquids calculated in accordance with point 7 of part C of Annex IV is equal to or less than zero, and where the estimated indirect land-use change emissions are zero in accordance with part B of Annex V, by using that default value; (b) by using an actual value calculated in accordance with the methodology laid down in part C of Annex IV adding the estimates for indirect land-use change emissions set out in Annex V; (c) by using a value calculated as the sum of the factors of the formula referred to in point 1 of part C of Annex IV, where disaggregated default values in part D or E of Annex IV may be used for some factors, and actual values, calculated in accordance with the methodology laid down in part C of Annex IV, for all other factors, adding the estimates for indirect land-use change emissions set out in Annex V."
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 40 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point 2 – point c – point -i (new)
Directive 2009/28/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – first subparagraph
(-i) The first subparagraph is replaced by the following: "Each Member State may ensure that energy from renewable energy sources in all forms of transport in 2020 represents a share of the final consumption of energy in transport in that Member State."
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 41 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point 2 – point c – point -i a(new)
Directive 2009/28/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – second sub–paragraph (new)
(-ia) after the first subparagraph, the following subparagraph is inserted: "For the purposes of the first subparagraph, each Member State shall ensure that the share of: (a) electricity from renewable energy sources used in all forms of transport in 2020 is at least 2% of the final consumption of energy in transport in that Member State (b) energy from biofuels produced from cereal and other starch rich crops, sugar crops, oil crops and non-food energy crops shall be 0% of the final consumption of energy in transport by 2020."
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 42 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point 2 – point c – point i a (new)
Directive 2009/28/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – second subparagraph – point c
(i a) point (c) is amended as follows: (c) for the calculation of the contribution from electricity produced from renewable sources and consumed in all types of electric vehicles for the purpose of points (a) and (b), Member States may choose to use either the average share of electricity from renewable energy sources in the Community or the share of electricity from renewable energy sources in their own country as measured two years before the year in question. Furthermore, for the calculation of the electricity from renewable energy sources consumed by all types of electric vehicles, that consumption shall be considered to be 5 times the energy content of the input of electricity from renewable energy sources.
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 43 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point 2 – point c – point ii
Directive 2009/28/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – second subparagraph – point d (new)
"(d) for the calculation of biofuels in the numerator, the share of energy from biofuels produced from cereal and other starch rich crops, sugars and crops, oil crops shall be no more than 5%, the estimated share at the end of 2011, of the final consumption of energy in transportand non-food energy crops shall equal zero in 2020."
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 46 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point 2 – point c – point iii
Directive 2009/28/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – point e –subpoint i (new)
(i) biofuels produced from feedstocks listed in Part A of Annex IX shall be considered to be four times their energy content;deleted
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 47 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point 2 – point c – point iii
Directive 2009/28/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – point e – subpoint ii (new)
(ii) biofuels produced from feedstocks listed in Part B of Annex IX shall be considered to be twice their energy content after prior scientific assessment of their environmental and social sustainability;
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 48 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point 2 – point c – point iii
Directive 2009/28/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – point e – subpoint iii
(iii) renewable liquid and gaseous fuels of non-biological origin shall be considered to be four times their energy content.deleted
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 49 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point 2 – point c – point iii
Directive 2009/28/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – point e – second subparagraph (new)
Member States shall ensure that no raw materials are intentionally modified to be covered by categories (i) to (iii)aterials that have been intentionally modified to count as waste shall not be covered by categories (i) to (iii). Member States shall ensure that when fraud is detected, the feedstock or biofuel in question shall not be counted towards the target referred to in Article 3 paragraph 4 and shall ensure that appropriate action is taken in order to prevent any further fraudulent action.
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 51 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point 5 – point b a (new)
Directive 2009/28/EC
Article 17 – paragraph 5a (new)
(ba) the following paragraph is inserted "5a. Biofuels and bioliquids taken into account for the purposes referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 shall not be made from wastes, unless independently verified as conforming to the waste hierarchy, namely prevention, preparation for re-use and recycling before recovery for energy purposes, as outlined in Directive 2008/98/EC."
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 54 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point 6
Directive 2009/28/EC
Article 18 – paragraph 4 – second subparagraph
"The Commission mayshall decide that voluntary national or international schemes setting standards for the production of biomass products contain accurate data for the purposes of Article 17(2) or demonstrate that consignments of biofuel or bioliquid comply with the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17(3) to (5a), and that no materials have been intentionally modified in order to be covered by Article 3(4)(e)(i) to (iii). The Commission may decide that those schemes contain accurate data for the purposes of information on measures taken for the conservation of areas that provide, in critical situations, basic ecosystem services (such as watershed protection and erosion control), for soil, water and air protection, the restoration of degraded land, the avoidance of excessive water consumption in areas where water is scarce and on the issues referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 17(7). The Commission may also recognise areas for the protection of rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems or species recognised by international agreements or included in lists drawn up by intergovernmental organisations or the International Union for the Conservation of Nature for the purposes of Article 17 (3)(b) (ii)."
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 55 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point 7 – point -a (new)
Directive 2009/28/EC
Article 19 – paragraph 1
(-a) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: "1. For the purposes of Article 17(2), the greenhouse gas emission saving from the use of biofuel and bioliquids shall be calculated as follows: (a) where a default value for greenhouse gas emission saving for the production pathway is laid down in part A or B of Annex V and where the el value for those biofuels or bioliquids calculated in accordance with point 7 of part C of Annex V is equal to or less than zero, and where the estimated indirect land-use change emissions are zero in accordance with part B of Annex VIII, by using that default value; (b) by using an actual value calculated in accordance with the methodology laid down in part C of Annex V adding the estimates for indirect land-use change emissions set out in Annex VIII; (c) by using a value calculated as the sum of the factors of the formula referred to in point 1 of part C of Annex V, where disaggregated default values in part D or E of Annex V may be used for some factors, and actual values, calculated in accordance with the methodology laid down in part C of Annex V, for all other factors, adding the estimates for indirect land-use change emissions set out in Annex VIII."
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 57 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex 1 – point 2
Directive 98/70/EC
Annex V – Part A – additional line in the table (new)
an additional line is added to the table in Part A. Estimated indirect land-use change emissions from biofuel and bioliquid feedstocks: Feedstock Group: Non-food energy crops Estimated indirect land-use change emissions (gCO2eq/MJ): 15
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 58 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex 1 – point 2
Directive 98/70/EC
Annex V – part B – point b (new)
(b) feedstocks whose production has led to direct land use change, i.e. a change from one of the followingnot taken place on cropland, perennial cropland or land in any other IPCC land cover categories; y (forest land, grassland, wetlands, settlements, or other land, to cropland or perennial cropland . In such a case a “direct land use change emission value (el)” should have been calculated in accordance to Part C, paragraph 7 of Annex IV) used for food production, whether managed or unmanaged, such as agricultural and silvopastoral systems.
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 59 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex 2 – point 2
Directive 2009/28/EC
Annex VIII – Part A – additional line in the table (new)
an additional line is added to the table in Part A. Estimated indirect land-use change emissions from biofuel and bioliquid feedstocks: Feedstock Group: Non-food energy crops Estimated indirect land-use change emissions (gCO2eq/MJ): 15
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 60 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex 2 – point 2
Directive 2009/28/EC
Annex VIII – Part B – point b (new)
(b) feedstocks whose production has led to direct land use change, i.e. a change from one of the followingnot taken place on cropland, perennial cropland or land in any other IPCC land cover categories; y (forest land, grassland, wetlands, settlements, or o) used for food production, whether lmand, to cropland or perennial cropland. Inaged or unmanaged, such a case a “direct land use change emission value (el)” should have been calculated in accordance to Part C, paragraph 7 of Annex Vgricultural and silvopastoral systems.
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 61 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex 2 – point 3
Directive 2009/28/EC
Annex IX (new)
Annex IXdeleted
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 62 #

2012/0288(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex 2 – point 3
Directive 2009/28/EC
Annex IX (new)
'Annex IX Part A. Feedstocks whose contribution towards the target referred to in Article 3(4) shall be considered to be four times their energy content (a) Algae. (b)shall be considered to be twice their energy content A. Sustainability safeguards Member States shall put safeguards in place for the use of any waste or residues, to ensure that the use as transport fuel conforms to the waste hierarchy, namely prevention, preparation for re-use and recycling before recovery for energy purposes, as outlined in Directive 2008/98/EC, and to ensure a cascade of use. For the use of biotic sources, Member States shall introduce safeguards to protect biodiversity and against the depletion or loss of ecosystem services, and to prevent any diversion from existing uses that would have a negative indirect or direct impact on biodiversity, soil or overall carbon balance. Subject to sustainability safeguards adopted by Member States, the following feedstocks are eligible for advanced biofuels: B. List of feedstock : - Biomass fraction of mixed municipal waste, but not separated household waste subject to recycling targets under Article 11(2)(a) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. (c)- Biomass fraction of industrial waste. (d)- Straw. (e)- Animal manure and sewage sludge. (f) Palm oil mill effluent and empty palm fruit bunches. (g)- Tall oil pitch. (h)- Crude glycerine. (i)- Bagasse. (j)- Grape marcs and wine lees. (k)- Nut shells. (l)- Husks. (m)- Cobs (n) Bark, branches, leaves, saw dust and cutter shavings. Part B. Feedstocks whose contribution towards the target referred to in Article 3(4) shall be considered to be twice their energy content (a) Used cooking oil. (b) Animal fats classified as category I and II in accordance with EC/1774/2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption. (c). - Used cooking oil - Non-food cellulosic material. (d)- Ligno-cellulosic material except saw logs and veneer logs.'
2013/06/04
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 2 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas Hungary, Romania and Latvia were the first Member States to request and benefit from a EU financial assistant at the beginning of the financial and economic crisis by means of a BoP facility; whereas the economic and financial crisis has hit seriously several non euro area Member States;
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 7 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G
G. whereas updating Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 would help ensureing a level playing field between euro area and non- euro area Member States and would simplify the procedure for activating the balance of payments facility;
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 10 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the BoP Proposal as a first step towards achieving a level playing field between euro area and non-euro area Member States; acknowledges that the task is not simple given the powerfulfeatures of the mechanisms recently created for the euro area;
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 13 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Points outDeplores that the Commission did not conduct a wide consultation before the adoption of the BoP Proposal, and that the Commission did not provide reasons to suggest that this was because of exceptional urgency, as required pursuant to Article 2 of Protocol 2 on the application of the principles of the subsidiarity and proportionality annexed to the TFEU and to the Treaty on European Union (TEU);
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 14 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Points out and regrets that no reference was made to the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality as required by Article 5 of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of the subsidiarity and proportionality annexed to the TFEU and to the TEU; asks the Commission and Council to make an explicit reference to the above mentioned principles ahead of the submission of the Regulation for a European Parliament consent;
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 15 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Asks the Council and the Commission to take account of the following recommendationsquests ahead of the submission of the amended proposal for a European Parliament consent:
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 16 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point i
(i) the Commission should clarify wthether relationship between any assistance that might be granted to a non-euro area Member State under Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 establishing the European Financial Stability Mechanism* would be governed by the1 and the provisions and instruments adoptestablished pursuant to the BoP Regulation after the discontinuation of the European Financial Stability Mechanism (EFSM); 1 OJ L 118, 12.5.2010, p. 1.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 21 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point ii
(ii) no effective link or material conditionality should be established between the balance of payments facility and the use of structural funds; conditions relating to the use of structural funds should, if at all, should be addressed in the relevant legislative act;
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 25 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point iii
(iii) the increased variety of financial assistance to non-euro area Member States provided for in the BoP Proposal is welcomed; however, an appropriate instrument for direct bank recapitalisation instrument for non euro area Member States, breaking the vicious circle between public finances and the domestic banking sector, needs to be added to the selection of financial assistance tools in order to ensure a level playing field between euro area and non- euro area Member States;
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 27 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point iv
(iv) no obligation to consult the Commission should be established in the case of precautionary unconditional credit lines granted from outside the Union and therefore, Article 2(4) of the BoP Proposal should be appropriately amended to this effect;deleted
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 29 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point iv a (new)
(iva) regarding the conditions and the procedures for granting loans, the European Central Bank (ECB) should have less involvement in the preparation of the adjustment programmes. In its opinion (CON/2013/2), the ECB considers it inappropriate to assume such a role for a non-euro area Member State; therefore, as the ECB suggested it, Article 3(3) 'acting in liaison with the ECB' and Article 3(8) 'in liaison with the ECB' should be replaced by 'taking into account the view of the ECB, should the ECB decide to give advice in this respect';
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 30 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point iv b (new)
(ivb) in general, more clarity and specifications are required for the elaboration and assessment of the macro- economic adjustment programme, particularly regarding policy and procedural requirements aiming at re- establishing "a sustainable balance of payments position and at restoring its capacity to finance itself fully on the financial markets";
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 31 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point v
(v) with reference to Article 4(1), regarding conditions for granting a precautionary conditioned credit line (PCCL), the BoP Proposal would benefit from more operational clarity on two concepts, namely 'sustainability of the external position' and the 'presence or absence of bank solvency problems' that would pose systemic threats to the banking system stability'; with that purpose such concepts should be specified directly in Article 4 with explicit references to the appropriate indicators foreseen in relevant EU texts (CRD, ESRB, ESAs regulations, '6pack', fiscal sustainability reports) or at the very least by means of delegated acts. In the same rationale Article 4 should make explicit that the global assessment foreseen should be carried by the Commission and should be made public, as appropriate. A reference to the assessments foreseen in the framework of the macroeconomic imbalances procedure as established by Regulation 1176/2011 should also be added to eligibility criteria;
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 32 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point vi
(vi) more clarity and more precise guidelines are needed with regard to Article 4(2) referring to conditions for granting a enhanced conditions credit line (ECCL), of the BoP Proposal as to the thresholds and criteria of the assessment at which a country is no longer eligible for a precautionary conditioned credit line (PCCL), but still eligible for an enhanced conditions credit line (ECCL) ECCL as well as clarity on the procedures leading to the assessment referred to in such paragraph;
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 33 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point viii
(viii) it is necessary to enhance the transparency and accountability within the enhanced surveillance process by adapting the economic dialogue in a way that allows the relevant National Parliament as well as the European Parliament to invite the Commission, the Council, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for an exchange of views;
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 34 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point ix a (new)
(ixa) article 6.2 of the BoP proposal on enhanced surveillance integrates a certain number of elements which reflect the substance of the Commission proposal on common provisions for monitoring and assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of excessive deficit of the Member States in the euro area. Therefore, the BoP proposal should be updated with the aim of ensuring a level playing field so as to reflect the provisional agreement of the Parliament and the Council negotiating teams on the relevant parts of the Ferreira report, namely on standards and procedures regarding specifications for reporting requirements foreseen in article 7 of the Ferreira report;
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 37 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point ix b (new)
(ixb) with the purpose en ensuring a level playing field between euro area and non euro area Member States provisions regarding enhanced surveillance in article 6 of the BoP regulation should be updated so as to integrate a certain number of elements provisionally agreed in the Ferreira report such as, where relevant, provisions on economic partnerships programmes and their relationship with macroeconomic adjustment programmes, monitoring requirements on the quality of public finances including provisions regarding the impact of foreseen budgetary measures on EU2020 targets and the adaptations that an assistance programme entails on the National Reform Programmes, as well as indications on cost-benefit assessments on public investments, a description and quantification of budgetary measures, including foreseen tax policy reforms and potential spill-over effects of foreseen measures for other Member States;
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 38 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point ix c (new)
(ixc) The EUR 50 billion limit foreseen in article 2 of the BoP Regulation proposal should be reviewed so as to allow to gradually increase of such a limit in function of the reimbursement of EFSM outstanding credits by means of a Council decision;
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 40 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point x – first indent
- the recognition and role of spill-over effects (Article 1(1) and, Article 3(1a) and 6(4) of the Gauzès report),
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 41 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point x – fourth indent
- specifications for the conduct of Member States under enhanced surveillance, including mention of thean adapted role ofor the ECB (Article 3(1) of the Gauzès report) as referred to in paragraph 5iva;
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 42 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point x – fifth indent a (new)
- specifications regarding the obligation to involve the social partners and civil society and the observation of Article 151 and 152 TFEU and Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and to ensure that this regulation does not affect the right to negotiate, conclude and enforce collective agreements and to take collective action in accordance with national law (Article 6 and article 1.2a of the Gauzès report)
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 43 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point x – fifth indent a (new)
- specifications regarding the involvement of the social partners and civil society (Article 6a of the Gauzès report)
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 46 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point x – sixth indent
- specifications on the debt sustainability analysiregarding the evaluation on the government debt sustainability analysis, including disclosure requirements (Article 5(1a) of the Gauzès report)
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 47 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point x – seventh indent
- transparency and accountability to European Parliament within the macroeconomic adjustment programme (Article 6(1)and where relevant to the National Parliaments, including obligations to disclose macroeconomic adjustment programmes and the expected distribution of the adjustment effort (Articles 2, 3, 6, 13b of the Gauzès report);
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 49 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point x – seventh indent a (new)
- inclusion of a clause regarding practices and institutions for wage formation and the observance of article 151 TFEU and article 28 of the Charter for Fundamental Rights (Article 6(1) of the Gauzès report);
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 50 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point x – seventh indent b (new)
- additional specifications regarding the mandate of technical assistance provided to Member States under programme (art 6(6) of the Gauzès report);
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 51 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point x – seventh indent c (new)
- additional specifications regarding measures to safeguard tax revenues (Article 6b of the Gauzès report);
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 52 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point x – eighth indent
- the need for realistic and, updated and disclosed forecasts (Articles 5 and 6(4) of the Gauzès report);
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 53 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point x – ninth indent
- assessment of whether deviations from the programme are within or beyond Member State control, assessment of the consequences resulting from the adjustment programme and the explicit protection of health care and education sectors (Articles 6(4) and 6(5) of the Gauzès report)
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 54 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point x – tenth indent a (new)
- close cooperation between the Member State under assistance and the Commission in order to maintain private investor exposure in the Member State concerned (Article 6(4a));
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 55 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point x – eleventh indent
- regular communication of the review mission findings in post-programmassistance surveillance to the relevant National Parliament and the European Parliament, including the possibility to conduct an economic dialogue (Articles 11(3) and 11(4a) of the Gauzès report),
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 56 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point x – twelfth indent
- reverse qualified majority Voting in the Council as concernsregarding corrective measures for post-programme measures (Article 11(4) of the Gauzès report),
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 57 #

2012/0164(APP)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point x – thirteenth indent
- report on a review of the BoP Regulation (Article 13(cd) of the Gauzès report),
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1 #

2012/0000(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that tax-to-GDP ratios are low in most developing countries; stresses the need for these countries to mobilise tax resources, which are more predictable and sustainable than foreign assistance and help to reduce debt, in order to achieve the MDGStresses upon the need to mobilise and secure tax resources in developing countries in order to achieve the MDGs, as they are more predictable and sustainable than foreign assistance and help to reduce debt; but notes that tax resources-to-GDP ratios are low in most developing countries, which are confronted with social, political and administrative difficulties in establishing a sound public finance system, thereby making them particularly vulnerable to tax evasion and avoidance activities of individual taxpayers and corporations;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 2 #

2012/0000(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1a (new)
1a. Points out that illicit outflows are a major explanation for developing country debt, while aggressive tax planning is contrary to the principles of Corporate Social Responsibility;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 3 #

2012/0000(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the EU to assist them in this taskNotes that tax systems in many developing countries are not in line with international standards (weak fiscal jurisdiction and inefficiencies in tax administration, high level of corruption; insufficient capacity to introduce and sustain well-functioning tax registers, etc.); calls on the EU to upgrade its assistance within the remit of DCI and EDF in terms of tax governance and in addressing international tax fraud and excessive optimisation, by building up theirdeveloping countries' capacity toin detecting and prosecuteing inappropriate practices through stronger tax governance cooperation; likewise, deems that support shall be provided for the economic reconversion of developing countries that are tax havens;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 4 #

2012/0000(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the Commission's commitment to promotinge the automatic exchange of information; calls once more, however, for, as the future European and internationally binding multilateral automatic tax-information exchange agreement, which should also cover trusts and foundat standard of transparency and exchange of information in tax matters; calls once more for action beyond the OECD framework to address illicit financial flows, tax evasions, and include sanctavoidance in view of their varionus for non-cooperative jurisdictions and for financial institutions that operate with tax havens; calls on the Commission to propose a Europeanshortcomings; deplores the fact that the OECD allows governments to escape its blacklist merely by promising to adhere to the information exchange principles, without ensuring that these principles are effectively put into practice; considers also that the requirement to conclude agreements with 12 other countries in order to be removed from the black list of tax havens and European sanction regimes in the evis arbitrary as it does not refer to any qualitative indicators for an objective assessment of non-compliance with good governance practices;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 5 #

2012/0000(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4a (new)
4a. Also deplores the laxity of the Global Forum's standards regarding the quality of information to be held (e.g. lack of requirement of disclosure of beneficial ownership; lack of legal means to counter refusals or delays in the provision of information upon request; reliance on private agents, not public registries, for information, etc.); believes that the Global Forum peer review process will be far more effective if outside experts were involved in all of its stages;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 6 #

2012/0000(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4b (new)
4b. Calls once more for an internationally binding multilateral automatic tax-information exchange agreement, which should also cover trusts and foundations, and include sanctions for non-cooperative jurisdictions and for financial institutions that operate with tax havens; urges the EU to adopt measures similar to the US Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act and to consider the possibility of withdrawing banking licences from financial institutions that operate with tax havens; calls on the Commission to propose European black list of tax havens based on stringent criteria and to propose European sanction regimes in the event of non-compliance or enhanced cooperation in case an EU approach is not possible;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 7 #

2012/0000(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4c (new)
4c. Recalls that reinforcing transparency in tax matters includes the identification of owners and beneficiaries of companies, trust funds, foundations;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 8 #

2012/0000(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4d (new)
4d. Notes that tax evasion and money laundering are facilitated by Trust and Company Service Providers (TCSP), as they enable the establishment of structures that render the beneficial owners unaccountable for their actions and obligations, including to tax authorities, to creditors and to the victims of human rights violations; takes the view that TCSPs should be required to carry out due diligence in accurately establishing beneficial ownership information under anti-money laundering rules; also deems that companies should only be allowed to incorporate in a jurisdiction if they have meaningful economic substance within that jurisdiction (for example, staff and sales);
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 9 #

2012/0000(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4e (new)
4e. Observes that trusts are often used as conduits for tax evasion, however, notes with concern that the majority of countries do not require registration of legal arrangements; calls on the EU to introduce a European register for trusts and other secrecy entities, as a prerequisite for dealing with tax avoidance;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 10 #

2012/0000(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4f (new)
4f. Points out that according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) the estimated amount of money laundered globally in one year is 2 - 5% of global GDP, or $800 billion - $2 trillion in current US dollars;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 11 #

2012/0000(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4g (new)
4g. Stresses that the fight against corruption is an integral part of capacity building for tax administration; calls on the full implementation of the Merida Convention against Corruption (2003);
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 12 #

2012/0000(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. UFully supports the Commission's proposal to explicitly mention tax crimes as predicate offences to money laundering, in line with the 2012 recommendation of the Financial Action Task Force-FATF; urges the EU to enhance the transparency of beneficial ownership information and anti-money laundering (s well as the AML) customer diligence procedures; favours an EU-wide harmonisation of the money- laundering offence, and calls for the full implementation of Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards, through effective monitoring and credible sanctions;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 14 #

2012/0000(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5a (new)
5a. Stresses that trade mispricing is one of the most prominent drivers of illicit financial outflows; but notes the limitations, complexities and difficulties in implementing the arm's length principle to adress it, especially for developing countries; calls on the Commission to work upon concrete proposals to ensure that the G20, the OECD, the UN and the WTO consider a broader set of indicators and methods for tackling trade mispricing, among which are the US ‘comparable profit methods’ that have shown promise in determining the incorrect pricing of transactions;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 15 #

2012/0000(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Points out that, by reinforcing a bilateral rather than a multilateral approach to transnational tax issues, dDouble tTaxation aAgreements (DTA) risk encouraging transfer pricing and regulatory arbitrage; hence, since they usually result in a fiscal loss for developing countries, through lower withholding tax rates on dividend, interest and royalty payments, calls on the Commission, therefore, to refrain from promoting such agreementsthese, instead of tTax iInformation eExchange aAgreements (TIEAs), since they usually result in a fiscal loss for developing countries;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 16 #

2012/0000(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6a (new)
6a. Notes with concern that many developing countries find themselves in a very weak bargaining position towards some foreign direct investors "shopping around" for tax subsidies and exemptions; deems that in case of sizeable investments, companies shall be required to make precise commitments on the positive spill over effects of the project in terms of local and/or national economic and social development;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 18 #

2012/0000(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7a (new)
7a. Recalls that the possibility to detect and prosecute tax violators depends crucially on data availability and data quality; stresses that a strategy countering tax evasion and avoidance should involve both measures at the national as well as the international level, as in the case of unveiling a firm's mispricing practices, which requires a well functioning cross- border information exchange between domestic tax administrations, auditors and foreign public authorities;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 19 #

2012/0000(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7b (new)
7b. Calls on the EU to upgrade technical assistance in developing countries so as to address transfer pricing manipulation, and to scale up its cooperation on tax matters by encouraging the African Tax Administration Forum (ATAF) to enhance tax mobilisation and democratic governance in Africa;
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 20 #

2012/0000(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7c (new)
7c. Underlines that, in a context where export revenues vary according to raw material price fluctuations, it is important to give developing countries policy space to increase their capacity to resist external shocks and to implement countercyclical action plans to boost the economy, by allowing them to use i.a. the tool of export taxation.
2013/03/26
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 2 #

2011/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 12 a (new)
- having regard to the Tunis Consensus "Targeting Effective Development" of 4 - 5 November 2010 on African agenda for development effectiveness,
2011/09/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 4 #

2011/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)
- having regard to the European Parliament Resolution of 15 March 2007 on local authorities and development cooperation,
2011/09/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 7 #

2011/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas the principles set out in the Paris Declaration remain valfocus primarily on the mechanisms of aid, despite the problems created by the financial crisislivery rather than to successful development policy-making; and whereas the Accra Agenda for Action on Aid Effectiveness has been hampered by several factors: the financial crisis, reduced level of ODA, the policy changes by some donors wanting to see more short- term results, and the emergence of new public and private donors not belonging to the DAC and whose approach is not governed by consensual cooperation standards,
2011/09/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 11 #

2011/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas transparency and accountability are vital conditions for aid effectiveness andnot only between donors and receiving governments but between the State and society ; whereas donors and partner countries agreed in the Accra Agenda for Action to provide detailed information on current and future aid flows in good time to enable developing countries to draw up their budgets and audit their accounts more accurately,; likewise, whereas it remains of primary importance for donor countries to support the strengthening of the institution of parliament as well as the involvement of local authorities and Civil Society Organisation (CSOs) to firmly anchor development policy in the democratic process;
2011/09/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 14 #

2011/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas it is important in the context of the fourth Forum to remind donors of their commitment to devote 0.7% of their GNP/GNI to development aid, define PDA more rigorously and comply with the principles of the Accra Agenda for Action, which still remain valid, whereas there is a need to move beyond official development assistance to build development partnerships to support a vision of development that is owned and driven by countries themselves,
2011/09/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 18 #

2011/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas the Tunis Consensus on African agenda for development calls for refocusing attention from aid effectiveness to the broader agenda of development effectiveness; and whereas the six elements identified as being central to Africa for development effectiveness are: building capable states; developing democratic accountability; promoting south-south cooperation; thinking and acting regionally; embracing new development partners; outgrowing aid dependence,
2011/09/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 21 #

2011/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recalls that one basic condition to fulfil the "aid effectiveness agenda" is to embrace fully the principle of "democratic ownership", implying that development strategy are country-driven and reflect the commitment of all national stakeholders;
2011/09/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 22 #

2011/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Notes that while donors did not provide developing countries enough political space to choose their own path of development, governments in developing countries did not give their parliament and civil society the room of manoeuvre necessary to enable effective ownership; urges upon the EU to strengthen the Paris and Accra commitments through promoting democratic ownership of development policies, planning and actions through full engagement with, and accountability to, all development stakeholders;
2011/09/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 27 #

2011/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. BRecalls the policy coherence for development, development "ownership" following a bottom-up approach, and non fragmentation of aid are essential for ensuring aid effectiveness; believes that HLF-4 will be a success if it reflects upon these principles and results in a strong commitment to aid effectiveness, reflected in clear and measureable objectives with a precise timetable for their realisation;
2011/09/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 28 #

2011/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notes with concern that despite deepening crisis of global finance, climate change and food insecurity, the responses of the international community are characterised by profound incoherencies between aid and development policies and those policies related to trade, investment, debt or climate finance, which are key pillars for enhancing development, and to end global poverty; accordingly, urges for enlarging the agenda of "aid effectiveness" into a "development effectiveness" agenda, and to address, in this way, the urgency of policy coherence for development;
2011/09/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 29 #

2011/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Stresses that a broader approach of "aid effectiveness" should lead to genuine development effectiveness, that entails that aid architecture is accompanied by a series of reforms beyond aid encompassing trade, investment, migration, debt, taxation, intellectual property, climate change and security;
2011/09/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 30 #

2011/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Recalls that effective aid entails enabling poor countries to mobilise domestic revenues; accordingly, urges once more the EU to make the fight against tax havens, tax evasion its utmost priority, while promoting alternative sources of development finance, i.e. through the setting up of a Financial Transaction Tax; likewise, urges upon the EU to provide enhanced support for assisting developing countries in tax reforms with the aim to support effective, efficient, fair and sustainable tax systems, which should lead to the reduction of poverty and of aid dependency;
2011/09/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 31 #

2011/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the donor countries and the beneficiary countries to take immediate measures to meet their commitments under the Paris Declaration and the AAA, the only obstacles to which are political will and bureaucracy, for example as regards the untying of aid, aid predictability, conditionality and transparencyin particular, stresses upon the need to put into practice the Accra commitment to use country systems as the first option by donors in bilateral government-to- government cooperation and to address the unpredictability of aid flows; urges also donor countries to end all formal and informal practices of aid tying, including technical assistance, and give preference to local and regional procurement;
2011/09/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 34 #

2011/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that aid should serve as a lever for growthsustainable development, taking into account the individual characteristics of each country while strengthening aid effectiveness in those where the need is greatest;
2011/09/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 46 #

2011/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. CStresses that the involvement of local authorities and CSOs in development policies is essential for achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and ensuring good governance; notes with concern that in spite of their recognition in Accra as "development actors in their own right", many CSOs are facing policies and practices that are undermining their role as development actors; more broadly, calls on the donors and partner countries to place the emphasis on greater recognition of participation by parliaments, local authorities and civil society, more transparent use of national systems, and on adjusting the Paris Declaration indicators to reflect the need for more democratic ownership of aid;
2011/09/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 52 #

2011/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Recalls that all governments - donor and recipient - are bound by human rights obligations; stresses that these commitments and accountability to international human rights law is central for achieving development effectiveness; accordingly, urges the EU to commit in Busan to introduce binding measures to ensure that aid respects human rights agreements and empowers poor and vulnerable communities to claim their rights;
2011/09/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 53 #

2011/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses the importance of striking a balance between meeting certain political and fiscal conditionalities and approaches based on performance indicatat conditionality of aid contradicts the principle of democratic ownership; thereforse, so as to ensure that strict political and perftresses also upon the impormtance requirements do not deter partner country governments from implementing their own policies, and even experimenting with new and more adventurous approaches, rather than simply following donors' prescriptionsin Busan to commit donor countries to phasing out economic conditions attached to aid and disbursement as the scope for alternative and nationally developed policy choices should be guaranteed;
2011/09/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 58 #

2011/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the national parliaments to adopt country strategy documents and annual budgets in consultation with civil society and local authorities, in advance of any political dialogue with donors, so as to give full weight to democratic control;
2011/09/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 63 #

2011/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. CNotes with concern that donor division of labour can lead to the marginalisation of cross-cutting issues since division of labour efforts are organised around sectors (such as agriculture, transport or health) rather than around development policy goals; accordingly, calls on the European Union to review its policies on labour division so as to ensure that horizontal issues such as human rights, gender equality and climate change are not overlooked;
2011/09/07
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 3 #

2011/2109(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Strongly encourages the EEAS and the diplomatic services of the EU Member States systematically to ensure thatuse the tools of diplomacy they use in cultivating the EU’s relations withhave at their disposal to promote the ICC among third countries, in particularespecially developing countries, have a positive impact on those countries’ perceptions of the ICC and ofand underline the need for them to support it and to sign and ratify its constituent act (the Rome Statute) if they have not yet done so; notes that this applies to all existing tools of diplomacy,suitable structures for this purpose includinge the EU’s political and human rights dialogues with third countries, in particular developing countries and, among them, the ACP countries;
2011/09/06
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 5 #

2011/2109(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Encourages the ICC and the EU to prioritise support for the strengthening of independent and impartial national judicial systems; points out that justice is one of the fundamental rights, that it must be exercised firstly at national level, the judicial system permitting, and that cases should be referred to the ICC only as a last resort;
2011/09/06
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 8 #

2011/2109(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Acknowledges the crucial role of the ICC in the context of EU foreign policy, in terms of the very development of that policy as well as of the adequate funding and staffing of both the EEAS headquarters and the delegations, but emphasises; emphasises firmly, however, that, in implementing policies which may affect developing countries, the EU has an obligation under the Treaty to take account of development cooperation objectives, the primary one being the reduction and eventual eradication of poverty (Article 208(1) TFEU, second indent); firmly rempoindts the Member States and the EEAS, therefore, that, should they initiate discussions among themselves concerning funding instruments for external action, they must comply rigorously with this Treaty requirement; places equal emphasis on the fact that, in the context of aid programmes for developing countries, policy coherence means, first and foremost, the coheout in this regard that all funding instruments for external action which affect the ICC’s work in developing countries will have to rence of policies designed to further the development of those countries and thus to reduce their level of povertyive new, additional resources;
2011/09/06
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 12 #

2011/2109(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Draws attention to the principle of EU external policy coherence, under which the Union has a duty in its external activities to promote democracy, independent and impartial justice and basic human rights;
2011/09/06
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 14 #

2011/2109(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Draws attention to its resolution of 4 September 2008 on the evaluation of EU sanctions as part of the EU’s actions and policies in the area of human rights; emphasises that there is a growing international consensus to the effect that any serious and deliberate damage to the environment undermines international peace and security and constitutes a violation of human rights; takes the view that any deliberate and irreversible degradation of the environment constitutes a threat to security and a serious violation of human rights; therefore encourages the inclusion of crimes against the environment as crimes against humanity; calls on the ICC to include any deliberate and irreversible damage caused to the environment among the grounds which may lead to the adoption of sanctions.
2011/09/06
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 5 #

2011/2030(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph a) indent 3a (new)
– believes that the UN General Assembly should put in place a binding mechanism to circumvent illicit capital flight and tax evasion from developing countries to guarantee full transparency in international financial transactions,
2011/03/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 6 #

2011/2030(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph a) indent 3b (new)
– give priority to address tax-related aspect of development by putting in place effective and viable tax systems in developing countries to ensure sustainable source of development financing with the long-term objective of replacing foreign aid dependency,
2011/03/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 9 #

2011/2030(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph aa) (new) under subtitle "Least Developed Countries (LDCs)"
aa) to address the current farmland acquisition issue, particularly in LDCs, led by government-backed foreign investors, which, if not handled properly, threatens the local food security and may lead to serious and far-reaching social unrest,
2011/03/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 12 #

2011/2030(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph ca) (new)
ca) replace the current world trade paradigm by fair trade principles which entails paying a fair price for the resources and agricultural products of the developing countries, i.e. a price which reflects the internal and external costs, while guaranteeing ILO core labour standard for working conditions as well as ensuring environment protection;
2011/03/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 17 #

2011/2030(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph fa) (new) under subtitle "Aid effectiveness"
fa) to make aid effective, structural problems of poverty should be addressed including radical policy changes in order to implement social justice and wealth redistribution policies within LDCs and among nations to maintain social cohesion and prevent conflict;
2011/03/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 19 #

2011/2030(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph -ga) (new) under subtitle "Right to Development (RTD)"
-ga) supports the UN declaration on the Right to Development which stipulates that ‘ States have the duty to cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development, realise their rights and fulfil their duties in such a manner as to promote a new international economic order based on sovereign equality, interdependence, mutual interest.’ 1986;
2011/03/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 222 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
(3) The European Consensus on Development and Commission communications ‘Increasing the impact of EU development Policy - An Agenda for Change’, and ‘The future approach of EU budget support to third countries’, as well as any future communication establishing basic orientations and principles for the Union's development policy, and their subsequent conclusArticle 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Unions, provide the general policy framework, the orientations and the focus to guide the implementation of this Regulation.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 223 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4) The Union is founded on the values of democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equalityuniversality and indivisibility of human rights (Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union), the principle of equality and solidarity and respect for the principles of the UN Charter and international law. Respect for human dignity and gender equality, including individual and scolidarity and respect for the principles of the UN Charter and international law. Itlective political and civic rights; respect for economic, social and cultural rights; respect for the rights of women, children and minorities; respect for international treaties on environment and biodiversity will guide the Union's cooperation policy. Cooperation from the Union's side seeks to develop and consolidate commitment to these values in partner countries and regions through dialogue and cooperation. .
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 227 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
(5) The Union also aims to ensure the coherence withof other areas of its external action. This should be ensured when formulating the Union's development cooperation policy and its strategic planning programming and implementation of measures policies with development policy, and aims at guaranteeing peace and stability. This should be ensured when formulating the Union's external action policies in the field of trade, investment, agriculture, fisheries etc. and aligning them with development cooperation policy.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 228 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5 a (new)
(5 a) The Union's policy aims at strengthening the domestic accountability of partner countries through Country/Regional Strategy Papers. Policy priorities shall be set by the respective national/regional parliaments in consultation with their civil society organisations, prior to policy dialogue with the Commission.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 235 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
(8) The Union and the Member States should improve the consistency and the complementarity of their respective policieslement Policy Coherence in all their policy areas in support onf development cooperation, in particular by responding to partner countries' and regions' priorities at country and regional level. To ensure that the Union's development cooperation policy and that of the Member States complement and reinforce each other, it is appropriate to provide for joint programming procedures which should be implemented whenever possible and relevant.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 239 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
(9) The Union's policy and international action for development cooperation are guided by Policy Coherence for Development and the MDGs, such aiming ast the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger, including any subsequent modifications thereto, and by the development objectives and principles approved by the Union and, its Member States, and the European Parliament, including in the context of their cooperation within the United Nations (UN) and other competent international organisations in the field of development cooperation.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 241 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
(10) The Union should promote a comprehensive approach in response to crisis and disaster and to conflict-affected and fragile situations, including those of transition. This should in particular build on the Council conclusions on Security and Development on an EU response to situations of fragility on conflict prevention as well as any relevant subsequent conclusions. This should provide the necessary mix of approaches, responses and instruments in particular by ensuring an appropriate balance between the security-oriented, development and humanitarian approaches, and by linking short-term reaction with the long term supportbuild on the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid. To ensure that short-term reaction ties in with long-term support, the link between Relief, Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD) should be developed. Each country analysis and programming should contain a conflict analysis.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 245 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
(11) Union assistance should focus where it has more impact, having regard to its capacity to act on a global scale and respond to global challenges, such as poverty eradication, sustainable and inclusive development and and inequality, to promote sustainable development and its capacity regarding the worldwide promotion of democracy, good governance, human rights and the rule of law, its long-term andsocial and economic rights in its long-term and having regard to its predictable commitment to development assistance and its role in coordinating with its Member States. To ensure such impact, the principle of differentiation should be applied not only at the level of funds allocation, but also at the level of programming, to ensure that bilateral development cooperation targets partner countries most in need, including fragile states and states with high vulnerability, and with limited capacity to have access to other sources of financing for supporting their own development, having regard to the potential impact of the Union assistance in partner countries. As a consequence, bilateral programming would target such countries, pursuant to the application of objective criteria based on the needs and capacities of these countries, as well as the impact of EU assistance.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 247 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
(12) This Regulation should provide an enabling framework for programming, allowing enhanced consistency between Union policies by using a joint framework documentherence in favour of sustainable development between Union policies as a basis for programming. It should enable full alignment with partner countries and regions by relying, where appropriate, on national development plans or similar comprehensive development documents, adopted by partner countries or regions in consultation with their respective parliaments and civil societies; and pursue a better coordination amongst donors, in particular between the Union and its Member States, through joint programming.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 248 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
(14) In a globalised world, different internal EU policies such as environment, climate change, employment (including decent work for all), gender equality, energy, water, transport, health, education, justice and security, research and innovation, information society, migration, agriculture and, fisheries, trade and investment are increasingly becoming part of the EU's external action. Commission Communication ‘Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ underlines the commitment of the Union to promote in its internal and external policies smart, inclusive and sustainable growth bringing together three pillars: economic, social and environmentalThey should be in conformity with the principles of Policy Coherence for Development, as enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Union is committed to promote in its internal and external policies smart, inclusive and sustainable growth bringing together three pillars: economic, social and environmental. To fulfil these three pillars, the Union's internal and external policies aim at eliminating obstacles to development by formulating policies with respect to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as well as international treaties and agreements on environment and biodiversity.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 251 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
(15) Fighting climate change and protecting the environment are among the great challenges which face the Union and where the need for international action is urgent. In accordance with the intent stated in Commission Communication ‘A budget for Europe 2020’ of 29 June 2011, this Regulation should contribute to the objective of addressing at least 20% of the EU budget to low carbon and climate resilient society, and the global public goods and challenges programme should use at least 25% of its funds to cover climate change and environment. Adeveloping countries where the need for national and international actions in these two areas should, wherever possible, be mutually supportive in order to reinforce their impactss urgent.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 254 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
(16) Commission communication ‘Increasing the impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change’EU Development Policy envisages continued support for social inclusion and human developmentservices through at least 20% of the Union's development aid. To contribute to that end, at least 20% of the global public goods and challenges programme should support that area of development.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 255 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) The lists of partner countries under this Regulation should be adapted on the basis of possible changes to their status as established by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD/DAC), as well as important changes in human development, aid dependency, crisis situations, vulnerability and other aspects including the dynamics of the development process. Such updates, reviews of the partner countries eligible for bilateral development cooperation and modifications in the definitions of detailed areas of cooperation and activities, and adjustments of the indicative financial allocation per programme, constitute non- essential elements of this Regulation. Consequently, in order to adapt its scope to the rapidly evolving reality in third countries, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission for updating the Annexes of this Regulation which includes the list of partner countries and regions eligible for Union financing, the definition of detailed areas of cooperation under geographic and thematic programmes and the indicative allocations per programme. It is of particular importance that the Commission should carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should further ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and Council.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 257 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
(18) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission.deleted
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 258 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
(19) The implementing powers relating to strategy papers and multiannual indicative programmes laid down in Articles 11 to 14 of this Regulation should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers. Taking into account the nature of those implementing acts, in particular their policy orientation nature or their budgetary implications, the examination procedure should in general be used for their adoption, except for measures of a small financial scale. The Commission should adopt immediately applicable implementing acts where, in duly justified cases relating to the need for a swift response from the Union, imperative grounds of urgency so requires.deleted
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 260 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) a Pan-African programme to support the Joint Africa-EU Strategy in the countries, territories and regions covered by that Strategy.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 266 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the primary objective of cooperation under this Regulation shall be the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty;. To achieve this objective, the EU focuses on structural causes of poverty by implementing a rights-based approach to development in all its policies.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 267 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b – introductory part
(b) cooperation under this Regulation will also contribute to the achievement of other objectives of EU external action, in particular:
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 268 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b – point ii
(ii) promoting democracy, the rule of law, good governance and respect for human rights including economic, social and cultural rights as well as international treaties on environment and biodiversity protection and mainstreaming of climate change adaptation and mitigation..
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 270 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The achievement of these objectives shall be measured using relevant indicators, in particular MDG 1 for subparagraph (a) and MDGs 1 to 8 for subparagraph (b),the human development index and other indicators agreed by the Union and its Member States.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 275 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Without prejudice to point (a), aAt least 90 % of the expenditure foreseen under the Pan-African and thematic programmes shall fulfil the criteria for ODA established by the OECD/DAC.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 276 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. The Union seeks to promote, develop the universality and indivisibility of human rights, and consolidate the principles of democracy, the rule of law and respect for humanall aspects of human rights including social, economic and cultural rights and fundamental freedoms on which it is founded, through dialogue and cooperation with partner countries and regions.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 283 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. The following cross-cutting issues shall be mainstreamed in all programmes: the promotion of human rights - including economic, social and cultural rights - , gender equality, women empowerment, non- discrimination, democracy, good governance, the rights of the child and indigenous peoples' rights, social inclusion and the rights of persons with disabilities, environmental sustainability including addressing climate change and combating HIV/AIDS.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 288 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Particular attention shall be given to strengthening the rule of law, improving access to justice and supporting civil society, trade and sustainable development, access to ICTs, health and food security, as well as promoting dialogue, participation and reconciliation, and institution-buildingcivic and political rights, promoting dialogue with civil society and participation of the population in decision-making, peaceful resolution of conflict and democratic institution-building; improving access to justice, ICTs, health care, education and to quality and sufficient food.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 292 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5
5. In implementing this Regulation, consistency shall be ensured with other areas of Union external action and with other relevant Union policies. To this end, measures financed under this Regulation, including those managed by the EIB, shall be based on the cooperation policies set out in instruments such as agreements, declarations and action plans between the Union and the third countries and regions concerned, and on the Union's decisions, specific interests, policy priorities and strategiesMeasures financed under this Regulation, including those managed by the EIB, and action plans, policy priorities and strategies in the field of development policy between the Union and the third countries and regions concerned shall be based on the cooperation policies set out in this instrument.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 295 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 6
6. The Commission and, the Member States and the European Parliament shall seek regular and frequent exchanges of information, including with other donors, and to promote better donor coordination and complementarity by working towards joint multiannual programming, based on partner countries' poverty reduction or equivalent strategies, by common implementation mechanisms including shared analysis, by joint donor- wide missions and by the use of co- financing and delegated cooperation arrangements.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 297 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 8 – introductory part
8. The Union shall promote effective cooperation with partner countries and regions in line with international best practice. It shall increasingly align its support with partners' national or regional development strategies, reform policies and procedures. It shall contribute to strengthening the process ofapproved by the respective national/regional parliament. It shall contribute to strengthening the process of partner countries' domestic accountability to their citizens as well as mutual accountability between partner governments and institutions and donors and promote l. Local expertise and local employment will also be promoted. To that end, it shall promote :
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 299 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 8 – point a
(a) a development process that is partner country or region led and owned;Ownership: a partner country or region government shall identify, in consultation with their respective national/regional parliaments and civil society organisations concerned, priority sectors to be financed by the Union.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 301 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 8 – point b
(b) inclusive and participatory approaches to development andthe empowerment of the population of partner countries, the strengthening of domestic accountability, the provision of participatory and transparent decision- making processes and of a mechanism for a broad involvement of all segments of society in the development process and in national and regional dialogue, including political dialogue;
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 302 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 8 – point c
(c) effective and innovative cooperation modalities and instruments as set out in Article 4 of the Common Implementing Regulation , such as blending grants and loans and other risk-sharing mechanisms in selected sectors and countries and private-sector engagement, in line with OECD/DAC best practices. These modalities and instruments shall be adapted to the particular circumstances of each partner country or region, with a focus on programme-based approaches, on delivery of predictable aid funding, on the mobilisation of private resources, on the development and use of country systems and on results-based approaches to development including, where appropriate, internationally agreed targets and indicators such as those of the MDGs; andeleted
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 305 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 9
9. The Union will support inter alia the implementation of bilateral, regional and multilateral cooperation and dialogue, partnership agreements and triangular cooperation.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 310 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Geographic programmes and the Pan- African Programme may be drawn from the areas of cooperation contained in the "European Consensus", with the agreement of partner countries, amongst others, in order to attain the objectives provided for in Article 2(1).
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 312 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. Within each country programme, the Union will in principle concentrate its assistance on three sectors, agreed by the partner country.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 313 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) the actions address global initiatives supporting internationally agreed goals on development policy or in developing countries, or global public goods and challenges, in which case, by way of derogation from Article 9 of the Common Implementing Regulation, they may include actions in Member States, candidate countries and potential candidates and other third countries, as envisaged in the relevant thematic programme, provided these actions are eligible as ODA according to the OECD/DAC;
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 314 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point c – indent 4
– actions which reflect a Union policy priority in the field of development cooperation or an international obligation or commitment of the Union; in the field of development cooperation, and
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 319 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. The objective of the programme on civil society organisations and local authorities in development shall be to organise a policy dialogue with civil society and local authorities from the North and the South on the Union's development policy and to finance initiatives in the area of development by or for civil society organisations and local authorities originating from partner countries, the Union, candidate countries and potential candidates.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 320 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Twenty percent of all resources committed under this thematic programme shall be allocated to projects supporting gender equality.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 321 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 a (new)
Article 8 a Conflict prevention and peacebuilding 1. The objective of the thematic programme on conflict prevention and peacebuilding shall be to finance initiatives in the area of conflict prevention and peacebuilding in partner countries, including mediation activities. 2. The programme on conflict prevention and peacebuilding shall be subject to specific financial regulations guaranteeing rapid reaction and increased flexibility in programation and implementation of the initiatives, in line with the requirements of effective conflict prevention and peacebuilding.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 322 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 b (new)
Article 8 b Post-disaster reconstruction and development 1. The objective of the thematic programme on post-disaster reconstruction and development shall be to finance initiatives in the area of post- disaster reconstruction and development in partner countries, thereby bridging the gap between humanitarian aid and development aid. 2. The programme on post-disaster reconstruction and development shall be subject to specific financial regulations guaranteeing rapid reaction and increased flexibility in programation and implementation of the initiatives, in line with the requirements of effective post- disaster reconstruction and development. In particular, the time span between programation and beginning of the implementation of initiatives shall not exceed six months.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 323 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Union assistance shall support the implementation of the Joint Africa-EU Strategy, and in particular its successive Action plans, to cover activities of a trans- regional, continental or global nature.deleted
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 325 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3
3. The multiannual indicative programme for the Pan-African programme shall be drawn up on the basis of a strategy paper based on the Joint Africa- EU Strategy and its Action plans.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 326 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
For geographic programmes and the Pan- African Programme, multiannual indicative programmes forshall be drawn up by partner countries and regions shall be drawn upand submitted to the Union for financing on the basis of an agreed strategy document with the partner country/region, as provided for in Article 11.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 331 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Strategy papers are documents drawn up by the partner country and agreed with the Union to provide a coherent framework for development cooperation between the Union and the partner country or region concerned, consistent with the overall purpose and scope, objectives, principles and policy of the Unionpartner country and Union in the field of development.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 332 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
To that end, strategy papers shall, in principle, be based on a dialogue between the Union and the partner country or region, involving where appropriate, the relevant Member States, and the partner country or region, involvingso as to ensure that the country or region concerned prepares the strategy paper with the involvement of the national/regional parliament and in consultation with its respective civil society and regional and local authorities, so as to ensure that the country or region concerned takes sufficienttake full ownership of the process and to encourage support for national development strategies, particularly those for reducing poverty.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 334 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Strategy papers shall be drawn up forby the relevant partner countries or regions, unless a joint framework document laying down a comprehensive Union strategy, including development policy, has been drawn up fortogether with the partner country or region concerned and with the involvement of national/regional parliaments.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 335 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point a
(a) countries having a national development strategy in the form of a national development plan or a similar development document accepted by the Commission as a basis for the corresponding multiannual indicative programme, when adopting of the latter document;
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 336 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point b
(b) countries or regions for which a joint multiannual programming document, including a chapter on development cooperation, between the Union and Member States and partner countries/regions has been agreed;
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 337 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point c
(c) regions having a jointly agreed strategydevelopment strategy, involving regional parliaments, with the EU.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 338 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
Multiannual indicative programmes shall be drawn up for each of thetogether with each countriesy or regions receiving an indicative allocation of Union funds under this Regulation Except for countries or regions mentioned in paragraph 4, these documents shall be drawn up on the basis of the strategy papers or similar documents referred to in this Article.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 339 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 3
Multiannual indicative programmes shall set out the priority areas selectedagreed with partner countries/regions for Union financing, the specific objectives, the expected results, the performance indicators and the indicative financial allocation, both overall and per priority area. Where appropriate, this allocation may be given in the form of a range and/or somea limited amount of funds may be left unallocated.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 341 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 5
Pursuant to the principle of mutual accountability in the pursuit and fulfilment of agreed objectives, including those referring to good governance, democracy and respect for human rights and to the rule of law, social, economic and cultural rights as well as respect for the environment and biodiversity, indicative allocations may be increased or decreased as a result of reviews, particularly in the light of special needs such as those resulting from a crisis, post-crisis or fragility situation, or where performance has been exceptional or unsatisfactory.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 344 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Multiannual indicative programmes for thematic programmes shall set out the Union's and partner country/region's strategy for the theme concerned, the priorities jointly selected for financing by the Union, the specific objectives, the expected results, the performance indicators, the international situation and the activities of the main partners. Where applicable, resources and intervention priorities shall be laid down for participation in global initiatives. Multiannual indicative programmes shall be consistent with the documents referred to in Article 11(3).
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 345 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. The multiannual indicative programmes shall give the indicative financial allocation, both overall and by priority area. Where appropriate, this allocation may, be given in the form of a range, and/or somea limited amount of funds may be left unallocated. Multiannual indicative programmes should be adjusted where necessary for an effective policy implementation, taking into account any mid-term or ad hoc reviews.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 349 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Strategy papers shall be approved and multiannual indicative programmes shall be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the examination procedureby way of delegated acts as referred to in Article 15(3)290 of the Common Implementing RegulatTreaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This procedure shall also apply to substantial reviews which have the effect of significantly modifying the strategy or its programming.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 352 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2
2. The indicative minimum amounts allocated to each programme referred to in Articles 5 to 9 for the period 2014-2020 are laid down in Annex VII. The amounts may be reallocated between programmes by a delegated act in accordance with Article 18. The amounts within the global public goods and challenges programme may be reallocated between subheadings by Commission decision which shall be communicated to the European Parliament and to the Council within one month of its adoption.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 361 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – Chapter A – paragraph I – point a
(a) Democracy, human rights and the rule of law; - promoting political pluralism and protecting political, civil, social, economic, cultural and minority rights, in line with international agreements and in accordance with a human rights-based approach to development, - strengthening the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary systems and ensuring access to justice, - supporting and strengthening democratic institutions, including the role of parliaments and audit institutions, - supporting transparent and accountable institutions and their functioning, promoting decentralisation; promoting dialogue with social partners.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 372 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – Chapter A – paragraph I – point d
(d) Tax policy and administration; - supporting the building up or strengthening of fair, transparent, effective, progressive and sustainable domestic tax systems which promote equity, poverty reduction and social cohesion, - strengthening monitoring capacities in developing countries in the fight against illicit financial flows, - supporting national oversight bodies, parliaments and civil society organisations, to produce and disseminate work on tax fraud and its impact, to ensure public scrutiny of public financial management, including tax governance performance and to assist in policy formulation, where appropriate and feasible, - supporting multilateral and regional initiatives on tax administration and tax reforms, - supporting developing countries to participate more effectively in international tax cooperation structures and processes, allowing them to negotiate relevant agreements, improve tax information exchange, - promoting country by country reporting on EU publicly-listed companies as well as large unlisted companies active in the extractive industry and the logging of primary forests to report the payments they make to local, regional and national governments in third countries.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 375 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – Chapter A – paragraph I – point f
(f) Civil society and local authorities; - supporting capacity building of civil society organisations, in order to strengthen their voice and active participation in the development process and to advance political, social and economic dialogue, - supporting local authorities, and mobilising their expertise to promote a regional and local approach to development, e.g. through networks of excellence or twinning exercises, - promote an enabling environment for citizen participation and civil society action.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 378 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – Chapter A – paragraph I – point g
(g) Natural resources; and- supporting oversight processes and bodies and backing governance reforms that promote the sustainable and transparent management and preservation of natural resources, including raw materials, maritime resources and forests, and ecosystem services, with particular attention to the dependence of vulnerable groups on them, especially smallholder farmers and indigenous groups, while ensuring a gender-sensitive approach and active participation of local communities, - promoting sustainable patterns of production and consumption and the safe and sustainable management of chemicals and waste, taking into account their impacts on health.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 381 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – Chapter A – paragraph I – point h
(h) Development-security nexus. - addressing the root-causes of violent conflict, including poverty, degradation of environment, exploitation of resources and unequal distribution of wealth as well as access to land and natural resources, weak governance, human rights abuses and gender inequality as a means of supporting conflict prevention, resolution and peace building, - promoting dialogue, participation and reconciliation with a view to promoting peace and preventing outbreaks of violence in accordance with international best practice as defined by the OECD/DAC, - fostering the independence of justice, the fight against drugs and other trafficking including trafficking in human beings, corruption and money laundering, with a specific focus on protecting poor and vulnerable groups and assisting them in building secure and sustainable livelihoods;
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 382 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – Chapter A – paragraph II – title
II. Inclusive and sustainable growth forSustainable human development
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 384 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – Chapter A – paragraph II – point a
(a) Social protection, health, education and jobs; health, education, employment and social protection and jobs; - supporting sector reforms that increase access to basic social services, in particular quality health and education services, with a central focus on the related MDGs , and on access to such services by lower income population groups and marginalised groups, including women and children, persons belonging to groups subject to ethnic, religious or any other discrimination and persons with disabilities, - strengthening local capacities to respond to the challenge that the country /regions face, through sectoral budget support with intensified policy dialogue, - strengthening access to health systems in order to promote better health care, addressing the qualified human resource crisis of health providers, fair financing for health and making medicines more affordable for the poor, promoting policy coherence and increasing protection against global health threats so as to improve access to health care for all, - supporting the full implementation of strategies to promote sexual and reproductive health and rights, while linking this with the fight against HIV/AIDS, - ensuring an adequate supply of sufficient and affordable good quality drinking water, adequate sanitation and hygiene to every human being, - enhancing support for and equal access to quality education to give young people, and in particular girls and women, the knowledge and skills to be active members of an evolving society; supporting vocational training for employability and capacity to carry out and use the results of research in favour of sustainable development, - supporting national social protection schemes including social insurance systems, which contribute to reducing inequalities, preventing social exclusion and combating discrimination against all groups, while paying particular attention to gender issues, the rights of indigenous peoples, children and the condition of disabled people, - supporting the decent work agenda , and promoting social dialogue, - encouraging policies to facilitate regional labour mobility.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 390 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – Chapter A – paragraph II – point b
(b) Business environment, regional integration and world markets; and Regional integration - supporting the development of the local private sector, including promoting SMEs and cooperatives, - promoting the development of local and regional markets through Union Aid for Trade and trade facilitation instruments, - supporting legislative and regulatory framework reforms and their enforcement, including for the use of modern means of communication, facilitating access to business and financial services, such as micro-credit and micro-finance and reducing excessive regulatory burden; supporting the enforcement of internationally agreed labour rights, promoting corporate social responsibility and social dialogue, - promoting agricultural, industrial and innovation policies which contribute to sustainable and development in favour of the poorest regions and sectors of the society; foster cooperation in the area of science, research and technology , in particular for development-related research, - promoting investments that generate local employment and support human resources development; improving infrastructure in support of efforts to eradicate poverty with full respect for social and environmental standards; supporting national, regional and local public authorities and parliaments to enable them to regulate markets effectively, - engaging with the private sector, with a focus on financing for domestic and regional companies, in particular at SME level, in order to enhance socially responsible and sustainable development for the benefit of the population, - assisting developing countries through fostering equitable and environmentally sustainable development, supporting partners' policies in areas such as building local and regional markets, infrastructure and cross-border cooperation regarding access by the poor to water, sustainable energy and human security with a view to supporting social justice, - promoting a sustainable transport sectoral approach, meeting partner countries' needs, ensuring transport safety, affordability, efficiency, and minimising negative effects on the environment, - supporting more generalized access to information and communication technologies to bridge the digital divide.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 396 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – Chapter A – paragraph II – point c
(c) Sustainable agriculture and energy. , food security and sustainable energy. - supporting the development of infrastructures to commercialize food from the surplus to the deficit area and putting in place storage for food at local and regional level, - supporting sustainable agricultural practices and relevant agricultural research, including the safeguarding of ecosystem services, giving priority to locally-developed practices and focusing on smallholder agriculture and rural livelihoods, formation of producer groups, the supply and marketing chain and supporting women in agriculture, - encouraging government efforts to facilitate socially and ecologically responsible private investment and assess the impact of large scale land-acquisitions on food security, - supporting strategic approaches to food security, with a focus on food availability, - addressing food insecurity in situations of transition and fragility, by supporting interventions to protect, maintain and recover productive and social assets vital for food security, to facilitate economic integration and longer-term rehabilitation, - supporting country-led, participatory, decentralised and environmentally sustainable local and regional development, aimed at involving beneficiaries in the identification of investments, - supporting transparent and effective institutional and financial environments to improve access to modern, affordable, sustainable and efficient renewable energy services, with a priority for local and regional sustainable energy solutions, and decentralised energy production, so as to bring development priorities in line with environmental concerns.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 400 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – Chapter A – paragraph III – point b
(b) Migration and asylum; and - supporting targeted efforts to fully exploit the interrelationship between migration, mobility, employment and poverty eradication, so as to make migration a positive force for development, - putting in place a program to deal with brain drain and to address the shortage of skilled persons in different fields, in support of development, - support developing countries in adopting long-term policies for managing migratory flows, including human trafficking, which respect the human rights of migrants and their families and enhance their social protection
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 407 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – Chapter B – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(b a) Assisting Latin-American states to fulfil their obligation of due diligence in the prevention, investigation, legal prosecution, sanction and reparation of and attention to feminicide; among others through: - Strengthening the investigation and prosecution of feminicide, by providing training for judges and members of the security forces on feminicide; providing assistance for the establishment of unified protocols for cases of feminicide; providing training and advisory assistance and supporting scientific developments, documentation and dissemination with regard to Latin-American forensic anthropology, - Providing technical and financial support to the work of the Inter-American System of Human Rights, in particular on the issue of feminicide and contributing to the implementation of its sentences, - Supporting the establishment of data bases on feminicides, - Supporting governmental and non- governmental local, national and regional organisations in developing preventive measures against feminicide.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 424 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – Chapter A – introductory part
In compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 6, the Global public goods and challenges programme aims at strengthening cooperation, exchange of knowledge and experience and partner countries' capacities. The programme may with a view to adopting policies which contribute to poverty eradication and sustainable development. The programme, while ensuring an adequate contribution to supporting access to basic social services, shall be drawn inter alia from the following areas of cooperation, ensuring a maximum synergy amongst them in light of their strong interconnection:
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 427 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – Chapter A – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) promoting implementation ofing the Union initiatives and agreed commitments at international and regional level and/or of a transboundary character particularly in the areas of climate change through the promotion of climate resilient strategies especially adaptiongiving priority to strategies withto promote biodiversity co-benefits, biodiversity and ecosystems services, forests including, protection of ecosystems and natural resources, sustainable management including oceans, land, water, fisheries and forests (e.g. through mechanisms such as FLEGT), desertification, integrated water resource management, natural resource management, sound chemical asound waste management, resource efficiency and the green economy;
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 428 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – Chapter A – paragraph 1 – point c
(cd) contributing to increasing the integration and mainstreaming of climate change and environmental protection objectives in EU aiddevelopment cooperation policy through policy coherence including support for methodological and research work in and by developing countries, including monitoring, reporting and verification mechanisms, ecosystem mapping, assessment and evaluation, enhancing environmental expertise and promoting innovative actions and policy coherence;
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 432 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – Chapter A – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) promoting access to secure, and affordable, clean and sustain renewable energy services as a key driver for poverty eradication and inclusive growth, with a special emphasis on the use of local energy sources and of ensuring access for poor people in remote areas;
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 437 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – Chapter A – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) promoting energy security for partner countries and local communities through e.g. diversification of sources and routes, considering price volatility issues, emission reduction potential, improving markets and fostering energy interconnections and trade.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 438 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – Chapter A – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) Growth, jobs and private sector engagement Promoting actions aiming at creating more and better jobs, by developing a socially and ecologically responsible local private sector and improving the business environment, supporting local industries, supporting regional integration efforts through the promotion of the green economy: resource efficiency, sustainable consumption and production processes. Promoting the use of electronic modern means of communication as a tool to support pro-poor growth across all sectors in order to bridge the digital divide between developing and industrialized countries and inside developing countries, to achieve an adequate policy and regulatory framework in this area and promoting the development of the necessary infrastructure and the use of services and applications based on ICT.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 440 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – Chapter A – paragraph 3 – point a
Promoting actions aiming at creating more and better jobs, in areas such as developing the competitiveness and resilience of local MSMEs and their integration into the global economy, assisting developing countries to integrate into the multilateral trading system, developing the private sector and improving the business environment, supporting the definition and implementation of industrial innovation and technology policies and of trade policies and agreeby developing a socially and ecologically responsible local private sector and improving the business environment, supporting local added value and industrial developments, supporting regional integration efforts, promoting investment relations between the EU and partner countries and regions and leveraging private and public investment and cooperation through innovative financial instruments. Promoting through the promotion of the green economy,: resource efficiency and, sustainable consumption and production processes. Promoting the use of electronic modern means of communications as a tool to support pro- poor growth across all sectors in order to bridge the digital divide between developing and industrialized countries and inside developing countries, to achieve an adequate policy and regulatory framework in this area and promoting the development of necessary infrastructure and the use of services and applications based on ICT.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 442 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – Chapter A – paragraph 3 – point b – point i
(i) Supporting high levels of productive and decent employment notably with support for sound employment policies and strategies, vocational training for employability relevant to local labour market needs and perspectives, working conditions including in the informal economy, promotion of decent work, based on the labour standards of the International Labour Organization (ILO), including fight against child labour, andpromoting social dialogue, as well as facilitation of labour mobility while respecting and promoting migrants' rights;
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 444 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – Chapter A – paragraph 3 – point b – point i a (new)
(ia) Promoting the WHO code of conduct on the international recruitment of qualified health personnel from developing countries to curb the shortage of health personnel and the brain drain,
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 449 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – Chapter A – paragraph 3 – point c – point i
(i) Supporting country and regional level programmes to promote women's economic and social empowerment and political participation;
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 452 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – Chapter A – paragraph 3 – point c – point ii
(ii) supporting national, regional and global initiatives to promote the integration of this issue ingender equality and women's empowerment into policies, plans and budgets, including in international, national and regional development frameworks and into the aid effectiveness agenda.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 467 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – Chapter A – paragraph 3 – point e a (new)
(ea) Children and youth (i) combating trafficking of and all forms of violence against children, and promotion of policies taking into consideration youth's and children's particular vulnerability and potentials, protection of their rights and interests, education, health and livelihoods, starting with participation and empowerment; (ii) enhancing developing countries' attention and capacity to develop policies benefiting youth and children and promoting the role of children and youth as actors for development. (iii) supporting the development of concrete strategies and interventions to address particular problems and challenges affecting youth and children taking their best interests into account in all relevant action.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 468 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – Chapter A – paragraph 3 – point e b (new)
(eb) Culture (i) promotion of inter-cultural dialogue, cultural diversity and respect for the equal dignity of all cultures; (ii) promotion of international cooperation to stimulate the contribution of cultural industries to economic growth in developing countries to fully exploit its potential for fighting poverty, including addressing issues such as market access and intellectual property rights; (iii) promotion of respect for the social, cultural and spiritual values of indigenous peoples and minorities to enhance equality and justice in multi- ethnic societies, in compliance with universal human rights to which everyone is entitled, including indigenous peoples and persons belonging to minorities; (iv) supporting culture as a promising economic sector for development and growth.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 469 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – Chapter A – paragraph 4 – introductory part
The programme will strengthen cooperation, exchange of knowledge and experience and partner countries' capacities on the fourive pillars of food security, with a gender-sensitive approach: food availability (production), access (including markets,land, infrastructure for food transport from surplus to deficit area, local and regional market building, establishing domestic food reserves for safety nets and gender awareness), utilisation (nutrition interventions in socially aware ways) and stability, while prioritising four dimensions: smallholder agriculture, governance, regional integration andfood processing to create added value, governance (participation of farmers in policy making) , regional integration and providing public support to household farmers including assistance mechanisms for vulnerable populations.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 471 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – Chapter A – paragraph 4 – point a
(a) Promoting the development of sustainable smallholder agriculture through ecosystem-based, low carbon and climate- resilient secure access to technology (including information and communication technologies), and through extension and technical services, rural development schemes, productive and responsible investment measures, land and natural resource management, protection of genetic diversity, in an enabling economic environment;in accordance with international guidelines, sustainable land and natural resource management, guaranteeing, by law, land rights of the population in its various form and provide access to land for local populations, protection of genetic diversity,
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 474 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – Chapter A – paragraph 4 – point b
(b) supporting environmentally and socially responsible aware policy making and governance of the relevant sectors, the role of the public and non-public actors in its regulation and the use of public goods, its organisational capacity, professional organisations and institutions;
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 476 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – Chapter A – paragraph 5 – introductory part
Migration and Asylum The programme, funded on a human rights based approach to migration, will address the challenges of migration flows, and in particular South-South migration, the situation of vulnerable migrants such as unaccompanied minors, victims of trafficking, asylum seekers, migrant women, and the condition of children, women and families left in the countries of origin.
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 477 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – Chapter A – paragraph 5 – point a
(a) Promoting migration governance at all levels, with a particular focus on the social and economic consequences of migration, and recognising the key role of civil society organisations, including diaspora, and local authorities in addressing migration as an essential component of the development strategy;
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 478 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – Chapter A – paragraph 5 – point b
(b) ensuring better management of migratory flows in all their dimensions, in line with respect for human rights and improving the integration of migrants in countries of destination;
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 480 #

2011/0406(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex V – Chapter B – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) raising public awareness of development issues and promoting formal and informal education for development in the Union, in candidate and potential candidate countries, to anchor development policy in European societies, to mobilise greater public support for action against poverty and for more equitable relations between developed and developing countries, to raise awareness of the issues and difficulties facing developing countries and their peoples, and to promote the social dimension of globalisation;
2012/07/17
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 22 #

2011/0308(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
(32) In order to provide for enhanced transparency of payments made to governments, all large undertakings and public interest entities which are active in the extractive industry or logging of primary forests should disclose in a separate report on an annual basis material payments made to governments in the countrishould disclose as part of the annual report of financial statements a report on material payments made to governments in the countries in which they operate, as well as additional financial information regarding their activities in third countries. The disclosure of these data aims at enabling investors to make better-informed decisions, improving corporate governance and accountability and contributing to containing tax evasion. The report should incorporate disclosures ion which they operate. Sa country basis. Furthermore, where such undertakings are active in countries rich inthe extraction of natural resources, in particular minerals, oil, natural gas as well as primary forests. The report should include types of payments comparable to those disclosed by an undertaking participating in, as well as in fisheries activities, reporting shall also specify the specific project or projects to which those payments have been attributed. The report should accordingly build upon the disclosure requirements of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). The initiative is also complementary to the EU FLEGT Action Plan (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade) and the Timber Regulation which require traders of timber products to exercise due diligence in order to prevent illegal wood from entering into the EU market.
2012/05/15
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 25 #

2011/0308(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
(33) The reports should serve to facilitate governments to be accountable to their citizens for payments such governments receive from undertakings operating within their jurisdiction. Where such undertakings are active in the extraction of natural resources, the reports should serve to facilitate governments of resource-rich countries in implementing the EITI Principles and Criteria and account to their citizens for payments such governments receive from undertakings active in the extractive industry or loggers of primary forests operating within their jurisdiction. The report should incorporate disclosures on a country and project basis, where a project is considered as the lowest level of operational reporting unit at which the undertaking prepares regular internal management reports, such as a concession, geographical basbasis and in the case of undertakings active in the extractive industries, fishery sector or the logging of primary forests, the report should also specify the specific project or projects to which those payments have been attributed, a project being considered equivalent to the contract, licence, lease, concession or other legal agreement which gives rise to a company's tax and revenue liabilities in, etc and where payments have been attributed to such projects. In the light of the overall objective of promoting good governance in these countries, the materiality of payments to be reported should be assessed in relation to the recipient government. Various criteria on materiality could be envisaged such asach country where it operates. Where any payment liabilities are incurred on a different basis, reporting shall be on that basis. In the light of the overall objective of promoting good governance in these countries, payments shall be considered material if any one payments of an absolute amount, or a percentage threshold (such as payments in excess of a percentage of a country's GDP) and these can be defined through a delegated actr set of payments of the same type amounts to more than EUR 15 000. The reporting regime should be subject to a review and a report by the Commission within fiveour years of the entry into force of the Directive. The review should consider the effectiveness of the regime and take into account international developments including issues of competitiveness and energy security. The review should also take into account the experience of preparers and users of the payments information and consider whether it would be appropriate to include additional payment information such as effective tax rates and recipient details, such as bank account information.
2012/05/15
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 31 #

2011/0308(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point 1
1. Undertaking active in the extractive industry’ means an undertaking with any activity involving the exploration, discovery, development, and extraction of minerals, oil and natural gas deposits, as referred to in Section B-Divisions 05 to 08 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Councilmeans the highest level parent company publishing accounts within the European Union where the group of companies for which that parent company prepares consolidated financial statements includes subsidiary companies, branches, permanent establishments, joint ventures and associate undertakings.
2012/05/15
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 33 #

2011/0308(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point 3
3. 'Government' means any national, regional or local authority of a Member State or of a third country. It includes a department, agency or undertaking controlled by that authority as laid down in Article 23 (1) to (6) of this Directive, or any government entity, [state undertaking, companies belonging to government members, their relatives and close relations], that receives any payment of the type noted in Article 38 from any constituent member of an undertaking.
2012/05/15
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 35 #

2011/0308(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point 4 a (new)
4a. "Constituent entities" means those subsidiaries, associates, joint ventures, permanent establishments and other trading arrangements that shall in whole or in part be considered members of the Undertaking to the extent that they are consolidated in the annual financial statements of that Undertaking.
2012/05/15
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 36 #

2011/0308(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 37 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall require large undertakings and all public interest entities active in the extractive industry or the logging of primary forests to prepare and make public a report on payments made to governments on an annu, including joint-venture undertakings, and all public interest entities to prepare and make public a report on payments, including payments in kind, made to governments on an annual basis as part of the annual report of financial statements. In this report, the undertaking shall also publish additional financial information regarding their activities in third countries. In particular, the report shall include activities of subsidiaries, associates, joint ventures, permanent establishments and other trading arrangements to the extent that they are consolidated in the annual financial statements of the undertaking or entity in question. The report shall basis. e part of the notes to the financial statements.
2012/05/15
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 39 #

2011/0308(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 38 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) taxes on profits, and the effective tax rate applied;
2012/05/15
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 40 #

2011/0308(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 38 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) royalties, and the effective tax rate applied;
2012/05/15
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 45 #

2011/0308(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 39 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
(ba) The report shall also specify the following additional financial information on a country-by-country basis: (a) net turnover broken down by main categories of activity; (b) quantities produced sale or exchange; (c) profit or loss before taxation; (d) total number of people employed and their aggregate remuneration. (e) expenditure on fixed asset investment during the course of the period.
2012/05/15
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 3 #

2011/0307(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
(7) In order to provide for enhanced transparency of financial activities in third countries, in particular payments made to governments, issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market and which have activities in the extractive or logging of primary forest industries should disclose in a separate report on an annual basis payments made to governments in the countries in which they operate. The report should include types of payments comparable toshould disclose, as part of the annual report on financial statements, payments made to governments in the countries in which they operate on a per-country basis. The disclosure of such data is intended to enable investors to make better-informed decisions, thereby improving corporate governance and accountability and contributing to the containment of tax evasion. The report should incorporate disclosures on a country basis. For issuers active in the extractive industry, fisheries or the logging of primary forests, the report should also specify the specific project or projects to which those payments have been attributed, building on those disclosed underure requirements of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) andto provide civil society with information to holdwhereby governments of resource-rich countries can be held to account for their receipts from the exploitation of natural resources. The initiative is also complementary to the EU FLEGT Action Plan (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade) and the Timber Regulation, which require traders of timber products to exercise due diligence in order to prevent illegal wood from entering into the EUthe Union market. The detailed requirements are defined in Chapter 9 of Directive 2011/.../EU of the European Parliament and of the Council.
2012/05/15
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 4 #

2011/0261(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
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.
2012/03/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 7 #

2011/0261(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
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.
2012/03/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 12 #

2011/0261(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18 a (new)
(18a) In case no agreement amongst the EU 27 is found by September 2012, Member States willing to implement the FTT should advance by formally requesting enhanced cooperation under TFEU article 329. The EP should give its consent speedily, under the condition that the Member States in question commit to invoking TFEU article 333 paragraph 2 to adopt a decision stipulating that they will act under the ordinary legislative procedure.
2012/03/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 13 #

2011/0261(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. This Directive shall apply to all financial transactions, including spot currency transactions, on condition that at least one party to the transaction is established in a Member State and that a financial institution established in the territory of a Member State is party to the transaction, acting either for its own account or for the account of another person, or is acting in the name of a party to the transaction.
2012/03/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 14 #

2011/0261(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Enhanced Cooperation In case no agreement amongst the EU 27 is found by September 2012, Member States willing to implement the FTT shall advance by formally requesting enhanced cooperation under TFEU article 329. The EP shall give its consent speedily, under the condition that the Member States in question commit to invoking TFEU article 333 paragraph 2 to adopt a decision stipulating that they will act under the ordinary legislative procedure.
2012/03/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 17 #

2011/0261(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
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.
2012/03/09
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 1 #

2011/0167(NLE)

Proposal for a decision
The Committee on Development calls on the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to propose that Parliament decline to give its consent.
2012/05/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 1 #

2010/2211(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital A (new)
A. whereas in many areas in the world, ecological degradation is the root cause of human deprivation; and whereas a lack of consideration for the environmental foundation of development can considerably reduce or even jeopardize the effectiveness of aid, while addressing environmental issues can enhance its values,
2010/12/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 2 #

2010/2211(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital B (new)
B. whereas the Leading Group on innovative finance estimates the funding gap to meet the MDGs by 2015, the Official Development Assistance (ODA) target of 0.7% of GNI, and Environmental crisis targets, to $324-336 bn per year between 2012 and 2017,
2010/12/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 3 #

2010/2211(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital C (new)
C. whereas the growth of the global economy has not been matched with effective means to levy global economic activity to pay for global public goods,
2010/12/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 4 #

2010/2211(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital D (new)
D. whereas innovative financing are needed to meet MDGs and our commitment towards mitigation and adaptation to climate change,
2010/12/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 5 #

2010/2211(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital E (new)
E. whereas EU's funding for international cooperation with Africa comes from three geographic instruments: the EDF for African-ACP countries, the TDCA for South Africa and the ENPI for five North African states; whereas fragmentation of instruments is detrimental to consistency and policy coherence, as enshrined in Article 208 of the Lisbon Treaty,
2010/12/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 6 #

2010/2211(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital F (new)
F. whereas the Declaration on the European Development Fund, part of the Treaty of the EU, under the Final Act since the Maastricht Treaty, stipulating that the EDF should be outside the budget, has been removed in the Lisbon Treaty, thereby enabling the budgetisation of the FED,
2010/12/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 7 #

2010/2211(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the 2015 deadline for meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) falls within the next multiannual financial framework period and that there is a real risk that the EU will not meet its international commitment on development; recalls also that the MDGs are minimum aspirations and that, even if all targets are met, significant additional funding will still be required to fight poverty and improve health and education standards for the world's poor; therefore insists that a benchmark of 20% of the Commission’s allocated assistance under country programmes covered by the DCI will be dedicated to basic and secondary education and basic health;
2010/12/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 10 #

2010/2211(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Recalls upon the need to develop global solidarity mechanism as a way to achieve the MDGs; but recalls also that the tax havens, trade mispricing and illicit capital flights represent a huge hindrance to development in poor countries; therefore, urges once more the EU to take initiatives with the ambit of the G20, the OECD and inside the EU to clamp down tax havens and harmful tax structure;
2010/12/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 11 #

2010/2211(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Highlights that new financing instruments are needed to fund the provision of global public goods; welcomes in this respect the report of the Taskforce on Financial Transactions for Development commissioned by the Leading Group on Innovative Financing for development according to which the financial sector is best suited to levy such innovative financing mechanism, considering that it is the primary beneficiary of the growth of the global economy; stresses also that the report concludes upon the technical, economical and legal feasibility of an international levy on currency transactions and on a tax on all financial transactions;
2010/12/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 12 #

2010/2211(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1 c. Calls on the Commission to propose the introduction of a Financial Transaction Tax at the European level, in view of its numerous advantages: it can help to stabilise the markets, to raise funds for domestic fiscal consolidation as well as to face poverty eradication and climate change;
2010/12/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 13 #

2010/2211(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1 d. Recalls that innovative financing for development is not designed to be a substitute for ODA, but is complementary; takes the view that the introduction of a FTT should therefore be linked with a more binding commitment of all member countries to achieve the 0.7% objective of ODA spending and to provide additional climate adaptation funding;
2010/12/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 14 #

2010/2211(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 e (new)
1 e. Points out that one of the reasons why the MDGs are not fulfilled is the failure to recognise the contributions of the environment, natural resources and ecosystems to human development and poverty elimination; deplores in this context that current European Official Development Assistance (ODA) allocates only 3% of the total spending to environmental issues; urges the Commission to ensure that environmental issues are mainstreamed throughout all external policies and financial instruments, especially in the face of the current challenge of climate change and biodiversity loss;
2010/12/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 15 #

2010/2211(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 f (new)
1 f. Emphasises that the Multiannual Financial Framework should address: fulfilment of the MDGs, climate change, halting the decline of biodiversity and resource overconsumption; in particular, stresses that the next Multi-annual Financial Framework should support policy coherence, meaning for instance to ensure that some EU expenditures relating to agriculture, fisheries, trade and energy will not directly contradict development policy objectives;
2010/12/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 23 #

2010/2211(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Underlines that the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty offers the opportunity to put in place a more coherent institutional framework within the EU to relate to the Joint Africa-UE Strategy and to ensure the strategic funding it needs to prosper;
2010/12/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 24 #

2010/2211(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that channelling funds to Africa through three different instruments is inefficient and does not respond to Africa's wish to develop as a unified continent; recommends, therefore, to developing a single financing instrument for Africa, taking into account the Africa-EU joint strategic partnership so as to reflect the "treating-Africa-as-one" principle enshrined in the Joint Africa-EU Strategy (JAES) and supporting the continental integration agenda; calls, in addition, for greater capacity-building assistance for the African Union institutions;
2010/12/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 30 #

2010/2211(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Notes with concern that EU Aid benefits proportionally more Middle Income Countries than low income countries; in particular, points out that EU aid programming that aims to enable developing countries to adapt to the requirement of international competition benefits especially Middle Income Countries, rather than Low Income Countries, which are less attractive to foreign investment;
2010/12/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 36 #

2010/2211(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
11. CRecalls that the Lisbon Treaty removed the formal obstacle to the integration of the EDF into the regular EU budget; therefore, calls once again for the budgetisation of the European Development Fund (EDF), so as to increase parliamentary scrutiny of development spending in ACP countries and make EU development policy more consistent and effective; insists, however, that incorporating the EDF into the EU budget must not lead to an overall reduction in development spending with respect to the two separate existing instruments and must guarantee predictability; stresses also on the need to secure the interests of ACP countries, i.e. through ring-fencing development funds for the ACP within the EU budget;
2010/12/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 39 #

2010/2211(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11 a. Notes with concern that EU Aid does not clearly focus on poverty eradication; recalls that the concept of "development", which refers to qualitative criteria that encompasses quality of life and the improvement of living conditions, should not be confused with the concept of economic growth, as measured by the rise of GDP; accordingly, urges the Commission to refrain from a simple "export-led" or "growth-oriented" development policy but to target its assistance on the most vulnerable, which entails the development of a pro-poor strategy, through the financing of long- term objectives, such as health, education, access to energy in rural areas, small farmers, etc.;
2010/12/16
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 4 #

2010/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas taxation can be a reliable and sustainable source of development finance if there is a progressive taxation regime; an effective and efficient tax administration to promote tax compliance; transparent and accountable use of public revenue,
2010/11/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 9 #

2010/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas off-shore centres and tax havens facilitate an annual illicit capital flight of US$1 trillion; whereas these illicit monetary outflows are roughly ten times the amount of aid money going into developing countries for poverty alleviation and economic development,
2010/11/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 10 #

2010/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas tax havens, that offer secrecy rules and fictional domiciles combined with "zero tax" regimes in order to attract capital and revenues that should have been taxed in other countries, generate harmful tax competition,
2010/11/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 11 #

2010/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)
Cc. whereas tax competition has resulted in a shift of the tax burden to workers and low-income households and has forced damaging cutbacks in public services in poor countries,
2010/11/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 14 #

2010/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas the possibility of enhancing domestic resource mobilisation is further weakened by the global context, characterised by customs tariff liberalisation, whereas IMF research shows that while rich countries have managed to offset the decline of trade taxes as a principal source of income with other sources of revenue, notably VAT, the poorest countries have at best replaced about 30% of lost trade taxes,
2010/11/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 17 #

2010/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas the "mapping survey" led by the ITC demonstrates that further donor coordination is needed in the area of taxation and development,
2010/11/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 27 #

2010/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. WHighlights that tax-to-GDP ratio in developing countries ranges between 10 to 20% as opposed to 25 to 40% in developed countries; regrets that too little support was given so far by donors to tax-related assistance; in this context, welcomes the Commission's proposal to provide enhanced support for assisting developing countries in tax reforms and strengthening tax administrations regarding EDF for ACP States, the Development Cooperation Instrument and the ENP and Partnership Instrument, and support for national supervisory bodies, parliaments and non- state actors;
2010/11/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 36 #

2010/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines that globalisation exacerbates the fiscal problems of developing countries, as they tend to grant multiple exemptions to large domestic and foreign companies in order to attract investments;
2010/11/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 39 #

2010/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Stresses that tax havens, by increasing competition over mobile capital, encroach upon the sovereignty of developing countries to tax income from capital as a means to widen the tax base, while they have already a narrower tax base than rich countries;
2010/11/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 40 #

2010/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Recalls that asymmetry of information, that results from tax havens secrecy rules, reduces the efficiency of international financial markets, since that has led to higher risk premiums and thereby increased borrowing costs for both rich and poor countries;
2010/11/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 42 #

2010/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Urges the Commission to upgrade its assistance to strengthen the judiciary and anti-corruption agencies in developing countries,Reiterates that good governance and the quality of institutions represent the most important driver for economic prosperity; accordingly, urges the Commission to upgrade its assistance to strengthen the judiciary and anti-corruption agencies in developing countries, likewise, urges the EU Member States to combat bribery committed by companies domiciled in their jurisdictions but which have operations in developing countries; and calls on the Commission to effectively integrate the principles of good governance in tax matters into the programming, implementation and monitoring of country and regional strategy papers, and to systematically include clauses on good governance in future trade agreements;
2010/11/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 49 #

2010/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Notes with concern that billions of dollars per year have left the African continent between 1991 and 2004; in particular, underlines that these outflows are estimated at 7.6% of the annual GDP of the region, which make African countries net creditors of donor countries; considers that ODA and debt relief provided by developed countries will only be effective if concrete measures are taken equally by the G20, the OECD and the EU to ensure that the potential tax base of developing countries is not undermined through tax evasion; encourages in this context the UN and the OECD, in close cooperation with the African Tax Administration Forum, to pursue their work in this area;
2010/11/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 59 #

2010/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses that trade mispricing is one of the most prominent drivers of illicit financial outflows; calls on the EUCommission to contribute to enhancing public expertise on such issues in developing countries, and to work upon concrete proposals to ensure that the G20, the OECD, the UN and the WTO consider a broader set of indicators and methods for tackling trade mispricing, among which are the US ‘comparable profit methods’ that have shown promise in determining the incorrect pricing of transactions;
2010/11/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 67 #

2010/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Points out that a large number of rentier states, that benefit from abundant resource rents, particularly those from oil and minerals, have little incentive to be accountable, responsive or efficient; reiterates that strong institutional and democratic control mechanisms are crucial for combating economic crime; in particular, calls on the Commission to step up its development assistance on the formulation of contracts between multinational companies and developing countries on resource exploitation issues;
2010/11/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 69 #

2010/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Recalls that the quality of financial reporting is crucial to combat tax evasion effectively; considers that country-by- country reporting is of utmost importance for extractive industries; but recalls that it would equally be beneficial for investors in all sectors, thereby contributing to good governance globally; therefore insists that the IASB includes within its International Financial Reporting Standard a requirement that all multinational corporations report their income and tax paid on a country-by- country basis; recalls that such request is consistent with the need to improve corporate social responsibility of multinational enterprises; calls on the Commission to integrate country-by-country reporting in its reform of accounting directives;
2010/11/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 73 #

2010/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that since the G20 Summit of 2 April 2009, offshore financial centres have committed to OECD standards on transparency and exchange of information; notes however that the harmful structures of tax havens still prevail; calls once more for action beyond the OECD framework to combat tax havens in view of their various shortcomings; in this respect, reiterates its concerns about the fact that the OECD international standards require exchange of information on request but that there is no automatic exchange of information on the line of the saving tax directive; likewise criticizes the fact that the OECD allows governments to escape its blacklist merely by promising to adhere to the information exchange principles, without ensuring that these principles are effectively put into practise; considers also that the requirement to conclude a number of 12 agreements with other countries jurisdictions to be removed from the backlist is arbitrary as it doesn't refer to any qualitative indicators allowing to make an objective assessment of the fulfilment of good governance practises;
2010/11/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 79 #

2010/2102(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. CDeplores that the G-20 has not yet come up with a clear timetable and concrete sanction mechanism to make effective the fight against tax havens; calls for the adoption of an international convention with the purpose of eliminating harmful tax structures that would include sanctions both for non- cooperative jurisdictions and for financial institutions that operate with tax havens; urges the EU to adopt measures similar to the US Stop Tax Havens Abuse Act and to consider the possibility of withdrawing banking license to financial institutions that operate with tax havens;
2010/11/30
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 1 #

2010/2008(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas volatility has a devastating impact on the hungry poor in developing countries, who account for a considerable share of agricultural commodity producers and consumers worldwide and have no access to financial services or financial mechanisms to manage risks;
2010/04/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 2 #

2010/2008(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas according to studies of the FAO, the proportion of expenditure for food in a typical household budget revolves around 10 - 20% in an industrial country but amounts between 60% to 80% in the least developed countries (LDCs);
2010/04/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 3 #

2010/2008(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
B a. whereas speculation on commodities that induce artificial volatility in agricultural markets makes it difficult to finance innovative investments for rebuilding domestic agricultural production in net food import-dependent countries;
2010/04/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 5 #

2010/2008(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Underlines that speculation on agricultural commodities affects the poor the hardest; recalls, in particular, that fluctuation of prices has negative macroeconomic effects for food importing countries, whose balance of payments deteriorates, and such fluctuation additionally worsens their level of indebtedness; recalls also that many developing and least developed countries rely heavily on the export of raw materials or agricultural commodities to earn foreign exchange; takes the view that therefore unregulated trade in derivatives represents a serious threat to both security and the agricultural production that needs to be addressed;
2010/04/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 6 #

2010/2008(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that a considerable part of commodity producers are poor farmers with no access to sophisticated financial instruments to hedge against price volatility; recalls that supply management mechanisms are the best known tool to address excessive commodity price volatility, i.e. through international commodity agreements; urges therefore the Commission to develop an encompassing strategy to address fluctuation of commodities prices that does not limit itself to improving the functioning of the derivatives market but that equally considers a wide range of options for commodity income stabilisation, including improvements of various techniques of supply management that were commonly used until the 1980s, as they constitute an important tool of poor producer countries to regain control of the commodity market;
2010/04/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 7 #

2010/2008(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on the Commission to expand investment in tools which have proven that they can enable poor farmers and communities in the developing world to manage and mitigate risk and volatility, while contributing to lasting food security, including community granaries, weather risk insurance and safety nets;
2010/04/14
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 6 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the participation of shareholders at first and then of creditors to the burden sharing is crucial for reducing to the minimum the cost for taxpayers arising from any crisis of financial markets and institutions,
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 15 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas all cross-border institutions should be supervised and regulated on a cross-border basis,
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 16 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F b (new)
Fb. whereas financial stability and integrated financial markets require cross-border supervision of cross-border and systemic financial institutions,
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 35 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital N a (new)
Na. whereas a framework for crisis resolution should be applicable to all cross border financial institutions,
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 55 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital P a (new)
Pa. whereas national resolution authorities should have the legal authority to temporarily delay immediate operation of contractual early termination clauses in order to complete a transfer of certain financial market contracts to another sound financial institution, a bridge financial institution or other public entity,
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 56 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital P b (new)
Pb. whereas supervision, early intervention powers and measures related to resolution should be considered as three interlinked steps of a common framework,
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 57 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Requests the Commission to submit to Parliament by 31 December0 April 2011, on the basis of Article 50 and Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,, one or more legislative proposals or proposals on an EU crisis management framework, a resolution unit and, an EU financial stability fund and a network of national stability funds, following the detailed recommendations below;
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 62 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 1 – paragraph 1 – indent 8 a (new)
• internalise negative externalities created by financial markets and institutions;
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 67 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. During a transition period from a coordinated resolution framework (as it is already the case since June 2008 when the Memorandum of Understanding on financial stability intending to coordinate national measures was adopted) towards an integrated framework there should be a legally binding joint decision making process including dispute settlement arrangements built on existing structures where colleges of supervisors should be extended in order to include administrative national authorities responsible for resolving banks. These 'resolution colleges' should therefore adopt joint decisions between national authorities for the resolution of legal cross border entities taking into account Member States' legislation. Binding mediation powers should be given to EBA.
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 68 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 1 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. A binding regulation should define thresholds for triggering intervention of supervision and resolution authorities as well as binding guidelines for fiscal burden sharing in the framework of crisis management.
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 69 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 1 – paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. As a part of these guidelines, special provisions should be defined in order to guarantee fair treatment of all subsidiaries and branches of the same cross-border institution in all Member States and therefore avoid decapitalising subsidiaries and branches detrimental to host Member States' financial stability.
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 70 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 1 – paragraph 2 d (new)
2d. Once the process related to harmonisation of insolvency and supervision provisions is completed at the end of the transition period there should be a single EU resolution authority as a separated body or as a unit within EBA.
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 71 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 1 – paragraph 2 e (new)
2e. National resolution authorities should have the legal authority to temporarily delay immediate operation of contractual early termination clauses in order to complete a transfer of certain financial market contracts to another sound financial institution, a bridge financial institution or other public entity. Accordingly, Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements1 should be amended in order for resolution authorities to be able to complete such transfers. 1 OJ L 168, 27.6.2002, p. 43.
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 72 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 1 – paragraph 2 f (new)
2f. Resolution authorities should be entitled to derogate from a number of provisions of Directive 77/91/EEC, Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids1, and Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies2, adherence to which may delay or even block the rapid recapitalisation or the restructuring of a failing bank. 1 OJ L 142 , 30/04/2004 p.12. 2 OJ L 184, 14.7.2007, p. 17.
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 73 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 1 – paragraph 2 g (new)
2g. In order to improve cooperation and transparency, peer reviews of supervisors should be carried out on a regular basis under the lead of the European Banking Authority and should be built on prior self-assessment.
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 74 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 1 – paragraph 2 h (new)
2h. Whenever a resolution or a wind-up of a cross border institution arises, an in- depth investigation should be carried out by independent experts appointed by the European Banking Authority in order to highlight the causes and responsibilities involved. These investigations should be reported to the EP.
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 83 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 1 – paragraph 3
3. Attribute to the relevant supervisor the responsibility for crisis management and the approval of each bank’s contingency plan, as follows: • for Systemic Brelevant cross-border banks: the European Banking Authority (EBA) in close cooperation with the college of national supervisors and the Cross -Border Stability Groups (as defined in the above- mentioned Memorandum of Understanding of June 2008); • for all other cross border non-systemic banks: the consolidated supervisor within the college, under the coordination of the EBA and in consultation with the Cross- Border Stability Groups; • for local banks: the local supervisor.
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 90 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 1 – paragraph 4
4. Design an EU supervisors’ common set of rules for crisis management including common methodologies, definitions and terminology, as well as a set of relevant criteria for stress test of cross-border banks.
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 93 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 1 – paragraph 5
5. Resolution plans to become a mandatory regulatory requirement on a regular basis, these plans must include an in depth self- assessment of the institution.
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 96 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 1 – paragraph 6 – indent 2
leverage and desegregated short-term and long-term leverage;
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 102 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 1 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1 – indent 2
• recommend or impose changes of management;
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 120 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 1 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1 – indent 8 a (new)
• impose profits and dividend retention and restrictions in order to consolidate capital requirements and to insure that shareholders and creditors pay before taxpayers;
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 121 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 1 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1 – indent 8 b (new)
• restructure and transfer assets and liabilities to other institutions with the objective to ensure continuity of systemically important operations;
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 122 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 1 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1 – indent 8 c (new)
• define criteria in order to value impaired assets.
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 135 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 1 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 2 – introductory part
For banks contributing in the EU Financial Stability Fund and the network of national Funds, the supervisory powers shall also include:
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 137 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 1 – paragraph 9
9. All the above-mentioned tools shall be applied in full compliance with the EU competition rules and equal treatment of creditors and depositors across Member States. In this perspective, competition rules must be permanently assessed and updated in order to deter ‘too big or interconnected to fail’ institutions.
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 151 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 2 – paragraph 1
1. Systemic BankAll relevant cross-border institutions, due to their special risk profile, require to be urgently addressed by a new special regime to be known as the European Bank Company Law to be designed until the end of 2011.
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 164 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 2 – paragraph 2
2. Systemic Banks shall adhere to the new reinforced special regime which shall overcome legal impediments to effective action across borders while ensuring clear and predictable treatment of shareholders, depositors, creditors and other stakeholders.
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 172 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 2 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission shall adopt a measure setting up, before April 2011, criteria for definition of relevant cross-border institutions and Systemic Banks based on a draft elaborated by the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB). Banking Authority. In the same perspective the Commission should adopt through delegated acts a set of criteria for stress tests relevant for cross-border financial institutions.
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 179 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 2 – paragraph 4
4. The ESRB shall draw, until December 2011, a list of Systemic Banks and a list of relevant cross-border banks and update it on a regular basis.
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 182 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 2 – paragraph 5
5. For each of the Systemic Banks and for each of the relevant cross-border institutions, the EBA shall lead the college of supervisors, act under normal circumstances through national supervisors and retain the ultimate decision power and a binding mediating role.
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 200 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 3 – title
Recommendation 3 on EU Financial Stability Fund and the network of national stability funds
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 201 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 3 – paragraph 1
1. An EU Financial Stability Fund and a network of National Funds governed by the same binding rules including ex ante mechanisms for fiscal burden sharing shall be created, under the responsibility of the EBA, to finance interventions (rehabilitation or orderly winding-up) aimed at preserving the system’s stability and limit contagion from failing banks. The Commission shall present to the Parliament, by April 2011, a proposal with details of the Fund’s charter, structure, governance, size, operating model as well as a precise calendar for implementation (in accordance with points 2 and 3 below). A reinforced cooperation of Member States should be properly assessed as an option.
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 205 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 3 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The Fund and the network of national funds shall be:
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 206 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 3 – paragraph 2 – indent 1
• pan-European;deleted
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 212 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 3 – paragraph 2 – indent 2
• funded ex-ante by the Systemic Banksall banks settled in the Union on the basis of risk-based, countercyclical criteria;
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 216 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 3 – paragraph 2 – indent 2 a (new)
• the bank levy should be adjustable in order to slow down rapid credit growth and risk accumulation;
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 221 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 3 – paragraph 2 – indent 5 a (new)
• built in order to limit exposure to uninsured short-term funding and therefore target the risk of sudden withdrawals of wholesale funding;
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 222 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 3 – paragraph 2 – indent 5 b (new)
• set up in order to exempt insured deposits;
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 223 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 3 – paragraph 2 – indent 5 c (new)
• complementary to counter-cyclical capital requirements and progressive with respect to the size of the institution as it targets liquidity risks irreducible to credit and market risk;
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 224 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 3 – paragraph 2 – indent 5 d (new)
• set in order to discourage banks from running large proprietary trading with cheap short-term funding;
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 227 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 3 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Accordingly with provisions of the binding regulation defining guidelines for fiscal burden-sharing and governance of the EU fund and the network of national funds. The Commission shall also address:
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 228 #

2010/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 3 – paragraph 3 – indent 1
• investment guidelines for the Fund’s and national network of funds' assets (risk, liquidity, alignment with EU targets);
2010/05/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 13 #

2010/0101(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 8
(8) In addition to the regional ceilings, the optional mandate of EUR 2 000 000 000 should be activated and allocated as an envelope to support EIB financing operations in the field of climate change mitigation and adaptation across the regionin countries covered by the mandate when implementing their climate commitments under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The EIB could contribute with its expertise and resources, in close cooperation with the Commission, to support public authorities as well as the private sector to address the challenge of climate change and to make the best possible use of available financing. For mitigation and adaptation projects, the resources of the EIB should be complemented where possible with concessional funds available under the EU budget, through the efficient and consistent blending of grants and loans for climate change financing in the context of EU external assistance. The optional mandate should not be counted as a contribution by the EU or its Member States to the fast- start funds agreed to at the UNFCCC COP in Copenhagen in December 2009.
2010/10/27
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 14 #

2010/0101(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 8 a (new)
(8a) EIB financing operations in developing countries should be consistent with the EU's commitment and obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The EIB should accordingly draw up adequate criteria for what it counts as "clean technology", phase out fossil fuel projects and prohibit the financing of operations whose negative impacts have been denounced by international institutions such as the United Nations Environment Programme or the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
2010/10/27
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 17 #

2010/0101(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 12
(12) Moreover generally, EIB financing operations should contribute to the general principles guiding the EU's external action, as referred to in Article 21 of the Treaty on the European Union, of promoting and consolidating democracy and the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to the implementation of international environmental agreements to which the EU is a party. In relation to developing countries in particular, EIB financing operations shouldthe underlying objective of the EIB financing operations should be the reduction of poverty through fostering: sustainable economic, social and environmental development of these countries, particularly in the most disadvantaged amongst them; their smooth and gradual integration into the world economy; the campaign against poverty; as well as compliance with objectives approved by the EU in the context of the United Nations and other competent international organisations. TIn particular, the EIB should gradually build up appropriate means to adequately meet these requirements in full consistency with the principles of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy, the Cotonou Agreement and the European Consensus on Development and should reflect: the EU's commitment and obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as well as the attainment of the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); - EU's commitment and obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as well as the attainment of the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); and - social, labour and environmental standards as embodied in international agreements.
2010/10/27
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 19 #

2010/0101(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 13
(13) Under this decision, the EIB should increase its development orientationexpertise in close coordination with the Commission and followingin order to apply the principles of the European Consensus on Development as well as the principles of aid effectiveness outlined in the Paris Declaration of 2005 and the Acrra Agenda for Action of 2008. This should be implemented through a number of concrete measures, in particular by reinforcing its capacity to appraise social, environmental and development aspects of projects, including human rights and conflict related risks, and by promoting local consultation which should be part of the EIB's due diligence procedure prior to the approval of projects. Moreover, it should increase its focus on sectors where it has sound expertise from financing operations within the EU and which will further the development of the country in question, such as environmental infrastructure including water and sanitation, sustainable transportation and climate change mitigation, particularly in renewable energy. The EIB should also progressively strengthen its activity in support of health and education as well as of climate change adaptation, where appropriate working in cooperation with other International Finance Institutions (IFIs) and European bilateral finance institutions (EBFIs). This will require access to concessional resources and a progressive increase in human resources devoted to EIB external activities. EIB activity should also be complementary to EU objectives and priorities relating to institution building and sector reforms. Finally, the EIB should define performance indicators which are linked to development aspects of the projects and their results. Compliance with the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters should be ensured by the EIB at the different relevant stages of the projects.
2010/10/27
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 23 #

2010/0101(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 1 – paragraph 2a (new)
2a. EIB financing operations in developing countries, implemented through the Union guarantee granted to the EIB, shall have as a primary objective the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty. In particular, EIB financing operations shall be consistent with: - the EU's commitment and obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as well as the attainment of the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). - social, labour and environmental standards as embodied in international agreements.
2010/10/27
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 24 #

2010/0101(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 2 – paragraph 4
4. The Climate Change Mandate shall cover EIB financing operations in all countries covered by this decision, where such EIB financing operations support the key EU policy objective of tackling climate change by supporting projects in climate change mitigation and adaptation which contribute to the overall objective ofcountries in implementing their climate commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in particular by avoiding or reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the areas of renewable energy, energy efficiency and sustainable transport, or by increasing resilience to the adverse impacts of climate change on vulnerable countries, sectors and communities. The Climate Change Mandate shall be implemented in close cooperation with the Commission, combining where possible and appropriate EIB financing with EU budget funds. The optional mandate shall not be counted as a contribution by the EU and its Member States to the fast-start funds agreed to at the UNFCCC COP in Copenhagen in December 2009. In order to maximise the effect on climate change mitigation, the EIB shall draw up adequate criteria for what it counts as “clean technology”, phase out fossil fuel projects and prohibit the financing of operations whose negative impacts have been denounced by international institutions such as the United Nations Environment Programme or the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. In particular, the integration of European climate policies in EIB's operations shall include: - an analysis of the carbon footprint to be included in environmental assessment procedure to determine whether project proposals maximise energy-efficiency improvements; - annual detailed reporting regarding the full carbon footprint of EIB- supported projects, or the localised and regional effects of individual projects; - the definition of appraisal procedures to take account of the needs of developing countries in relation to climate change and development, as identified in the UNFCCC National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs), and EU Regional and Country Strategy Papers (RSPs/CSPs). - the introduction of an exclusion list of types of projects/technologies they will not support, including the phasing out of financial transactions for fossil fuel projects; - the definition of objectives on renewable energy, in line with the regional/country strategy plans.
2010/10/27
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 26 #

2010/0101(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. The consistency of EIB financing operations with the external policy objectives of the EU shall be monitored in accordance with Article 10. The EIB shall develop performance indicators in relation to development, environmental and human rights aspects of projects funded as well as with regard to the indicators under the Paris Declaration for Aid Effectiveness, in order to facilitate such monitoring.
2010/10/27
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 27 #

2010/0101(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. The EIB shall carry out thorough due diligence, including local public consultation, on development-related aspects of projects covered by the EU guarantee prior to project approval. The projects include the loan activity of financial intermediaries. The EIB's own rules and procedures shall include the necessary provisions on assessment of environmental and social impact of projects and of aspects related to human rights, to ensure that only projects that are economically, financially, environmentally and socially sustainable are supported under this Decision.
2010/10/27
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 30 #

2010/0101(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. In addition to the ex-ante assessment of development-related aspects, the EIB should strengthen itscarry out thorough monitoring during project implementation, inter alia, on the development impact of the project, environmental and human rights impact of the project. The monitoring shall include the performance of financial intermediaries. The results of the monitoring shall be regularly disclosed to the public.
2010/10/27
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 31 #

2010/0101(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 8 a (new)
Article 8a Public Participation and Disclosure of Information 1. The EIB, together with the project promoter, shall take an active part in the organisation of public consultation on development, environmental and social aspects of the project. The EIB shall identify the public affected by the project financed by the EIB. The EIB shall ensure that the local population is informed about all key issues pertaining to the EIB operations carried out in a timely manner. Appropriate grievance mechanisms shall be established and accessible throughout the implementation of EIB operations. 2. The EIB shall make documents relating to projects for which the EIB benefits from the EU guarantee directly accessible to the public in electronic form or through a register in accordance with its rules. The information to be made available and disseminated shall be updated as appropriate and shall include: - a description/summary of each project; - project appraisal reports (assessment on environmental, social, human rights and development impacts of projects); - covenants and conditions on environmental, development and human rights related aspects of projects; - monitoring reports on development, environmental and social related aspects of projects; - ex-post evaluation reports on the contribution of projects to economic development, poverty eradication, protection of the environment and strengthening of human rights.
2010/10/27
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 1 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)
– having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Case C-255/02 on 21 February 2006 (Halifax and others v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise) in which the Court held that the Sixth VAT Directive (Directive 77/388/EEC) precludes the right of a taxable person to deduct input VAT where the transactions from which that right derives constitute an abusive practice,
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 2 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 b (new)
– having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Case C-524/04 on 13 March 2007 (Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue), in which the Court ruled that Article 43 of the EC Treaty does not preclude legislation of a Member State restricting the right of establishment of a wholly artificial corporate arrangement entered into for tax reasons alone,
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 3 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 a (new)
– having regard to Parliament’s position of 24 April 2009 on the Commission proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2003/48/EC on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments,
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 5 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas globalisation has led to increasing difficulties in combating fiscal fraud at international level; whereas the lack of cooperation between countries regarding the legal vacuum that exists between states on tax matters allows multinational companies to make use of aggressive tax-planning strategies at the expense of collective considerations; whereas those factors militate strongly in favour of improving international cooperation within the EU and at international level in order for it to be effective;,
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 7 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas tax avoidance and tax evasion at an international level constitute a serious obstacle to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals,
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 8 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas the majority of multinational companies have been structured so as to take advantage of tax avoidance in the different jurisdictions in which they operate; whereas differential tax treatment in different jurisdictions favours undertakings that are large, international or well-established over those that are small, domestic or new (start-ups),
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 9 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)
Bc. whereas the ability of multinational companies to make extensive use of tax havens and offshore centres as part of their tax avoidance strategies conflicts with the principle of fair competition and corporate responsibility,
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 10 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B d (new)
Bd. whereas tax competition erodes the fiscal sovereignty of Member States, as they get involved in a ‘race to the bottom’ of tax rates; whereas such an erosion of fiscal sovereignty jeopardises the European Social Model,
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 11 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B e (new)
Be. whereas tax havens conflict with the principle of solidarity, justice and redistribution; whereas in a globalised economy, multinational companies use their power to put pressure on governments, particularly those of developing countries, to lower tax rates and provide tax incentives to attract investment; whereas in practice this has caused a shift of the tax burden on to workers and low-income households and has forced damaging cutbacks in public services,
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 12 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the adoption of the General Anti-Avoidance Principles (GAAP) provides tax authorities with the power to consider whether the main purpose of a transaction is the avoidance or reduction of a tax liability and, where that is the case, to allow the authorities to levy additional tax in order to counteract such avoidance or reduction,
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 14 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E
E. whereas the combined efforts of the G- 20 and the UN, and within the framework of OECD-led initiatives, have produced some promising results in the area of tax governance; whereas those results remain insufficient to cope with the challenges presented by tax havens and offshore centres and must be followed by decisive, effective and consistent actions;,
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 18 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G
G. whereas tax havens sometimes host complex financial products that cause financial instability; and whereas the financial crisis has shed new light on the consequences of the lack of good tax governance, showing the risks associated with opaque jurisdictions;,
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 21 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Strongly condemns the role played by tax havens in encouraging and profiteering from tax avoidance, tax evasion and capital flight from developed and developing countries; urges Member States therefore to make the fight against tax havens, tax evasion and illicit capital flight from developing countries their overriding priority,
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 24 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recalls in this context that it is of primary importance to put an end to the use of artificial legal persons as a way to avoid taxation; stresses also that instead of bank secrecy, automatic information exchange should occur in all circumstances, including all Member States and dependent territories; welcomes in this respect the Commission’s proposal on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation because, inter alia, it extends cooperation between Member States to cover taxes of any kind, it abolishes bank secrecy, and it establishes the automatic exchange of information as a general rule;
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 25 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that the Parliament has delivered its opinion to the Council on amendments to Directive 2003/48/EC, asking, inter alia, for the Council to end to the temporal derogation that allows Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg to avoid the automatic exchanginge of information by the applyingication of a withholding tax by 1 July 2014;
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 28 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a Stresses the request made by Parliament, in its position of 24 April 2009, to extend substantially the scope of Directive 2003/48/EC, in particular to cover legal entities (especially private companies and trusts) and various forms of investment income; recalls that the provisions of Directive 2003/48/EC should be extended to Singapore, Hong Kong, Macao or other jurisdictions such as Dubai, New Zealand, Ghana, or certain states of the United States, which are not bound by the Directive 2003/48/EC and which are therefore a favoured location for tax evaders; urges the Council quickly to adopt a directive amending Directive 2003/48/EC which reflects Parliament’s position;
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 29 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that the marketing in the Community of alternative funds domiciled in a third country must be conditional on the respect by that third country of good tax governance standards, including the effective implementation, on the basis of legally binding rules, of the principle of automatic exchange of information; in particular, highlights the fact that progress made on tax governance standards within international forums such as the OECD and the G-20 amounts to an approach of ‘minimum harmonisation’ rather than ‘maximum harmonisation’, which prevents the European Union from applying higher standards;
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 33 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Asks the Commission to report quickly on the recommendation made by the Council on 14 May 2008 to include a good tax governance clause in relevant agreements to be concluded with third countries by the Community and its Member States; in particular, stresses the need for provisions on good governance to be negotiated in the context of general or specific agreements with third countries and the need to ensure an effective monitoring process related to their implementation;
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 36 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Recalls, as regards the work on harmful tax competition under the Code of Conduct for Business Taxation, the need to ensure that Member States implement the Code in their relations with third countries in way consistent with their efforts to promote transparency and exchange of information in tax matters.; takes the view that in order to be effective, the Code of Conduct for Business Taxation should be converted into a legal instrument;
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 37 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes, as a first step, the advances made in the area of good tax governance as a result of the initiatives in other international fora such as the G-20, the G- 8, the UN and, notably, the OECD; considers, nevertheless, that the commitments taken by the G-20 to date are not sufficient to face the challenges posed by tax evasion, tax havens and off- shore centres;
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 38 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Recalls that combating tax havens and tax evasion will be successful only if the same rules apply to all so as to avoid the further creation of legal loopholes in which abuse occurs; in this context, takes the view that the Directive 2003/48/EC, which has established the principle of automatic multilateral information exchange between countries, is a welcome step towards the establishment of a global framework for automatic information exchange; welcomes, accordingly, the Commission’s proposal to promote cooperation with third countries in the framework of Directive 2003/48/EC;
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 39 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Insists on the need to transcend the OECD framework, in view of its various shortcomings, in order to combat tax havens effectively; in that respect, expresses its concern, inter alia, about the fact that the OECD international standards require exchange of information on request but that there is no automatic exchange of information such as in the context of Directive 2003/48/EC; also criticises the fact that the OECD allows governments to escape its blacklist merely by promising to comply with the information exchange principles, without ensuring that those principles are effectively put into practice; considers also that the requirement to conclude agreements with 12 countries in order to be removed from the blacklist is arbitrary as it does not refer to any qualitative indicators allowing an objective assessment to be made of compliance with good governance practices;
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 40 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that there is a need for consistency and for a genuine EU policy of good tax governance; believes that the credibility of the European Union depends, inter alia, on its willingness first to clamp down on tax havens on its own territory as an example of good governance; asks the Commission to monitor closely, in this respect, the swift and thorough implementation of the actions set out in its communication on Promoting Good Governance in Tax Matters;
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 49 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Stresses the need to revise the current international accounting standards to address poverty resulting from capital flight and tax evasion in developing countries; in particular, urges the development of country-by-country reporting which provides a comprehensive view of each parent company of a group for investors, stakeholders and tax authorities, thereby facilitating a more effective and transparent international overview of tax-led decisions;
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 50 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Emphasises the need for Member States to coordinate their policies in order to reinforce the implementation of anti- avoidance rulesinstitute common rules across the EU on sanction and anti-avoidance mechanisms; emphasises in this respect that the adoption of the GAAP is in keeping with the Court of Justice’s judgments in Cases C-255/02 on 21 February 2006 and C-524/04 on 13 March 2007;
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 54 #

2009/2174(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Recalls that the introduction of a common consolidated corporate tax base would eliminate, within the EU, double- taxation and transfer price issues within consolidated groups; stresses also that the introduction of a CCCTB must be complemented by minimum coordination of corporate tax rates as a way to combat ‘race-to-the-bottom’ competition;
2009/11/17
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1 #

2009/2166(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital Aa (new)
Aa. Whereas the EIB should contribute to the EU development agenda to eradicate poverty, foster sustainable development and achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs);
2010/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 2 #

2009/2166(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital Ab (new)
Ab. Whereas the EIB’s financing strategy should contribute to the general objective of developing and consolidating democracy and the rule of law, the objective of respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms and the observance of international environmental agreements to which the European Union or its Member States are parties;
2010/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 3 #

2009/2166(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital Ac (new)
Ac. Whereas the EIB’s development role is increasing, and whereas the food and climate crisis requires a fundamental change in approach towards sustainable development;
2010/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 4 #

2009/2166(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital Ad (new)
Ad. Whereas both within Europe and beyond, the EIB is increasingly financing large infrastructure projects in sectors such as the extractive industries, transport, energy, agriculture, water and sanitation; and whereas large scale projects in these sectors have often had negative environmental and social impacts, such as pollution, destruction of ecosystems and the acceleration of climate change;
2010/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 5 #

2009/2166(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital Ae (new)
Ae. Whereas the free movement of capital without market transparency and effective cooperation in information exchange has facilitated aggressive tax avoidance strategies and massive illicit capital flight that constitute a great impediment to the achievement of the Millennium Goals;
2010/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 6 #

2009/2166(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital Af (new)
Af. Whereas global loans provided to intermediaries represent up to 30% of EIB lending;
2010/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 8 #

2009/2166(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Welcomes the EIB’s efforts in its social and environmental policies; underlines, however, that the monitoring mechanisms of the EIB’s lending operations to all projects still need to be improved, especially regarding EU environmental and social standards; in this context, calls on the EIB to make the development of binding and operational safeguard policies to guarantee high social and environmental standards its overriding priority;
2010/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 9 #

2009/2166(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Regarding environmental standards, expresses its concern about the fact that the EIB’s Operations Evaluation Unit only conduct ex-post evaluations on a limited amount of projects and that the EIB places full responsibility for compliance with environmental standards on those project promoters who receive its financing; in this context, urges the EIB to ensure that environmental impact assessments (EIA) become a mandatory part of the EIB’s decision-making process prior to the Board’s approval of a project;
2010/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 10 #

2009/2166(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Notes that, in spite of the fact that the EIB is unequivocal about its support for the protection and improvement of the environment, the EIB still finances projects that clearly fuel climate change, such as fossil fuel projects, including oil and gas pipelines and coal-fired power plants; regrets also that a large proportion of its lending goes to unsustainable transport projects such as the financing of roads and air transport; takes the view that the devastating consequences of such projects clearly contradict EIB claims that environmental protection is one of its top priorities; in this context, reiterates its conviction that the EIB should develop detailed and binding safeguard policies or procedures to ensure that such investments do not harm the environment or local communities;
2010/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 11 #

2009/2166(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2d. Takes the view that, in light of the food and climate crisis, there is a need to revise the EIB’s old-fashioned development model, which is based only on growth and income generation; in particular, urges the EIB to guarantee privileged financing for sustainable projects that contain a high social and environmental value, while phasing out support for projects that are essentially incoherent with poverty alleviation and ecological sustainability, such as projects that involve the degradation of critical natural habitats and support the destructive exploitation of natural resources, large mining projects that do not comply with the recommendations of the World Bank’s Extractive Industries Review, large dams that do not comply with the recommendations of the World Commission on Dams, fossil fuel projects and nuclear power plants, and aviation projects;
2010/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 12 #

2009/2166(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Expresses its concern about the lack of transparency regarding the way ‘global loans’ are allocated and monitored in terms of tax governance; recalls that the EIB should ensure that recipients of its loans do not avail themselves of tax havens or use other practices such as abusive transfer pricing, which may lead to tax evasion or avoidance; in this context, calls on the EIB to request that financial intermediaries make public any use of the global and framework loans they receive, including a report of their activities in any individual country in which they operate;
2010/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 13 #

2009/2166(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Urges the EIB to better monitor and to make transparent the nature and final destination of its global loans in support of SMEs; more broadly, calls on the EIB to report annually on the lending to SMEs, including evaluation of the accessibility and effectiveness of its financing for SMEs;
2010/02/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 7 #

2009/2165(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Deplores the fact that parliaments andthe European Parliament, the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly and national parliaments of the ACP States as well as civil society organisations were - once again - not involved in the decision-making process that led to the identification of areas and articles of the Cotonou Agreement for revision and to the establishment of the negotiating mandates adopted by the Council of the EU and the ACP Council of Ministers;
2009/11/20
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 20 #

2009/2165(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on ACP-EU negotiators to review the European Investment Bank (EIB) policy on offshore financial centres on the basis of more stringent criteria than the OECD listing for the definition of prohibited and monitored jurisdictions, and to ensure its implementation and provide annual reports on progress;
2009/11/20
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 21 #

2009/2165(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Considers that structural changes in the EIB’s organisational and governance structure is necessary in order to ensure fulfilment of its development obligations in the context of the current review of the Cotonou Agreement and the ongoing mid- term review and renewal of the EIB’s external lending mandate;
2009/11/20
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 43 #

2009/2165(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Expresses concern that increased regionalisation of ACP-EU relations may represent a threat to the coherence and strength of the ACP Group and may hinder the functioning of the joint ACP- EU institutions under the Cotonou Agreement;
2009/11/20
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 46 #

2009/2165(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Believes firmly in the key role that ACP national parliaments may play in all aspects of development cooperation actions, including programming, implementation, monitoring and evaluation; calls for the revision of the Cotonou Agreement to give those parliaments formal recognition as participants in EDF-financed cooperation;
2009/11/20
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 53 #

2009/2165(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Calls on the Commission and ACP States to stick with the OECD Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC) definition of Official Development Assistance (ODA) while preparing country and regional strategy papers to be financed under the 10th EDF;
2009/11/20
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 13 #

2009/2150(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas the deregulation of financial markets has caused a systemic crisis of global dimensions, which requires international compensation and burden sharing; whereas the privatisation and deregulation policies of the IMF and the World Bank also contributed to the acceleration of the economic and financial crisis,
2010/02/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 19 #

2009/2150(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Is acutely aware that the past two years have seen a succession of global crises (food, fuelenergy, climate and financial) which have serious impacts on industrialised and emerging countries, but devastating implications for the poor population groups in developing countries, with over 200 million workers exposed to extreme poverty worldwide and more than a sixth of the world's population suffering from hunger;
2010/02/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 23 #

2009/2150(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Deplores that all EU pledges (99%) are from existing commitments; 8.8bn are frontloaded, meaning there is a danger that in the coming years there will be less development aid climate finance; urges the EU to allocate additional money for its commitments;
2010/02/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 40 #

2009/2150(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Firmly believes that taxing the banking system to fund a deposit insurance or a resolution fund would not be a fair contribution from the financial sector to global social justice; calls insteadalso for an international levy on financial transactions to make the overall tax system more equitable and to generate additional resources for financing development and global public goods;
2010/02/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 44 #

2009/2150(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Notes with great concern that developing countries are expected to face a financial gap of between USD 350 billion and USD 635 billion in 2009 and that mounting fiscal distress in the most vulnerable countries is imperilling USD 11.6 billion of core spending in education, health, infrastructure and social protection; advocates therefore a three-year moratorium on debt repayments, including capital and interest, to enabledebt cancellation – at least for least developing countries to– to enable them implement countercyclical fiscal policies to mitigate the severe effects of the crisis; proposes the establishment at international level of an independent and transparent body for debt arbitration;
2010/02/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 48 #

2009/2150(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Calls upon the Member States, within the European Union Emission Trading System framework, to devote a fair share100% of the revenues generated from the auctioning of carbon emission allowances to support developing countries in coping with climate change, in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC1; 1 Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, p. 32).Or. en
2010/02/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 53 #

2009/2150(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Supports the creation of joint public- public and public-private initiatives for development, based on a public lead with private donors' support and in line with partner countries' priorities, as a means to increase direct investment in developing countries and facilitate technology transfer;
2010/02/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 58 #

2009/2150(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Regards trade as a main driver of economic growth and poverty reductionfair and regulated trade as one of the sustainable economic development factors in the fight against poverty in developing countries and calls upon the EU and Member States to leverage their international influence for a successful, fair and development-oriented conclusion of the Doha Round, while enhancing the pro- poor focus of EU Aid for Trade policy;
2010/02/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 62 #

2009/2150(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Reaffirms the fact that Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) should be regarddesigned as a pro-development tool and urges the Commission to work towards a rapid conclusion of the negotiations,to foster ACP countries’ sustainable development while taking into account the ways in which EPA provisions may impact on the ability of developingACP countries to cope with the crisis;
2010/02/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 70 #

2009/2150(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
26. Notes that half of all illicit financial flows out of developing countries are related to the mispricing of trade and reinforces its call for a new binding, global financial agreement at EU as well as UN level which forces transnational corporations to automatically disclose the profits made and the taxes paid on a country-by-country basis, so as to ensure transparency about sales, profits and taxes in every jurisdiction where they are located;
2010/02/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 76 #

2009/2150(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
28. Welcomes the European Investment Bank’s (EIB) enforcement of its existing policy towards Offshore Financial Centres; requests the EU, the Member States and the EIB to take up a vanguard role and make investment through tax havens less attractivein the fight against tax havens by adopting rules of public procurement and disbursement of public funds which prohibit any company, bank or other institution registered in a tax haven from benefiting from public funds;
2010/02/10
Committee: DEVE
Amendment 1 #

2009/2002(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the greatest challenges of mitigation and adaptation to climate change will be faced by developing countries, and that a significant contribution by the EU will be essential in order to address these additional needs; calls for the Commission to play a leadership role in responding to the challenge, by coordinating donor responses and by providing adequate additional resourcesrecalls in this respect that Parliament's resolution of 11 March 2009 said that the collective contribution by the EU towards developing countries' mitigation efforts and adaptation needs should not be less than EUR 30 000 million per annum by 2020; calls for the Commission to play a leadership role in responding to the challenge, by coordinating donor responses and by providing adequate additional resources; considers that a new budget line has to be created in view of obligations towards developing countries that will arise as a result of the climate change agreement expected to be concluded at the United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009;
2009/09/10
Committee: DEVE