399 Amendments of Sonia ALFANO
Amendment 4 #
2013/0812(COD)
Draft legislative resolution
Citation 4
Citation 4
Amendment 10 #
2013/0812(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) By letters of 12 December 2012 and 8 February 2013, the United Kingdom, against its commitment and legal obligation as per Council Decision 2005/681/JHA and the Headquarters Agreement concluded between the United Kingdom and CEPOL on 30 December 2004, informed CEPOL that it no longer wishes to host the seat on its territory. Apart from hosting CEPOL, Bramshill also hosts a national police training site of the National Policing Improvement Agency which the United Kingdom decided to replace by a new College of Policing to be located elsewhere. The United Kingdom has therefore decided to close the national police training site at Bramshill and to sell the site indicating that the related costs were high and no alternative business model to run the site had emerged.
Amendment 13 #
2013/0812(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) In view of this situation, on 8 October 2013, the representatives of the Governments of the Member States agreed by common accord on arrangements to host CEPOL according to which CEPOL will be hosted in Budapest as soon as it moves from Bramshill. This agreement should be incorporated in Council Decision 2005/681/JHAdecision was taken, without any prior consultation with the European Commission and the European Parliament, following a specific voting arrangement proposed by the Presidency and accepted by the Member States, under the item "Provisional arrangements to host CEPOL" during the JHA Council informal lunch on 8 October 2013. Seven applications had been submitted further to the Council Presidency's call in July 2013 for applications to provisionally host the European Police College until a long- term solution for the future of the Agency could be found. The Member States submitting candidatures were Ireland, Greece, Spain, Italy, Hungary, The Netherlands and Finland. Finland subsequently withdrew its application. The political agreement was confirmed at the JHA Council meeting on the same day, 8 October 2013.
Amendment 17 #
2013/0812(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) In its 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 27 March 2013, the European Commission estimated that the merging of Europol and CEPOL into a single agency, situated at the current headquarters of Europol in The Hague would create important synergies and efficiency gains, assessing savings at the level of €17.2 million over the period 2015-2020 and 14 full time staff equivalent (FTE).
Amendment 19 #
2013/0812(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 b (new)
Recital 3 b (new)
(3b) Given the links between the tasks of Europol and CEPOL, a close cooperation between the two agencies would enhance the effectiveness of operational activity, the relevance of training and the efficiency of Union police cooperation. A relocated seat for CEPOL should therefore be in proximity of Europol seat, in order strengthen the links and create synergies between the two fields of the Agencies. Contacts between the operational and the training staff would help identify training needs, thus increasing the relevance and focus of EU training, to the benefit of EU police cooperation overall.
Amendment 20 #
2013/0812(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 c (new)
Recital 3 c (new)
(3c) The European Commission had estimated that the relocation of around 40 staff from CEPOL's current site in Bramshill, UK, to the Europol site in The Hague, the Netherlands, is expected to result in limited one-off costs, estimated at €30 000. Potential savings and synergies or efficiency gains are particularly important in an economic context where national and EU resources are scarce and where resources to strengthen EU law enforcement training might not otherwise be available.
Amendment 21 #
2013/0812(COD)
Draft regulation
Recital 3 d (new)
Recital 3 d (new)
(3d) As underlined by the European Commission, the draft Regulation amending the CEPOL Decision does not refer to the provisional relocation of the seat of CEPOL, but goes much further, as it is in direct opposition to the Commission's proposal for the Europol Regulation, including the merger of CEPOL into Europol, which has been and remains on the table since 27 March 2013.
Amendment 22 #
2013/0812(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 e (new)
Recital 3 e (new)
(3e) The relocation of CEPOL as proposed does not achieve the functional and operational reform that would match the goals of rationalisation and operational improvement for agencies. It has adverse budgetary effects, as it does not achieve functional synergies and cost savings. It is consequently not in line with the recommendations set out in the Common Approach on decentralised agencies endorsed by the 3 Institutions.
Amendment 28 #
2013/0812(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Council Decision 2005/681/JHA
Article 4
Article 4
The seat of CEPOL shall be in Budapest, HungaryThe Hague, The Netherlands.
Amendment 201 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) ‘the competent authorities of the Member States’ means all police authorities and other law enforcement services existing in the Member States which are responsible under national law for preventing and combating criminal offences in respect of which Europol is competent;
Amendment 287 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point i
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point i
Amendment 289 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point j
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point j
(j) on a proposal from the Director, adopt appropriate implementing rules for giving effect to the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants in accordance with Article 110 of the Staff Regulations;
Amendment 296 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point p
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point p
Amendment 301 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 303 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 318 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 5 – point m a (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 5 – point m a (new)
(ma) without prejudice to Art. 14(1)(j), exercise, with respect to the staff of Europol, the powers conferred by the Staff Regulations on the Appointing Authority and by the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants on the Authority Empowered to Conclude a Contract of Employment ('the appointing authority powers').
Amendment 326 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3
Article 22 – paragraph 3
3. When necessary, because of urgency, the Executive Board may take certain provisional decisions on behalf of the Management Board, in particular on administrative management matters, including the suspension of the delegation of the appointing authority powers.
Amendment 341 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. In so far as necessary for the achievement of its objectives as laid down in Article 3(1) and (2), Europol shallmay process information , including personal data only, for the purposes of:
Amendment 347 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) executing other tasks outlined in Article 4.
Amendment 422 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) the transfer of the data is absolutely necessary in the interests of preventing imminent and serious danger associated with crime or terrorist offences and concerning a Member State or a third country;
Amendment 427 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) the transfer is necessary to safeguard legitimate interests of the data subject where the law of the Member State transferring the data so provides; or
Amendment 432 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d a (new)
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) the transfer is necessary in individual cases for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties.
Amendment 644 #
2013/0091(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 67 – paragraph 1
Article 67 – paragraph 1
1. Regulation (EC) No 1049/200143 shall apply to all administrative documents held by Europol.
Amendment 61 #
2012/2043(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Regrets that the Strategy fails to reflect the link between the wellbeing of animals and public health; Calls on the Commission to apply the ‘One Health’ principle to its Strategy, as good animal husbandry and care helps to prevent the spread of diseases and antimicrobial resistance;
Amendment 71 #
2012/2043(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for a report on stray animals recommending concrete solutions and including the evaethical and sustainable soluation of a system for the registration and the electronic identification of pets, to be added to the list of actionss based on birth control (capture, castration and controlled release);
Amendment 76 #
2012/2043(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls for the introduction of a system for the EU-wide registration and electronic tagging of pets on the basis of a uniform, jointly-agreed basic data record;
Amendment 83 #
2012/2043(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6c. Calls on the Commission to consider an EU-wide ban on wild animals in circuses;
Amendment 85 #
2012/2043(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Calls on the Commission to examine with greater stringency the justification for the production of goose and duck foie gras according to the legal basis set down in Article 36 TFEU and, if such justification is not upheld, rigorously to ban production;
Amendment 160 #
2012/2043(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Recalls that the Parliament considers that such a Framework Law should be based on validated science and proven experience and cover all kept animals, as well as abandoned animals and animals kept in animal shelters, including stray animals of domesticated species; Recalls that the Parliament has called for the Animal Welfare Quality project to be further developed as regards its simplification and practical application;
Amendment 31 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The main motive for cross-border organised crime is financial gain. In order to be effective, law enforcement and judicial authorities should be given the means to trace, freeze, manage and confiscate the proceeds of crime. most crime, and particularly cross-border organised crime, including mafia-type criminal organization, is financial gain. In order to be effective, appropriate competent authorities should be given the means to trace, freeze, manage and confiscate the proceeds of crime. However, effective prevention of and fight against organized crime should not be limited to the neutralization of the proceeds of crime but should be extended, in some cases, even to property in any way related to such criminal associations. It is not enough, therefore, merely to ensure mutual recognition in the EU of seizure and confiscation of proceeds of crime. An effective fight against economic crime would also require the mutual recognition of measures taken in a different field from that of criminal law or otherwise adopted in the absence of a criminal conviction and that they have as their object, more broadly, any possible asset or income attributable to a criminal organization or to a person with a criminal conduct or suspected to belong to a criminal organization.
Amendment 40 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds following a final decision of a court and of property of equivalent value to those proceeds should therefore refer to this broadened concept for the criminal offences covered by this Directive. Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA required Member States to enable the confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime following a final conviction and to enable the confiscation of property of equivalent value to the proceeds of crime. Such obligations should be maintained for the criminal offences not covered by this Directive and the concept of proceeds as defined in this Directive should be extended also for the criminal offences not covered by this Directive.
Amendment 46 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) The issuance of confiscation orders generally requires a criminal conviction. In some cases, even where a criminal conviction cannot be achieved, it should stillanyhow be possible to confiscate assets in order to disrupt criminal activities and ensure that profits resulting from criminal activities are not reinvested into the licit economy. Some Member States allow confiscation where there is insufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution or regardless a criminal prosecution, if a court considers, on the balance of probabilities, that the property is of illicit originof a person socially dangerous or having a criminal lifestyle is of illicit origin or disproportionate if compared to his declared income, and also in situations where a suspect or accused person becomes a fugitive to avoid prosecution, is unable to stand trial for other reasons or died before the end of criminal proceedings. This is referred to as non- conviction based confiscation. Provision should be made to enable non-conviction based confiscation in at least the latterabove mentioned, limited, circumstances in all Member States, including the mutual recognition to such non conviction-based orders. This is in line with Article 54.1.c) of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, which provides that each State Party is to consider taking the necessary measures to allow confiscation of illicitly acquired property without a criminal conviction, including in cases in which the offender cannot be prosecuted by reason of death, flight or absence or in other appropriate cases.
Amendment 49 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) The practice by a suspected or accused person of transferring property to a knowing third party with a view to avoiding confiscation is common and increasingly widespread. The current Union legal framework does not contain binding rules on the confiscation of property transferred to third parties. Therefore it is becoming increasingly necessary to allow for confiscation of property transferred to third parties, which should normally take place when an accused person does not have property that can be confiscated. It is appropriate to provide for third party confiscation, under certain conditions, following an assessment, based on specific facts, that the confiscation of property of the convicted, suspected or accused person is unlikely to succeed, or in situations where unique objects must be restored to their rightful owner. Furthermore, tor acquired by third parties. To protect the interests of bona fide third parties, such confiscation should only be possible if the third party knew or should have been known that property was the instrumentalities or the proceeds of crime or was transferred in order to avoid confiscation andor if it was given for free or transferred in exchange for an amount significantly lower than its market value.
Amendment 51 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13 a (new)
Recital 13 a (new)
(13a) In order to grant a more efficient fight against criminal organizations and serious crime, complying with already existing experiences, Member States should introduce in their criminal system an offence to punish and prosecute those behaviours aimed at fictitiously attributing ownership and availability of property to third parties, with the aim to avoid seizure or confiscation measures. Also the support in committing this offence should be suitably punished.
Amendment 53 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) Suspected or accused persons often hide property throughout the entire duration of criminal proceedings. As a result confiscation orders cannot be executed, leaving those subject to confiscations orders to benefit from their property once they have served their sentence. It is accordingly necessary to enable the determination of the precise extent of the property to be confiscated even after a final conviction for a criminal offence, in order to permit the full execution of confiscation orders when no property or insufficient property was initially discovered and the confiscation order remains unexecuted. Given the limitation of the right to property by freezing orders, such provisional measures should not be maintained longer than necessary to preserve the availability of the property with a view of possible future confiscation. This may require a regular, where necessary, a review by the court in order to ensure that their purpose of preventing the dissipation of property remains valid.
Amendment 57 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16 a (new)
Recital 16 a (new)
(16a) In order that civil society can concretely perceive the effectiveness of the action of the Member states against organized crime, including mafia type, and that proceeds are actually detracted from the criminals, it is necessary to adopt common measures to avoid that the criminal organizations take possession another time of property illicitly obtained. Best practices in several Member States have shown to be effective tools: management and administration by Asset Management Offices (AMO) or similar mechanisms, as well as the use of the confiscated property for projects aimed to contrast and prevent crime, for other institutional or public purposes or social use.
Amendment 61 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) Reliable data sources on the freezing and confiscation of the proceeds of crime are scarce. In order to allow for the evaluation of this Directive, it is necessary to collect a comparable minimum set of appropriate statistical data on asset tracing, judicial and asset management and disposal activities.
Amendment 65 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18 a (new)
Recital 18 a (new)
(18a) Some Member States have already successfully adopted non conviction-based systems of confiscation. As a matter of facts, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has never considered as a violation of fundamental rights, sanctioned in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in the European Convention on Human Rights, the fact that individuals can be subjected to such a measure of privation of their goods.
Amendment 67 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Since the objective of this Directive, namely facilitating confiscation of property in criminal matters, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and 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 that objective.
Amendment 68 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
This Directive establishes minimum rules on the seizure or freezing of property with a view to possible later confiscation and, on the confiscation of property in criminal matters and without a criminal conviction and on the management and disposal of confiscated property.
Amendment 69 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)
This Directive is without prejudice to the court procedures that Member States may use in order to deprive the perpetrator of the property in question.
Amendment 77 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
(4) ‘'confiscation’' means a penalty or a measure, ordered by a court following proceedings in relation to a criminal offence resulting in the final deprivation of property;
Amendment 78 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5
(5) ‘'freezing’' or seizure means the temporary prohibition of the transfer, destruction, conversion, disposition or movement of property or temporarily assuming custody or control of property;
Amendment 79 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
(6a) as well as any other legal instruments if these instruments provide specifically that this Directive applies to criminal offences harmonised therein.
Amendment 83 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to enable itjudicial authorities to confiscate, either wholly or in part, instrumentalities and proceeds followingor property the value of which corresponds to such instrumentalities and proceeds, subject to a final conviction for a criminal offence.
Amendment 87 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Amendment 96 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall adopt the necessary measures to enable itcompetent authorities to confiscate, either wholly or in part, property belonging to a person convicted of a criminal offence where, based on specific facts, a court finds it substantially more probable that the property in question has been derived by the convicted person from similar criminal activities than from other activities such as that the value of property is disproportionate to the lawful income of the convicted person, a court finds it on the balance of probabilities that the property in question has been acquired unlawfully.
Amendment 107 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to enable judicial authorities to confiscate any assets belonging to a person unable to justify their legitimate origin where a court find, on the basis of specific circumstances and respecting the right of the defence and bona fide third parties, that those assets derive from criminal activities that are allegedly related to that person.
Amendment 116 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) proceeds or instrumentalities which were transferred to third parties by a convicted person or on his behalf, or by suspected or accused persons under the circumstances of Article 5directly or indirectly to or acquired by third parties, or
Amendment 119 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) other property of the convicted person, which was transferred to or acquired by third parties in order to avoid confiscation of property the value of which corresponds to the proceeds.
Amendment 122 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The confiscation of proceeds or property referred to in paragraph 1 shall be possible where the property is subject to restitution or where
Amendment 123 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point a
Amendment 126 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b – introductory part
(b) the proceeds or property were transferred for free or in exchange for an amount significantly lower than their market value when the third party:;
Amendment 127 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) in the case of proceeds, the third party knew about their illicit origin, or, in the absence of such knowledge, a reasonable person in its position would have suspected that their origin was illicit, based on concrete facts and circumstances;
Amendment 128 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b b (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b b (new)
(bb) in the case of other property, the third party knew that it was transferred in order to avoid confiscation of property the value of which corresponds to the proceeds or, in the absence of such knowledge, a reasonable person in its position would have suspected that it was transferred to avoid such confiscation, based on concrete facts and circumstances.
Amendment 131 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 a (new)
Article 6 a (new)
Article 6a Fictitious assignment of property to third parties Each Member State takes legislative measures in order to introduce provisions aimed at prosecuting conducts of those who fictitiously attribute ownership and availability of property to third parties, with the aim to avoid seizure or confiscation measures.
Amendment 132 #
Amendment 165 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – title
Article 10 – title
Management of frozen, seized and confiscated property
Amendment 168 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
2. Each Member State shall ensure that the measures referred to in paragraph 1 to frozen property optimise the economic value of such property, and shall include, only if necessary, the sale or transfer of property which is liable to decline in value. Each Member State shall take all the necessary measures to prevent any criminal infiltration in this phase.
Amendment 170 #
2012/0036(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures, based on existing best practices, to provide for the disposal and the destination of property confiscated. It shall be a priority to destine such property to law enforcement and crime prevention projects as well as to other projects of public interest and social utility. Any other destination of such property shall be considered only if the above mentioned are not possible and in any case each Member State shall take all the necessary measures to prevent any criminal or illegal infiltration in this phase.
Amendment 995 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4
Article 7 – paragraph 4
4. Consent shall not provide a legal basis for the processing, where there is a significant imbalance between the position of the data subject and the controller, or where the processing of data for a purpose is disproportionate in relation to the obtained consent.
Amendment 1104 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
If the data processed by a controller do not permit the controller to identify or single out a natural person, the controller shall not be obliged to acquire additional information in order to identify the data subject for the sole purpose of complying with any provision of this Regulation.
Amendment 1187 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the specific purpose or purposes of the processing for which the personal data are intended, including in relation to the provisions of Article 6, and notably the contract terms and general conditions where the processing is based on point (b) of Article 6(1) and the legitimate interests pursued by the controller where the processing is based on point (f) of Article 6(1a) and (1b);
Amendment 1477 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 8 a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Where the conditions for the right to be forgotten and to erasure are met pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2, the data subject shall also have the right to request the rectification, erasure, deletion or delisting of personal data to any service of the Information Society, which provides tools enabling or facilitating research or access to data.
Amendment 1503 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. The data subject shall have the right, where personal data are processed by electronic means and in a structured and commonly used format, to obtain from the controller a copy of data undergoing processing in an electronic, interoperable and structured format which is commonly used and allows for further use by the data subject.
Amendment 1511 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2
2. Where the data subject has provided the personal data and the processing is based on consent or on a contract, the data subject shall have the right to transmit those personal data and any other information provided by the data subject and retained by an automated processing system, into another one, in an electronic format which is commonly used, without hindrance from the controller from whom the personal data are withdrawn.
Amendment 1565 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) is carried out in the course ofnecessary for the entering into, or performance of, a contract, where the request for the entering into or the performance of the contract, lodged by the data subject, has been satisfied, or where suitable measures to safeguard the data subject's legitimate interests have been adduced, such as the right to obtain humanincluding the right to be provided with meaningful information about the logic used in the profiling, and the right to obtain human intervention, including an explanation of the decision reached after such intervention; or
Amendment 1575 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) is expressly authorized by a Union or Member State law and which also lays down suitable measures to safeguardprotects the data subject's legitimate interests and protects against possible discrimination resulting from measures described in paragraph 1; or
Amendment 1583 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) is based on the data subject's consent, subject to the conditions laid down in Article 7 and to suitable safeguards, including effective protection against possible discrimination resulting from measures described in paragraph 1.
Amendment 1651 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 21 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Legislative measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall neither permit or oblige private controllers to retain data additional to those strictly necessary for the original purpose.
Amendment 2393 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 41 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) the rule of law, relevant legislation in force, both general and sectoral, including concerning public security, defence, national security and criminal law as well as the implementation of this legislation, the professional rules and security measures which are complied with in that country or by that international organisation, as well as effective and enforceable rights including effective administrative and judicial redress for data subjects, in particular for those data subjects residing in the Union whose personal data are being transferred;
Amendment 2501 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 1 – point h
Article 44 – paragraph 1 – point h
Amendment 2524 #
2012/0011(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 6
Article 44 – paragraph 6
6. The controller or processor shall document the assessment as well as the appropriate safeguards adduced referred to in point (h) of paragraph 1 of this Article in the documentation referred to in Article 28 and shall informobtain prior approval of the transfer by the supervisory authority of the transfer.
Amendment 170 #
2012/0010(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Title 1
Title 1
Proposal for a DIRECTIVEREGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data
Amendment 169 #
2011/2246(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Repeats its call on the Commission to guarantee the respect, protection and promotion of the fundamental right to freedom of expression and information, media freedom and pluralism in the EU and in its Member States by issuing a legislative initiative, to ensure the full application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, of the ECHR and of the related jurisprudence on positive obligations in the field of media; such initiative shall include provisions on transparency on media ownership, media concentration, conflict of interest rules to prevent undue influence from political and economic powers on the media, independence of media supervisory bodies; in this perspective, Calls on the Commission to institutionalise EU-level cooperation and coordination on the media, for instance by establishing a European regulators' group for audiovisual media services, and to harmonise the status of the national regulatory authorities provided for in Articles 29 and 30 of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), ensuring that they are independent, impartial and transparent as regards their decision-making processes, the exercise of their powers and the monitoring process, and that they have appropriate sanctioning powers to ensure that their decisions are implemented;
Amendment 2 #
2011/2226(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. ...Calls on the Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority dischargeto inform the discharge authority by the 30 June 2012 of the measures taken and of the improvements made in all the areas of concern and decides to postpone the discharge to the Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority in respect of the implementation of the Authority's budget for the financial year 2010;
Amendment 17 #
2011/2226(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Considers that, while a dialogue with industry on product assessment methodologies is legitimate and necessary, this dialogue should not undermine the independence of the Authority nor the integrity of risk assessment procedures; asks therefore the Authority to consider as a conflict of interest the current or recent past participation of its Management Board, panel and working group members or staff to International Life Science Institute (ILSI) activities such as taskforces, scientific committees or chairs for conferences;
Amendment 24 #
2011/2226(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Considers that product assessment should not be based solely on industry's data, but should duly take into account independent scientific literature published in peer reviewed journals; stresses that extra caution should be paid to industry influence in the elaboration of guidelines and assessment methodologies, which should not favour industry-sponsored studies on speculative grounds and which should be elaborated in an open, transparent and balanced manner;
Amendment 28 #
2011/2226(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Welcomes that the Authority has adopted a new definition of conflicts of interests, based on the OECD definition, but warns that further improvements are necessary to strengthen the Authority's policy on independence; stresses in particular that the criteria that define a conflict of interests should be clarified and widened, and include current and recent past activities;
Amendment 1 #
2011/2220(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. ...Calls on the Agency to inform the discharge authority by the 30 June 2012 of the measures taken and of the improvements made in respect of all the areas of concern and decides to postpone the discharge to the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency's budget for the financial year 2010 ;
Amendment 20 #
2011/2220(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22 a. Calls the Agency to report on its involvement in the organization of conferences by private organizations such as the Organisation for Professionals in Regulatory Affairs (TOPRA) ;
Amendment 21 #
2011/2220(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls onUrges the Agency to provide the discharge authority with the guidelines and assessment criteria on handling potential conflicts of interest of staff members, experts and members of the Management Board;
Amendment 24 #
2011/2220(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24 a. Notes that the former Executive Director of the Agency wrote to the Agency on 28 December 2010 outlining the activities he was intending to take up at the end of his term of office; considers the first decision dated 11 January 2011 taken by the Chairman of the Agency Management Board to authorize the new activities of its former Executive Director a breach of Union rules relating to conflicts of interest, in particular with regard to Title II, Article 16 of the Staff Regulations of the Officials of the European Communities; recalls that according to Title II article 11 and title IV article 91 of Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities, this disposal applies by analogy to temporary agents and to contract employees ; considers the fact that the Management Board adopted limitations on the future activities of the former Executive Director on 17 March 2011 - only after strong public protest - a clear proof that the Agency did initially not apply the Staff Regulations properly, which in turn raises serious questions about their application of the rules in general; asks the Executive Director of the Agency to present a detailed report of the implementation of Article 16 of the Staff Regulations within the Agency;
Amendment 28 #
2011/2220(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25 a. Regrets the fact that many of the experts failed to publish their declarations of interests (DoI), and that the comparison of DoI published by the relevant national agency and by the Agency shows significant differences in some cases; deplores, furthermore, the fact that at least one member of the Management Board of the Agency, also substitute member of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), failed to declare his recent management responsibilities in a pharmaceutical firm ;
Amendment 30 #
2011/2220(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 b (new)
Paragraph 25 b (new)
25 b. Urges the Agency to carry out checks on the declarations of interests submitted to it, and a detailed check on a random basis, notably in implementing a system under which declarations are cross-checked against information held by industry and by the relevant national agencies;
Amendment 32 #
2011/2220(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 c (new)
Paragraph 25 c (new)
25 c. Urges the Agency to apply its conflict of interest policy to its Management Board ;
Amendment 34 #
2011/2220(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 e (new)
Paragraph 25 e (new)
25 e. Considers that the effective management of conflict of interest is crucial to maintain public trust in the work of the Agency;
Amendment 1 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that EU citizenship is the fundamental status of Member States' nationals; underlines the close link between the rights inherent to EU citizenship and those enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights applicable to all persons on EU territory; calls on the EU institutions and Member States to align the rights of third-country nationals permanently residing in EU with the rights of EU citizensat the fundamental rights and personal freedoms enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Treaties as regard to EU citizenship are directly applicable and inherent to all persons on EU territory including third- country nationals permanently residing in EU with the rights of EU citizens; urges the EU institutions and Member States to have a more proactive approach as respecting fundamental rights and personal freedoms is of the utmost importance;
Amendment 33 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is concerned about the poor implementation of current directivand adherence to directives in force by Member States, especially the Free Movement Directive, whichsince such situation causes many problems related to free movement and other rights of EU citizens, and calls on all parties to correctly and fully transpose and implement the acquis and most importantly adhere to it;
Amendment 36 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Underlines that some categories of persons encounter discriminatory obstacles in the exercise of the right to free movement, notably LGBT persons in same-sex unions, transgender people, third country family members and Roma;
Amendment 42 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Calls on the Commission to issue clear guidelines and bring infringement proceedings against those Member States that violate articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States by denying same-sex spouses, same-sex and different-sex registered partners, or same-sex and different-sex partners in a durable and attested relationship and their families the right to free movement and residence, or the facilitation thereof, calls on the Commission to examine the implementation of Directive 2004/38/EC fully in conjunction with Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and initiate infringement proceedings against Member States that discriminate against persons in same-sex unions, transgender people, third-country family members and Roma;
Amendment 44 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Calls the Commission to come up urgently with an ambitious proposal on the full mutual recognition of the effects of civil status documents across the EU so as to finally overcome the legal and administrative obstacles citizens face when moving in the EU, including same- sex spouses, different-sex and same-sex registered partners, or same-sex and different-sex partners in a durable attested relationship and their families, including their children;
Amendment 47 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Regrets that citizens of Roma origin are often targeted by Member States for expulsion, in violation of the Free Movement Directive and of the Race Directive, and subjected to collective expulsion procedures, such as in the case of France in 2010; underlines that Roma integration and inclusion is still pending issue in the EU agenda and in this regard calls on the Commission to urge Member States to treat Roma minorities equally and deepen their efforts in the areas of unemployment, housing health, education, free movement, anti- discrimination and fundamental rights; urges the Member States especially to focus on social inclusion of the Roma children;
Amendment 50 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes the view that, gGiven the low number of EU citizens resident in a Member State other than their own who exercise their right to vote or stand as candidate in either European or local elections in their place of residence, the Commission andakes the view that the Commission should call the Member States shouldto promote such participation by various means including by ensuring that membership of political parties is allowed to all EU citizens and by launching a special informational campaign targeting those EU citizens resident in a Member State other than their own;
Amendment 53 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Regrets that a large number of EU citizens resident in a Member State other than their own are not fully and effectively informed about their rights; calls on the Commission to urge the Member States to focus their efforts in enhancing their information systems especially in areas EU citizens initially encounter problems, denial or restriction of their EU rights such as residence, work, social rights, health, marital status, consumer rights;
Amendment 56 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Calls on the Commission, the Council and Member States to make the most of the upcoming European Year of Citizenship 2013 so to ensure that information campaigns on European citizenship and the rights connected to it are carried out and calls on the Commission to strengthen its activity of monitoring and support to citizens in facing violations of citizens' rights and overcoming them so to ensure that the European Year allows for concrete progress in citizens' lives;
Amendment 57 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Regrets that the administrative procedures in some Member States are too time consuming and thus sometimes are equal to a denial of EU citizen's rights; calls on the Commission to be more proactive on infringement procedures in this area ;
Amendment 66 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes with regret that the Commission has not been very activesufficiently active and transparent in addressing infringements related to citizens' rights; and consequently calls on the Commission to behave more proactively;strengthen monitoring, reporting and supporting citizens when they face citizens' rights violations, as well as finding solutions to overcome them, including by launching infringement proceedings, in its role of guardian of the Treaties
Amendment 73 #
2011/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls on the Commission to make a comparative study on European citizenship, national citizenship, electoral rights to identify differences, divergences and gaps that could impact unfairly or disproportionately certain categories of persons in the EU (stateless persons, EU and non-EU citizens, Roma, etc) and accompany it with appropriate recommendations to overcome discriminations that are contrary to the values of the EU;
Amendment 100 #
2011/2182(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Amendment 109 #
2011/2182(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Calls the Commission to come up urgently with an ambitious proposal on the full mutual recognition of the effects of civil status documents across the EU so as to finally overcome the legal and administrative obstacles citizens face when moving in the EU, including same sex spouses, different-sex and same-sex registered partners, or same-sex and different-sex partners in a durable attested relationship and their families, including their children;
Amendment 275 #
2011/2069(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Calls on Member States who have adopted legislation on same-sex partnerships to recognise provisions with similar effects adopted by other Member States and calls on the Commission to issue a proposal with this aim; recalls the Member States’ obligation to fully implement Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, including for same-sex couples and their children; welcomes the fact that more and more Member States have introduced and/or adapted their laws on cohabitation, civil partnership and marriage to overcome the discriminations based on sexual orientation lived by same- sex couples and their children and calls on other Member States to introduce similar laws;
Amendment 279 #
2011/2069(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Calls on the Commission and the Council to intervene more forcefully against homophobia, violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation, including by calling Member States’ mayors and the police to protect freedom of expression and demonstration on the occasion of LGBTI prides and by officially granting support to them; calls on the Commission to finally follow up the repeated calls by the European Parliament and NGOs and issue as a matter of urgency the EU Roadmap for equality on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, to be launched at the latest in 2013;
Amendment 434 #
2011/2069(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 a (new)
Paragraph 44 a (new)
44a. Is extremely worried at the situation of democracy, rule of law, checks and balances, media and fundamental rights in some of the Member States and notably at the practice by those in power of selecting, appointing or firing persons for independent positions such as Constitutional Courts, the judiciary, public broadcasting media heads and media regulatory bodies, ombudsmen or commissioners, on the basis of mere party politics instead of competence, experience and independence;
Amendment 444 #
2011/2069(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)
Paragraph 45 a (new)
45a. Calls the Commission to entrust the FRA with the task of issuing an yearly report monitoring the situation of media freedom and pluralism in the European Union;
Amendment 453 #
2011/2069(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 d (new)
Paragraph 45 d (new)
45d. Expresses concern in relation to the events of disproportionate repression by the police in Member States on the occasion of public events and demonstrations, as confirmed by the recent Italian judgment on the G8 in Genoa, and by other reports by NGOs, citizens and media involving many EU Member States; calls for Member States to make sure that democratic and judicial oversight of law enforcement agencies and personnel is strengthened, accountability is ensured and that impunity has no place in Europe, notably when acts of torture or inhuman or degrading treatments are committed;
Amendment 457 #
2011/2069(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 g (new)
Paragraph 45 g (new)
45g. Expresses ongoing concern on the situation in Hungary, notably in relation to the new Constitution, government control on the media and the judiciary, restrictions to LGBTI rights and freedom of expression, discrimination among religious groups and of Roma and other minority groups, criminalization of homeless persons, the situation in the educational system and measures affecting students, the rise in extremism, racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, as well as raising tensions with neighbouring states;
Amendment 57 #
2011/0217(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) The rights inherent to citizenship of the Union are incorporated in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. According to the Charter's Preamble, the Union ‘places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing a citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice’. Chapter V of the Charter sets down ‘Citizens’ rights‘, including, in its Article 45, the right of every citizen of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. The Charter furthermore prohibits any discrimination in its Article 21.
Amendment 79 #
2011/0217(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Despite the fact that the right to free movement and residence is firmly anchored in primary Union law and substantially developed in secondary law, a gap still remains between the applicable legal rules and the reality confronting citizens when they seek to exercise this right in practice. Aside from an uncertainty over the advantages of being mobile, Union citizens perceiveexercising their right to free movement still experience violations of their rights and discriminations, while those wanting to exercise it are faced with too many practical obstacles still existing with regard to living and working elsewhere in the Union.
Amendment 88 #
2011/0217(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) In the EU Citizenship Report 2010 ‘Dismantling the obstacles to EU citizens’ rights‘, the Commission addressed the main violations, discriminations and obstacles which citizens still encounter in their daily lives when they seek to exercise their rights as Union citizens, in particular in cross-border situations and outlined 25 concrete actions to remove these obstacles. One of the obstacles identified in this context was lack of information. The Commission concluded, in the EU Citizenship Report 2010, that Union citizens are prevented from enjoying their rights because they lack awareness of them and announced its intention to step up the dissemination of information to Union citizens about their rights, in particular about their right to free movement.
Amendment 90 #
2011/0217(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Given that the right to free movement significantly improves individuals' lives, it is vital that information about the existence of this right and, the conditions for exercising it and the ways to have it upheld is available as broadly as possible. As a considerable number of Union citizens exercise this right and since all Union citizens are potential beneficiaries of this righit, awareness raising efforts should be made across the Union.
Amendment 103 #
2011/0217(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 15 a (new)
Recital 15 a (new)
(15a) It is also essential to provide citizens with information on their rights in relation to the recognition of their marriage, union or cohabitation in other Member States, since the lack of recognition represents a violation of their fundamental rights and of the right to free movement, notably for same-sex couples, which is prohibited by Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Amendment 122 #
2011/0217(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – indent 1
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – indent 1
– to raise Union citizens' awareness of their right to move and reside freely within the European Union and more generally the rights guaranteed to Union citizens in cross-border situations, including their right to participate in the democratic life of the Union, without discrimination;
Amendment 131 #
2011/0217(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – indent 3 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – indent 3 a (new)
– to strengthen the respect, protection and promotion of citizens' rights, by identifying and removing discriminations prohibited by Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and violations and obstacles prohibited by Union law, as well as fighting against intolerance and prejudice and notably racism, xenophobia, anti-gypsism, homophobia, anti-semitism, etc.
Amendment 142 #
2011/0217(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – indent 3
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – indent 3
– conferences and events to promote debate and raise awareness of the importance and benefits of the right to free movement and residence and more generally citizens' rights as Union citizens, without discrimination;
Amendment 144 #
2011/0217(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – indent 4
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – indent 4
– use of the existing multilingual participatory tools to stimulate citizens' contributions in giving tangible effect to their rights, for instance by allowing citizens to signal violations, obstacles and discriminations in relation to their rights and ensure a follow up by Union institutions and Member States, and more generally in achieving the objectives of the European Year;
Amendment 149 #
2011/0217(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – indent 6
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – indent 6
– strengthening of the role and visibility of problem solving tools, such as SOLVIT, to allow Union citizens to better make use of and defend their rights, defend their rights and have their rights respected, protected and promoted by Union institutions and Member States, by ensuring a proper legal and political follow up.
Amendment 6 #
2011/0167(NLE)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines, at the same time, that it is crucial to strike the appropriate balance between enforcement of IPRs and fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, the right to privacy and protection of personal data, the right to due process and confidentiality of communications, the right to due process -notably the presumption of innocence and effective judicial proteciton1 - and recalls the case- law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as regards this fair balance,; ______________ 1 See also in this sense the Opinion of the EDPS of 24 April 2012 <http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/my Site/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2012/12- 04-24_ACTA_EN.pdf.
Amendment 32 #
2011/0167(NLE)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Considers that when fundamental rights are at stake ambiguity must be avoided and at the least reduced to a minimumthere shall be no place for any ambiguity; recalls that the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence affirms that any limitation to the fundamental rights and freedoms foreseen by law must be foreseeable in its effects, clear and precise and accessible, as well as necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the aims pursued; underlines that ACTA might create a legal basis for third countries controls and subsequent measures, notably at the borders, on Union citizens travelling outside of the Union, as well as on their properties; moreover, and without assigning any wrongful intentions ("procès d'intention") to the ACTA implementation measures, takes the view that in the current state of affairs precaution should be exercised as regards ACTA in light of the serious and remaining question-marks surrounding the balance reached within the agreement between IPRs and other core fundamental rights and its level of legal certainty.;
Amendment 39 #
2011/0167(NLE)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Shares the concerns expressed by the EDPS in its opinion on ACTA, notably in relation to the unclear scope, the vague notion of "competent authority", the processing of personal data by ISPs through voluntary enforcement cooperation measures and the lack of appropriate safeguards in relation to fundamental rights;
Amendment 40 #
2011/0167(NLE)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15b. Is of the opinion that ACTA does not comply with the rights enshrined in the Charter;
Amendment 41 #
2011/0167(NLE)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 c (new)
Paragraph 15 c (new)
15c. Invites the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to recommend that Parliament declines to consent to the conclusion of ACTA;
Amendment 112 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Crime is as an offence against society as well as a violation of the individual rights of victims as well as an offence against society as a whole. As such, victims should be recognised and treated in a respectful, sensitive and professional manner in all contacts with any publiccompetent authority, victim support service or restorative justice service taking into account their personal situation and immediate needs, age, gender, disability and level of maturity and fully respecting their physical, mental and moral integrity. They should be protected from secondary and repeat victimisation and intimidation, should receive appropriate support to facilitate their recovery and should be provided with sufficienteffective and timely access to justice.
Amendment 119 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) This Directive respects fundamental rights and observescomplies with the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular it seeks to promote the right to dignity, life, physical and mental integrity, private and family life,freedom and security, the right to respect for private and family life, the right to non-discrimination and the right to property, and the rights of the child, the elderly and persons with disabilities, and the right to a fair trial.
Amendment 129 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) A person should be considered a 'victim' regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified, apprehended, prosecuted or convicted and regardless of the familial relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. Family members of victims are also harmed as a result of the crime, in particular the family of a deceased victim, who have a legitimate interest in criminal proceedings and in all relevant remedial and compensatory measures. Such indirect victims should therefore also benefit from protection under this Directive. Victims need appropriate support and assistance even before reporting a crime. Such support can be crucial both for the recovery of the victim and in any decision to ultimately report the crime. Any measures concerning such support and assistance should be gender-specific where appropriate.
Amendment 131 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9 a (new)
Recital 9 a (new)
(9a) Victimisation that occurs not as a direct result of a criminal act but through the response or inertia of institutions and individuals in respect of the victim, which is also known as ‘secondary victimisation’, should be avoided through services to victims which demonstrate an approach relevant to their users. Those services should recognise the gender dynamics, impact and consequences of specific forms of violence, while operating within a gender equality and human rights framework.
Amendment 148 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) Support, whether provided by suitably identified governmental or non- governmental organisations, should be made available from the moment a crime takes place as well as throughout criminal proceedings and after such proceedings in accordance with the needs of the victim. Support should be provided through a variety of means, without excessive formalities and through a sufficientn appropriate geographical distribution to allow all victims the opportunity to access such services. Certain groups of victims such as victims of sexual violence, gender, race hate or other bias crimes or victims of terrorism or organised crime may require specialist support services due to the particular characteristics of the crime they have fallen victim to. Member States should supply the resources necessary for the support, assistance and protection of victims, and the proceeds seized in the context of various forms of common, organised or terrorist-related crime should be set aside for this purpose as a matter of priority.
Amendment 160 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16 a (new)
Recital 16 a (new)
(16a) To ensure that victims and their rights are fully protected, individuals who are recognised as being responsible for a crime should be able to have access to benefits that may be provided for under their own procedural and substantive law (plea bargaining, extenuating circumstances, prison benefits, etc.) only when – provided that all requirements have been met – they have fully compensated for the damage done to the victims and their family members.
Amendment 171 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17 a (new)
Recital 17 a (new)
(17a) The innocent victims of terrorism and organised crime are particularly vulnerable due to the specific nature of the crime. They suffer intimidation, hostile behaviour and threats of retaliation by members of the communities associated with the perpetrators. These victims should therefore be granted specific help and recognition from society and must be protected against any exposure to intimidation, hate and fear. The Commission and Member States should consider adopting specific legislation on victims of terrorism and organised crime to recognise their public character and include more detailed provisions that ensure adequate protection and support, recognition, among other rights, long- term emergency assistance, comprehensive reparation, protection of private and family life, protection of dignity and security, the right to knowledge of truth and the right to memory. In this regard, the establishment of truth by the courts, within a reasonable time frame, must be a priority.
Amendment 172 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17 a (new)
Recital 17 a (new)
(17a) Gender-based violence refers to violence that is directed against a person because of his or her gender, gender identity or gender expression. It is a form of violence that affects women disproportionately and it may be interrelated but it is not limited to cases of violence in close relationship, sexual violence (both sexual assault and harassment), sexual trafficking and slavery, intimate relationship violence and other harmful practices such as forced marriages and female genital mutilation. Homophobic and transphobic attacks have also been defined as a form of gender-based violence. Research shows that one-fifth to one-quarter of all women have experienced physical violence at least once during their adult lives and more than one-tenth have suffered sexual violence involving the use of force. In this perspective, it is crucial to criminalise all forms of gender-based violence and provide victims thereof with special prevention, protection and remedies measures.
Amendment 173 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17 b (new)
Recital 17 b (new)
(17b) Innocent victims of terrorism and of organised crime should be granted specific support given the fact that violating an individual right in such a context also violates the rights of society as a whole. As a consequence, a right with an individual nature should be protected in a specific way as it affects collective rights. Any remedial and compensatory measures provided for by the public authorities, in particular those concerning compensation, should be accessible solely to the innocent victims of terrorism and organised crime and their families.
Amendment 179 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) Beyond these categories, but again based on personal characteristics and the crime, any person could be vulnerable and have specific needs. Only through individual assessments, carried out at the earliest opportunity by those in a position to make recommendations on protection measures, can such vulnerabilities be effectively identified. The assessment should in particular take into account age, gender and gender identity, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation, state of health, disability, communication difficulties, relationship to or dependence on the suspected or accused person, previous experience of crime, and the type or nature of the crime such as organised crime, terrorism, or bias crimes and whether the victim is a foreign victibias crime, organised crime or terrorism. Victims of terrorism require particular attention in any assessment given the varying nature of such acts ranging from mass acts of mass terrorism to targeted terrorism against individuals or to the victims of organised crime, especially mafia-style crime.
Amendment 180 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) Beyond these categories, but again based on personal characteristics and the crime, any person could be vulnerable and could have specific needs. Only through individual assessments, carried out at the earliest opportunity by those in a position to make recommendations on protection measures, can such vulnerabilities be effectively identified. The assessment should in particular take into account age, gender, and gender identity and gender expression, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation, state of health, disability, communication difficulties, relationship to or dependence on the suspected or accused person, previous experience of crime, the type or nature of the crime such as organised crime, terrorism, or bias crimes and whether the victim is a foreign victim. Victims of terrorism require particular attention in any assessment given the varying nature of such acts ranging from mass acts of terrorism to targeted terrorism against individuals.
Amendment 186 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Victims who have been identified as vulnerable should be offered appropriate measures to protect them during criminal proceedings and, where necessary, afterwards too. The exact nature and extent of any such measures should be determined through the individual assessment, in discussions with the victim and in accordance with rules of judicial discretion. The victim's concerns and fears in relation to proceedings should be a key factor in determining whether they need any particular measure.
Amendment 194 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22 a (new)
Recital 22 a (new)
(22a) In order to facilitate the more effective protection of victims' rights and interests, Member States should develop a general multi-agency and comprehensive approach. In this regard, Member States should ensure that there are appropriate mechanisms in place that provide for effective cooperation among the judiciary, public prosecutors, law enforcement agencies, local and regional authorities, suitably identified non-governmental organisations and other relevant organisations. The term ‘mechanism’ refers to any formal or informal structure such as agreed protocols, round tables or any other method that enables a number of professionals to cooperate in a standardised manner.
Amendment 200 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) Any officials in criminal proceedings likely to come into contact with victims should be trained to identify and meet the needs of victims both through initial and ongoing training and to a level appropriate to their contact with victims. This should include specialist training as appropriate. Police, prosecutors and other personnel involved in cases of gender-based violence should be trained in appropriate methods to deal with victims of such violence in a gender-sensitive manner. Such training should be institutionalised and standardised across Member States and should be carried out in close consultation with suitably identified non- governmental organisations and service providers for victims of gender-based violence.
Amendment 209 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25 a (new)
Recital 25 a (new)
(25a) Further victimisation, intimidation and discrimination can occur, where victims are targeted for abuse due to their personal characteristics such as race, religion, beliefs, nationality, age, sexual orientation, disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression or social background, which is a leading cause of the high rate of unreported crime cases. Low confidence in the criminal justice system, difficulties in understanding the system for making a complaint and fear of experiencing unacceptable treatment by the authorities through not being believed, or due to a lack of respect and recognition towards the victim are further reasons behind unreported crime cases. In order to encourage and facilitate reporting and to allow victims to break the cycle of repeat victimisation, it is imperative that reliable support services are available to victims and that Member States’ authorities are prepared to respond to victims’ reports in a respectful, considerate, equal and professional manner. This requires sufficient training and an appropriate level of specialisation on the side of all relevant authorities, as well as regulations that pay sufficient attention to the rights of victims, including the right to be protected against intimidation and secondary victimisation. Measures may also include enabling third party reporting and empowering victim support organisations to engage in proceedings on behalf of victims as well as allowing the use of communication technologies, such as e-mail or website forms, for filing complaints.
Amendment 216 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1
Article 1
The purpose of this Directive is to ensure that all victims of crime receive appropriate protection and support and are able to participate in all the stages of criminal proceedings and are recognised and treated in a respectful, sensitive and professional manner, without discrimination of any kind, in all contacts with any public authority, victim support or restorative justice service.
Amendment 247 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point g a (new)
Article 2 – point g a (new)
(ga) ‘gender-based violence’ means violence that is directed against a person because of his or her gender, gender identity or gender expression;
Amendment 285 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that victims are offered the opportunity to be notified when the person prosecuted or sentenced for offences concerning them is released from detention. Victims shall receive this information where they have expressed such a wish, without unnecessary delay, when the person arrested, remanded in custody, prosecuted or sentenced for offences concerning them is released from or has escaped detention. Member States shall ensure that victims are provided with effective support and assistance when receiving that information.
Amendment 331 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 4
Article 7 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall promotensure the setting up or development of specialist support services, including specialist support services for all victims with special needs identified according to Article 18, including victims of gender-based violence, victims of violence in close relationships and their family members, in addition to general victim support services.
Amendment 376 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12
Article 12
Member States shall ensure that innocent victims have access, in accordance with procedures in national law, to legal aid, where they have the status of parties to criminal proceedings.
Amendment 379 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13
Article 13
Member States shall, in accordance with procedures in national law, afford innocent victims who participate in criminal proceedings the possibility of reimbursement of expenses incurred as a result of their participation in criminal proceedings, including as a result of their attendance at the trial.
Amendment 390 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall take measures to encourage offenders to provide adequate compensation to victims and shall allow access to such benefits as might be provided for in procedural or substantive law (plea-bargaining, extenuating circumstances, relaxation of conditions of detention, etc.) only in cases where an offender in a position to do so has made full amends for the harm done to the victim and his or her family members.
Amendment 402 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that measures are available to protect the safety and dignity of victims and their family members from retaliation, intimidation, repeat or further victimisation from their first contact with a competent authority, during and after the conclusion of criminal proceedings. When requested by the victims, these measures shall include non disclosure of the personal characteristics taken into account in the individual assessment referred to in Article 18.
Amendment 451 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Member States shall ensure that the individual assessments referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 are carried out at regular intervals throughout the criminal proceedings in order to take account of any changes in the personal characteristics or circumstances, needs and wishes of victims. Individual assessments shall take into account the following factors: - the personal characteristics of the victim such as age, gender, and gender identity and gender expression, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation, health, disability, legal status, communication difficulties, relationship to or dependence on the suspected or accused person, previous experience of crime; - the type or nature of the crime such as the fact it is committed with a bias or discriminatory motive relating to the victim's personal characteristics such as age, gender, gender identity and gender expression, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation, health, disability, legal status, communication difficulties, relationship to or dependence on the suspected or accused person, previous experience of crime; - the circumstances of the crime such as the fact whether a person is victimised abroad; - the type or nature of the crime such as whether exploitation or physical or sexual violence has been used; - the wishes of the victim with special needs including whether they do not wish to benefit from special measures.
Amendment 469 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – point c a (new)
Article 20 – point c a (new)
(ca) where an act of violence is reported late out of fear of retaliation, humiliation, or stigmatisation, the lateness does not give rise to any unfavourable inference regarding the victim, except where delay of this kind constitutes an offence in itself.
Amendment 499 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 23 a (new)
Article 23 a (new)
Article 23a Facilitation of reporting of offences Member States, where appropriate in cooperation with relevant civil society organisations and other parties concerned, shall take measures to help and encourage victims to report offences.
Amendment 509 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 1
Article 24 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that police, prosecutors and, court staff, lawyers and any other officials likely to come into contact with victims receive both general and specialist training to a level appropriate to their contact with victims to sensitise them to the needs of victims and to deal with them in an impartial, respectful and professional manner. These training schemes shall include the respective contribution of all officials to the identification of victims with special needs provided for in article 18.
Amendment 529 #
2011/0129(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 2
Article 25 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that those authorities working with or providing support to victims work together to ensure a co-ordinated response to victims, to ensure the identification of victims with special needs as provided for in article 18, to facilitate the reporting of criminal offences and to minimise the negative impact of the crime, the risks of secondary and repeat victimisation and the burden on the victim due to interactions between the victim and criminal justice agencies.
Amendment 2 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 a (new)
Citation 5 a (new)
- having regard to Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence, Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on confiscation of crime-related proceeds, instrumentalities and property and Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders,
Amendment 3 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 c (new)
Citation 5 c (new)
- having regard to Council Decision 2007/845/JHA of 6 December 2007 concerning cooperation between Asset Recovery Offices of the Member States in the field of tracing and identification of proceeds from, or other property related to, crime and having regard to Commission report COM(2011)176 based on Article 8 of that decision,
Amendment 4 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 b (new)
Citation 5 b (new)
- having regard to the Council Conclusions on Confiscation and Asset Recovery (7769/3/10),
Amendment 5 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 d (new)
Citation 5 d (new)
- having regard to the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No 198),
Amendment 6 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 e (new)
Citation 5 e (new)
- having regard to the study ‘Assessing the effectiveness of EU Member States’ practices in the identification, tracing, freezing’ (2009), instigated by the Commission,
Amendment 7 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7
Citation 7
– having regard to the OCTA reports (European Organised Crime Threat Assessment) drawn up each year by Europol, in particular that of 2011,
Amendment 9 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)
Citation 7 a (new)
- having regard to the Joint Report by Europol, Eurojust and Frontex on the state of internal security in the EU (2010),
Amendment 10 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 b (new)
Citation 7 b (new)
- having regard to the annual reports of the Italian National Antimafia Directorate; having regard to the reports of the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA, German federal police) on the presence of the ‘ndrangheta in Germany, in particular the most recent of these reports entitled ‘Analysis of the activities of the San Luca clan in Germany’,
Amendment 11 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 c (new)
Citation 7 c (new)
- having regard to the ROCTA (Russian Organised Crime Threat Assessment) report, drawn up by Europol in 2008,
Amendment 12 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 12 a (new)
Citation 12 a (new)
- having regard to the General Report on Europol’s activities (2009),
Amendment 13 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 12 b (new)
Citation 12 b (new)
- having regard to the EP-commissioned study entitled ‘Improving coordination between the EU bodies competent in the area of police and judicial cooperation: moving toward a European Prosecutor’,,
Amendment 14 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 12 c (new)
Citation 12 c (new)
- having regard to Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the Member States of the European Union,
Amendment 15 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 14
Citation 14
Amendment 16 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 19
Citation 19
– having regard to the Council Framework Decision 2002/465/GAI of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation teams, and the report from the Commission on national measures taken to comply with the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on Joint Investigation Teams (COM(2004)0858),
Amendment 18 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 20 a (new)
Citation 20 a (new)
- having regard to Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA,
Amendment 19 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 20 b (new)
Citation 20 b (new)
- having regard to the 40 recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to combat money laundering,
Amendment 20 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 27 a (new)
Citation 27 a (new)
- having regard to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as subsequently amended,
Amendment 21 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 27 b (new)
Citation 27 b (new)
- having regard to the European Parliament study entitled ‘Financial institutions and Structural Funds implementation in southern Italy’ (2009),
Amendment 22 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 27 c (new)
Citation 27 c (new)
- having regard to the EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012) and the EU Action Plan on Drugs (2009-2012),
Amendment 23 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 27 d (new)
Citation 27 d (new)
- having regard to the World Drug Report 2010 of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC),
Amendment 24 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 27 e (new)
Citation 27 e (new)
- having regard to the 2010 annual report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction on the state of the drugs problem in Europe,
Amendment 25 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 28 a (new)
Citation 28 a (new)
- having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein and the Commission recommendation of 13 June 2007 identifying a set of actions for the enforcement of the regulation,
Amendment 26 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 28 b (new)
Citation 28 b (new)
- having regard to the ‘Study on extortion racketeering: the need for an instrument to combat activities of organised crime’, carried out by Transcrime in 2008 and financed by the Commission,
Amendment 27 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 28 c (new)
Citation 28 c (new)
- having regard to the Council resolution of 25 September 2008 on a comprehensive European anti-counterfeiting and anti- piracy plan and the Council resolution of 23 October 2009 on a reinforced strategy for customs cooperation,
Amendment 28 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 a (new)
Citation 30 a (new)
- having regard to Written Declaration 2/2010 of the European Parliament on the Union’s efforts in combating corruption,
Amendment 29 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 b (new)
Citation 30 b (new)
- having regard to Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of 20 November 2008 – Proceeds of organised crime: ensuring that “crime does not pay” [COM(2008) 766]
Amendment 32 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital 30 a (new)
Recital 30 a (new)
- whereas one of the primary objectives of the European Union to create an area of freedom, security and justice without internal borders, in which crime is prevented and combated (Article 3 of the TFE), and to ensure a high level of security through measures to prevent and combat crime and measures for coordination and cooperation between police and judicial authorities and other competent authorities, as well as through the mutual recognition of judgements in criminal matters and, if necessary, through the approximation of criminal laws (Article 67 TFEU),
Amendment 33 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital 30 b (new)
Recital 30 b (new)
- whereas organised crime has a substantial social cost, in that it violates human rights, undermines democratic principles, diverts and wastes financial, human and other resources, distorting the free internal market, contaminating businesses and legitimate economic activities, encouraging corruption and polluting and destroying the environment,
Amendment 34 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 c (new)
Citation 30 c (new)
- whereas the activities of organised criminals can thwart the European Union’s political and financial objectives,
Amendment 35 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital 30 d (new)
Recital 30 d (new)
- whereas alarming evidence that has emerged from the courts and from investigations by police and journalists indicates that, in some Member States, organised crime has infiltrated, and become solidly entrenched in, political circles, the public sector and legitimate economic activities; whereas it is conceivable that similar inroads have also been made, thereby strengthening the position of organised crime, in the rest of the European Union;
Amendment 36 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital 30 e (new)
Recital 30 e (new)
- whereas the purpose and basis of organised crime is to make an economic profit and consequently if action to prevent and combat the problem is to be effective, it must focus on identifying, freezing, seizing and confiscating the proceeds of crime; whereas the legal framework which currently exists at EU level does not appear to be an adequate basis for serious action to tackle the problem and we need legislation which would, for example, allow so-called ‘extended confiscation’ and action targeting assets registered in the name of front persons and organisations; whereas, moreover, the re-use of confiscated assets for social purposes fosters a positive attitude to strategies aimed at tackling organised crime, since confiscating an asset is no longer regarded solely as a means of depriving a criminal organisation of resources but is doubly constructive in that it both helps to prevent organised crime and has the effect of boosting economic and social development,
Amendment 37 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 f (new)
Citation 30 f (new)
- whereas criminal organisations are concentrating their activities on a large number of ever-expanding fields including, for example, international drug trafficking, trafficking in and the exploitation of human beings, financial crime, international arms trafficking, counterfeiting, cybercrime, environmental crime, the diversion of public funds, fraud and extortion, most of which activities are trans-national and pan-European by nature; whereas a large proportion of the proceeds of these criminal activities are laundered,
Amendment 38 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital 30 g (new)
Recital 30 g (new)
- whereas the Member States’ borders are no obstacle to organised crime, with the result that, to all intents and purposes, a European ‘criminal area’ could be said to exist; whereas organised crime exploits, for its criminal ends, the free movement of capital, goods, persons and services throughout the European Union; whereas, on the other hand, borders are still an obstacle to the activities of the investigative and judicial authorities in the various Member States,
Amendment 39 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 h (new)
Citation 30 h (new)
- whereas, although no comprehensive study exists, the mafia-style criminal organisations operating in Europe have an impressively large turnover, particularly in the case of Italian organised crime groups, which, as found by many studies (including the Eurispes study) and confirmed by the joint Eurojust, Europol and Frontex report in 2010, are conservatively estimated to have revenues of at least EUR 135 billion, a figure which is higher than the combined GDP of 6 EU Member States; the foremost example is the ‘ndrangheta, the most deeply entrenched mafia group in the EU countries and in the world, which has an estimated annual turnover of at least EUR 44 billion;
Amendment 40 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 i (new)
Citation 30 i (new)
- whereas, in reply to written question E- 6701/2010, the Commission stated that it was aware of the involvement of mafia- type criminal organisations located in Italy in virtually all types of illegal activities and that, even though their strongholds were in Southern Italy, they had developed ramifications in many, if not all, EU Member States; whereas, moreover, mafia groups of this kind have demonstrated their ability to expand far beyond EU borders (to Australia, US, Canada, and Latin America) and to establish working relations with criminal organisations such as the Chinese, Turkish, Russian and Nigerian mafias, Albanian criminal organisations and Columbian and Mexican drug cartels;
Amendment 41 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital 30 j (new)
Recital 30 j (new)
- whereas, in 2008, the Governor of the Bank of Spain announced that an abnormally large number of EUR 500 banknotes, amounting to EUR 110 million out of a total of EUR 464 million, were in circulation in the eurozone and that, in the 1998-2008 period, of all the members of the three Italian mafia groups arrested abroad while on the run, almost a third (44 out of 149) were caught in Spain; whereas the Duisburg massacre is only the highest-profile indication of the presence of the ‘ndrangheta in Germany and shows that that criminal organisation regards that area as an offshoot of its own territory; whereas, moreover, Duisburg is a crime hub because of its proximity both to the ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp, where the main transport routes for drugs arriving in Europe from West Africa and Latin America terminate, and to Frankfurt, the main European financial centre,
Amendment 42 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 k (new)
Citation 30 k (new)
- whereas action is required to prevent criminal organisations, particularly mafia-type groups, from exploiting the differences between the Member States’ respective criminal systems, taking advantage of those where penalties are less severe, prison conditions are less harsh and investigative procedures are less effective;
Amendment 43 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 l new)
Citation 30 l new)
- whereas the most distinctive feature of mafia-type criminal organisations is their ability to intimidate, which is deeply rooted in the socio-cultural and economic fabric, irrespective of any actual threat or violence; whereas this feature of such organisations enables them to exercise a more pervasive and deeply entrenched influence, oppressing society and enabling the criminal organisation to exert full control over the territory through social interactions and activities which may appear to be legitimate; whereas mafia-type criminal organisations have an extraordinary ability to interact with other powerful interests, including political and economic forces;
Amendment 44 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital 30 m (new)
Recital 30 m (new)
- whereas the history of criminal organisations, particularly mafia-type organisations, shows that at times of economic and social crisis or momentous changes (most recently, globalisation) they are able to reinvent themselves, extend their sphere of operations, and conquer new territory and new markets; whereas, moreover, criminal organisations are continually innovating, both in terms of their methods and the scope of their activities (most recently, cybercrime and the fixing of sporting events);
Amendment 45 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital 30 n (new)
Recital 30 n (new)
- whereas studies, including the 2011 OCTA (EU Organised Crime Threat Assessment) suggest that there is a risk that criminal organisations may cooperate increasingly frequently with terrorist organisations, particularly in connection with international drug trafficking;
Amendment 46 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital 30 o (new)
Recital 30 o (new)
- whereas the threat to the European Union from organised crime goes beyond the borders of the Union and must, therefore, be addressed with due regard to the need for a global and international approach requiring close cooperation with third countries and with international organisations such as, for example, Interpol and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC);
Amendment 47 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital 30 p (new)
Recital 30 p (new)
- whereas the intense activity of the Russian mafia in the European Union is shown both by the presence of criminal organisations of that kind on Member States’ territory and by the criminal organisations based in Russia which use the EU as the target market for their illegal trafficking and to recycle the proceeds of their criminal activities; whereas the main areas in which they operate in the EU are trafficking in goods, trafficking in human beings for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation, trafficking in drugs (particularly heroin but, more recently, also cocaine and synthetic drugs) and drug precursors, investment and contamination of legitimate economic activities, high-tech international fraud, VAT-related fraud, crimes against property, extortion and racketeering; whereas the Russian mafias have at their disposal incredible economic and financial power and considerable political influence, with sizeable interests in basic sectors such as the gas industry and the energy sector in general; whereas the greatest cause for concern is the indirect impact of these criminal organisations’ intensive money laundering and investment activities, which distort and sometimes destroy the free market and enable criminal organisations to infiltrate and establish themselves inside legitimate organisations;
Amendment 48 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital 30 q (new)
Recital 30 q (new)
- whereas the findings of police and judicial investigations have demonstrated the extremely dangerous nature of some African criminal organisations, particularly the Nigerian mafia, which is very actively engaged in trafficking in women for prostitution in Nigeria itself and in international drug trafficking and the distribution of heroin and cocaine on local markets; whereas this extremely violent mafia-type group is present in several Member States;
Amendment 49 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital 30 r (new)
Recital 30 r (new)
- whereas West Africa plays a crucial role in trafficking in cannabis (of which Morocco is the main producer) and cocaine from Latin America; whereas this region of Africa is also a hub for trafficking in human beings for the European market for the purpose of sexual exploitation or the exploitation of cheap, illegal labour; whereas, moreover, a range of criminal organisations are involved in the trafficking operations which pass through, or originate in, West Africa, including in particular Russian criminal organisations (trafficking in cocaine for the EU), Chinese criminal organisations (trafficking in drug precursors) and Turkish criminal organisations (trafficking in contraband tobacco and heroin);
Amendment 50 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital 30 s (new)
Recital 30 s (new)
- whereas the growing presence in various Member States of Asian criminal organisations engaged in a range of activities including trafficking in, and the commercial exploitation of, human beings, fraud, trafficking in drugs (particularly synthetic drug precursors and synthetic marijuana), money laundering, the production of, and trafficking in, counterfeit goods, fraud in connection with betting on sporting events; whereas these organisations primarily operate within their own ethnic communities, which makes it more difficult for the competent authorities to investigate their activities due to language and cultural barriers and the closed nature of some such communities;
Amendment 51 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital 30 t (new)
Recital 30 t (new)
- whereas, even though there is general consensus at European and national level on the need for political action to tackle organised crime, and mafia-type organisations in particular, an ongoing European political debate should be started with a view to ensuring greater awareness and better analysis of this complex phenomenon and the forms it is taking, in order to provide the public with the best means of tackling it in time;
Amendment 52 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital 30 u (new)
Recital 30 u (new)
- whereas, on 8 and 9 November 2010, the Council of the European Union adopted its ‘Conclusions on the creation and implementation of a EU policy cycle for organised and serious international crime’ endorsing ‘a multi-annual policy cycle with regard to serious international and organised crime in order to tackle the most important criminal threats in a coherent and methodical manner through optimum cooperation between the relevant services of the Member States, EU institutions and EU agencies as well as relevant third countries and organisations’; whereas the policy cycle consists of the following four steps: policy development on the basis of a threat assessment, policy-setting and decision- making through the identification of a limited number of priorities, implementation and monitoring of annual operational action plans, and a thorough evaluation to serve as input for the next policy cycle; whereas COSI, the Member States, the Commission and the European agencies are instructed to implement a cycle, with precise time frames set for each action; whereas the current policy cycle covers the 2011-2013 period, and the next policy cycle will cover a four-year period;
Amendment 53 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital 30 v (new)
Recital 30 v (new)
- whereas, despite the difficulties involved in encapsulating such a complex problem at international level, establishing a common and more accurate definition of organised crime is both an important means of signalling the political will to tackle the problem and an essential prerequisite to enable the European Union to take action in this area (for example, combating organised crime falls within the remit of Eurojust and Europol); whereas a more restricted and specific definition of organised crime would make it possible to identify more accurately the precise nature of the threats from organised crime, thus enabling the EU’s activities to be more focussed and justifying the need for tougher action in terms of penalties, more effective investigative methods and greater judicial cooperation; whereas, unless the definition of organised crime at European level is tightened up, limited resources and means will be used to tackle a whole range of activities whose impact is not always equally serious;
Amendment 54 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 w (new)
Citation 30 w (new)
– whereas, as shown by various scientific studies and the declarations by the Commission and many Member States annexed to Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA, the current definition of organised crime at EU level set out in the decision is too broad and flexible, which can lead to substantial differences between Member States in the way the rules are implemented; whereas the current rules provide for a quantitative approach whereby, for the offence of membership of a criminal organisation to be deemed to exist, the supposed offence must punishable by a custodial sentence of at least four years; whereas that approach creates a situation in which there are wide variations between the various countries’ sentencing and criminal systems as regards the offence of membership of a criminal organisation, which undermines one of the principle requirements for action to combat organised crime, namely that these offences are dealt with identically in all the different Member States, particularly in the case of organised crime operating at transnational level;
Amendment 55 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 x (new)
Citation 30 x (new)
– whereas one of the greatest difficulties in connection with investigations aimed at tackling transnational organised crime is the lack, in many Member States, of legislation on the use of basic instruments such as environmental interception, delayed seizure, delayed arrest, searches conducted at night, controlled delivery, supervised delivery and undercover operations; whereas, moreover, Article 87(2)(c) of the TFEU states that the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may establish measures concerning common investigative techniques in relation to the detection of serious forms of organised crime;
Amendment 56 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 y (new)
Citation 30 y (new)
– whereas the question of the remit and modus operandi of Eurojust and Europol is of crucial importance in relation to improving the effectiveness of action to tackle transnational organised crime and strengthening police and judicial cooperation at EU level; whereas the process of defining, at institutional level, the respective tasks of Eurojust, Europol and OLAF should also be geared to enhancing the level of cooperation and collaboration between them;
Amendment 57 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 z (new)
Citation 30 z (new)
– whereas it is vitally important to develop constructive relations and synergies between Europol and Eurojust and the national authorities in order to ensure effective joint action to tackle organised crime and create the climate of trust which is an essential prerequisite for the exchange of information and full cooperation;
Amendment 58 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 z (new)
Citation 30 z (new)
- mutual trust and direct contacts are essential ways of improving the philosophy of cooperation that should apply among the Member States’ judicial authorities and police forces,
Amendment 59 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 a a (new)
Citation 30 a a (new)
- whereas to improve coordination of investigations and criminal prosecutions, priority should be given to full, correct, and prompt implementation of Framework Decision 2009/426/JHA on the strengthening of Eurojust; whereas the TFEU calls for Eurojust’s tasks to be developed further, exceeding their present scope (Article 85), and for a European Public Prosecutor’s Office to be set up to combat serious crime having a cross- border dimension (Article 86); whereas Articles 85 and 86 also imply that, in addition to strengthening Eurojust, its work must be assessed in the proper manner by the European Parliament and the national parliaments,
Amendment 60 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 a b (new)
Citation 30 a b (new)
- whereas Europol’s prime aim is to support and strengthen both action by the Member States’ proper authorities and cooperation among those authorities in preventing and combating organised crime,
Amendment 61 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 undefined (new)
Citation 30 undefined (new)
- whereas, as stated in Article 82(1) of the TFEU, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU must be based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions,
Amendment 62 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 a (new)
Citation 30 a (new)
- whereas, as Eurojust noted in its 2009 annual report, the practical obstacles to judicial cooperation, as well as in the difficulties stemming from poor translations or uninformative requests for mutual judicial assistance and in the failure to acknowledge receipt of letters rogatory, lie first and foremost in the dearth of resources at national level, making it impossible to respond to requests in time, and in the fact that requests from other Member States are considered less important than national proceedings; whereas, in addition, Eurojust notes that the main legal obstacles to judicial cooperation lie in the differences among Member States in terms of criminal procedure and draws attention in particular to the differences as regards interception (wire-tapping and bugging), the questioning of witnesses, witness protection, and requirements relating to evidence, This recital must be placed after Alfano Amendment 53)
Amendment 63 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 b (new)
Citation 30 b (new)
- whereas Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant has been implemented by Member States only after a considerable delay and, in many cases, under implementing provisions contrary to the spirit of the decision, for instance as regards the use of grounds for mandatory or optional non-execution by an executing state,
Amendment 64 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 c (new)
Citation 30 c (new)
- whereas, despite its limitations, the European arrest warrant is the first real manner of giving effect to the principle of mutual recognition by EU Member States of decisions in criminal matters and whereas the facts show beyond dispute that it has been widely used and produced good results, albeit with room for improvement; whereas, furthermore, the European arrest warrant procedure is based on a high degree of trust between Member States and on the principle underlying judicial cooperation, namely mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters,
Amendment 65 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 d (new)
Citation 30 d (new)
- whereas one ground-breaking experiment which has proved successful is the Nordic arrest warrant, which differs from the European arrest warrant to the extent that it applies to all offences punishable by imprisonment, does away completely with the double criminality requirement, and provides for fewer grounds for mandatory non-execution and shorter time-frames for execution,
Amendment 66 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 e (new)
Citation 30 e (new)
- whereas the 2005-2010 Hague Programme repeatedly stressed the importance of joint investigation teams and whereas Member States should be encouraged to use this tool to fight organised crime; whereas joint investigation teams are still underused and whereas some Member States have not yet transposed or implemented the rules set out in the 2000 Convention and the framework decision; whereas the teams have nevertheless demonstrated their usefulness and potential in combating transnational organised crime; whereas there are, however, operational difficulties regarding the wider use of joint investigation teams, including for example the admissibility of evidence from one court to another, the high costs, and the drafting of detailed agreements to set teams up,
Amendment 67 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 f (new)
Citation 30 f (new)
- whereas unceasing work is needed to make organised crime statistics more useful, accurate, and suitable for international comparison; whereas a uniform approach should be laid down for the collection and use of data on organised crime and related phenomena with a view to carrying out a pragmatic strategic analysis leading to the adoption of control measures serving to combat and prevent organised crime more effectively; whereas, finally, to carry out targeted investigations and plan society’s response to organised crime, it is necessary to have an understanding, based on operational data (for example on suspect individuals and identified cases) and empirical data (qualitative and quantitative criminological data), of the profile, motivations, modus operandi, scale, and trends of organised crime, its impact on civil society, and the effectiveness of the response,
Amendment 68 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 g (new)
Citation 30 g (new)
- whereas corruption is the standard means by which organised criminals employ blackmail or dispense rewards in order to divert public resources and worm their way into local politics, government, and the private sector,
Amendment 69 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 h (new)
Citation 30 h (new)
- whereas Community funding and, more generally, public money can be used by organised criminals to control the legal economy and distort democratic rules, as well as for money laundering purposes; whereas, as was stated in the Amsterdam action plan as long ago as 1997, the EU strategy should seek to prevent organised criminals from penetrating the public sector and the law-abiding private sector; whereas, in accordance with Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC, candidates or tenderers may not take part in public contracts if they have been the subject of a conviction by final judgment on account of participation in a criminal organisation, corruption, fraud, laundering of the proceeds of illicit activities, or similar offences,
Amendment 70 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 i (new)
Citation 30 i (new)
- whereas money laundering is one of the most insidious channels enabling legitimate activities to be contaminated by illicit activities and an indispensable transition process, without which the purchasing power acquired through crime would remain merely potential, usable within illegal circles but incapable of translating into real economic power; whereas cooperation and international collaboration are essential in order to tackle money laundering effectively,
Amendment 71 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 j (new)
Citation 30 j (new)
- whereas on 5 April 2010 the International Monetary Fund published two reports, an official document entitled ‘Recent Experiences in Managing Capital Inflows – Cross-Cutting Themes and Possible Policy Framework’ and a staff discussion paper entitled ‘Managing Capital Inflows: What Tools to Use’, in which, after more than two decades of capital market liberalisation, it suggests when countries should control international capital movements and what types of control should be applied, depending on the particular circumstances,
Amendment 72 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 k (new)
Citation 30 k (new)
- whereas on 14 July 2009 the European Investment Bank, responding to the anxieties expressed by some European governments and various civil society organisations, adopted a revised and expanded policy on offshore financial centres and updated that policy – with a new name referring to non-cooperative jurisdictions – on 15 December 2010, in line with recent international developments; whereas although it is one of the few international financial institutions to have a specific policy, the European Investment Bank is today still a prominent financial backer of private actors registered in jurisdictions frequently criticised for their lack of transparency in fiscal matters and for the excessively favourable taxation conditions that they offer to foreign investors, adversely affecting the economies of other countries,
Amendment 73 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 l (new)
Citation 30 l (new)
- whereas international drug trafficking is the main source of profit for organised criminals and mafias, providing the basis for them to establish themselves economically and socially; whereas the EU is both one of the largest markets for drug trafficking (heroin, cocaine, and cannabis) and a producer (more often than not of synthetic drugs); whereas the trafficking also extends to many clearly identifiable non-European production and transit countries, especially in Latin America, West Africa, and Asia,
Amendment 74 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 l (new)
Citation 30 l (new)
- whereas extortion racketeering and usury are two ways in which organised criminals infiltrate the legal economy, severely distorting any form of free market and curtailing the rights of citizens, entrepreneurs, workers, and professionals; whereas, as was shown by the 2008 Commission-funded Transcrime study entitled ‘Study on Extortion Racketeering: the Need for an Instrument to Combat Activities of Organised Crime’, this phenomenon is assuming alarming proportions in at least half of the EU Member States and exists on a significant scale in the other half; whereas the spread of extortion racketeering stands in a direct relationship to the extent of the control of a country and its economic/business and political activities exercised by organised criminals; whereas the first essential steps to take to combat extortion racketeering effectively are to encourage victims to report offences and to ensure that official authorities maintain a strong presence,
Amendment 75 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30 m (new)
Citation 30 m (new)
- whereas counterfeiting of goods is one of the main sources of profit for organised criminals, undermining the protection of intellectual property rights, fair competition among firms, environmental protection, the protection of workers’ rights, and consumer protection,
Amendment 76 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the measures to curb organised crime proposed in the Stockholm Programme, in the relevant action plan and in the internal security strategy; applauds the work of the Hungarian Council Presidency in this area and hopes that under the new trio Presidency, starting with the Polish Presidency, combating organised crime will be included among the political priorities and tangible results achieved;
Amendment 80 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Is convinced that organised crime is one of the key threats to the internal security of the EU and the freedom of its citizens; considers that it should be treated separately from terrorism and calls for a specific, horizontal EU strategy on the issue, including legislative and operational measures, the allocation of funds and a strict implementation timetable; endorses the Council conclusions of 8-9 November 2010, but considers it unacceptable that the EU policy cycle for organised crime should be drawn up and implemented without the involvement of the European Parliament; calls on the Council, therefore, to revise the decision without delay and make provision for Parliament’s participation and involvement explicitly for the purposes of determining priorities, discussing the strategic objectives, and monitoring and periodic assessment of the outcome ensuing from implementation of the annual operational plans and the multi- annual strategic plan;
Amendment 84 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Member States to clarify their political will to combat organised crime, first and foremost by strengthening their judicial authorities and police forces based on the best current experience and by assigning adequate human and financial resources for that purpose; calls on the Member States to resolutely pursue a proactive approach to investigation, draw up national plans to combat organised crime, and provide for central coordination of activities by appropriate specific machinery, taking their cue from the most successful experiences that have already occurred in some Member States; calls for the action plans to be encompassed within a common European framework and put forward for common consideration at meetings to be held at least annually and attended not only by the authorities of the Member States, but also by European institutions and agencies;
Amendment 101 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that to counter transnational organised crime requires an effort on the part of the Member States and calls on them to approximate their legislation, especially with reference to the development of common, standard procedures and types of criminal offence, taking as a model the legal systems that are the most highly developed in terms of countering organised crime; deeply regrets that, despite their declarations of intent, the Member States as a whole have failed to show the sensitivity and political will needed to tackle cross-border organised crime, as shown for example by their regular failure to meet the deadlines set for the transposition of the various framework decisions and the fact that national implementing provisions often do not fully respect the spirit of the European agreements, leading to haphazard implementation inconsistent with the creation of a European area of freedom, security and justice; calls therefore on the Member States to ensure that they fully commit themselves to the timely transposition of European provisions and to emulate the efficient and timely procedures for full transposition already followed by some Member States;
Amendment 106 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Is dissatisfied with the extremely limited impact on the legislative systems of the Member States of Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA on organised crime, which has not made any significant improvement to national laws or to operational cooperation to counter organised crime; stresses, therefore, the need to review and strengthen the legislative framework and calls on the Commission to submit, by the end of 20123, a proposal for a directive which contains a less general definition of organised crime and manages better to identify the key features of the phenomenon, focusing in particular on the key concept of organisation; requests that, as regards the offence of membership of a criminal organisation, whilst showing due respect for different legislative systems, the abolition of the current dual approach (which criminalises both membership and conspiracy) be proposed and a range of habitual offencesoffences typically committed by organised crime be identified, which, regardless of the maximum sentence permitted in the legal system of the Member States, could be deemed to constitute such a criminal offence; calls also for more rigorous scrutiny to be given to the questions of criminalising all forms of support for criminal organisations and imposing harsher penalties for any offence which objectively abets a criminal organisation;
Amendment 110 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission, the Council and the Member States to focus their dissuasive action on attacking criminal assets, including those that are indirectly linked to criminal organisations and their affiliates, which are often hidden behind a network of front men and supporters; stresses that efforts to combat organised crime must take full account of the role of so-called ‘white collar’ criminals, that is professionals who are able to launder and transfer the proceeds of organised crime to the legal economy as well as that of politicians and public officials who collude or connive in organised crime;
Amendment 113 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission to submit, as soon as possible, an organic proposal for a directive on the confiscation of assets and the proceeds of crime, accepting and supportprocedure for the seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of crime, as provided for in its 2011 Work Programme and therefore calls on the Commission to: – include in its proposal rules on the effective use of instruments such as extended and non-conviction-based confiscation; – include in its proposal the guidelines laid down in the action plan to combat organised crime adopted by the European Council of 16/17 April 1997 and confirmed in ‘The Prevention and Control of Organised Crime: A European Union Strategy for the Beginning of the urgent need for European legislation on the re-use of crime proceeds for social purposes, so that the capital of criminNew Millennium’ (2000/C124/01) concerning the possibility of the mitigation of the burden of proof after the conviction of an offender for a serious offence (including offences related to organised crime) concerning the origin of assets held by the offender; such mitigation would require the sentenced person to prove that he or she has acquired the assets in question in a legal manner and, if this is not done to the satisfaction of the court, the assets can be held to be the illegal proceeds of crime and confiscated; points out, moreover, that this European guideline is reaffirmed in the Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005, in particular in recital 5 thereof; – include in its proposal Recommendation No 19 of the abovementioned strategy of 2000, which calls for the possibility of establishing instruments in national legal systems which, under criminal, civil or fiscal law, as appropriate, mitigate the burden of proof regarding the origin of assets held by a person convicted of an offence related to organised crime; – include in its proposal forgan a directive rules allowing for the seizure and subsequent confiscations or their associates can be re-injected into legal, clean, transparent and virtuous economic circuits; of assets assigned to third parties; also calls for the actions of the front man in such cases to be treated as a criminal offence, since their aim is to sidestep the enforcement of asset protection measures or facilitate the commission of the offences of receiving, laundering and using money obtained illegally; – to stipulate in its legislative proposals that the concept of the proceeds of crime set forth in the United Nations Convention of Palermo and included in Framework Decision 2008/841/EC extends beyond the notion of profit; calls on the Member States with immediate effect to incorporate this concept into their laws so as to ensure that any revenue directly or indirectly connected with the commission of offences related to organised crime may be subject to seizure and confiscation;
Amendment 119 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Calls on the Commission to support and endorse the urgent need for European legislation on the re-use of crime proceeds for social purposes, so that the capital of criminal organisations or their associates can be re-injected into legal, clean, transparent and virtuous economic circuits;
Amendment 120 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Believes that Asset Recovery Offices are a vital tool in combating organised crime and supports the Commission’s appeal to the Member States to set up offices of this kind and provide them with the necessary resources and expertise by 2014 at the latest; commends the work done by the informal network of Asset Recovery Offices, particularly as regards the improvement in information exchange and the sharing of best practice on the identification of criminal assets; endorses and takes note of the Commission’s analysis of the main difficulties encountered by existing Asset Recovery Offices, in particular the question of limited human resources and the need for proper training, the fact that most of these offices are unable to access the functional databases directly or indirectly so as to perform their work more effectively, and the absence of a secure system for transmitting information; commends the pilot project undertaken by Europol at the request of the Commission, which should enable Asset Recovery Offices to use the SIENA data transmission system; calls on the Commission to include in the proposal for a directive on confiscation new measures to strengthen the role and competences of Asset Recovery Offices and give them more flexible and uniform access to information; considers that the setting up by the 27 Member States of databanks on current bank accounts should be a priority, drawing on existing best practice and calls on the Commission to provide encouragement and guidance for the establishment of these databases and to support the pooling and exchange of information between Member States via the Asset Recovery Offices, agreeing on and laying down the most appropriate procedures for ensuring efficient investigation and protection of personal data;
Amendment 121 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Calls on the Commission to draw up a study by the end of 2013 on the investigative practices employed in the Member States to combat organised crime, with particular reference to the use of tools such as telephone interception, environmental interception, search procedures, delayed arrest, delayed seizure, undercover operations, controlled and supervised delivery operations; in line with the Stockholm Programme, supports the need to establish a global system for the collection of evidence in cases with a cross border dimension, based on the principle of mutual recognition; therefore supports the adoption of a directive on the European Investigation Order in criminal matters so as to provide the European Union with a clear, simple and effective legislative framework; calls also on the Commission to submit a proposal for a directive by the end of 2014 on common investigative techniques to combat organised crime, pursuant to Article 87(2)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
Amendment 122 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses the importance of providing appropriate protection for the victims of organised crime, witnesses, informers, whistleblowers and their families and calls on the Commission to submit, as soon as possible, a legislative proposal on this issue, the subject of which should be not only victims and their families but also witnesses and, informers and whistleblowers; calls for all types of victim to be treated equally (in particular the victims of organised crime, of duty and of terrorism) and for the protection of court witnesses to be extended over and beyond the duration of the court proceedings; proposes establishing a European fund for the protection of victims and court witnesses;
Amendment 135 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Commission to draw up a proposal for a directive to make the offence of Mafia-style criminal association a punishable crime in all Member States, in order to be able to punish participation in criminal organisations which profit from their very existence, through their ability to intimidate – even without any specific acts of violence or threats – with the aim of committing crimes, securing the management or control, either directly or indirectly, of businesses, concessions, authorisations, contracts and public services, or of making, for themselves or others, unfair profits or gaining unjust advantages, or of preventing or impeding the free exercise of voting rights or securing votes for themselves or others in elections;
Amendment 144 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Intends to set up, within three months of the adoption of this resolution, a special committee on the dissemination of Mafia- style criminal organisations, both from Italy and elsewhere, which operate across borders; one of its aims will be to investigate the extent of the phenomenon and the negative social and economic impact it has throughout the EU, including the issue of the appropriation and misappropriation of public funds by Mafia- style criminal organisations and their infiltration into politics and general government, as well as the contamination of the legal economy and financial system; another aim will be to identify a range of legislative measures in order to address this tangible and acknowledged threat to the EU and its citizens; calls, therefore, on the Conference of Presidents to put forward a proposal under Rule 184 of the Rules of Procedure;
Amendment 147 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Commission, in cooperation with Europol, to conduct a study by June 2013 to assess the negative impact of transnational organised crime in the European Union, primarily referring to Mafia-style organised crime and its links with, taking due account of its links and relations with other criminal organisations, including those from countries outside Europe;
Amendment 149 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Endorses the assessment made by Europol in its 2011 OCTA but regrets that the priorities suggested to the Council make no reference to Mafias, which, because of their consolidated position in the Member States, their socio-economic impact, their ability to generate synergies with other criminal organisations within and outside Europe and their tendency to infiltrate the legal economy, the financial sector, general government and politics, represent one of the main threats to the EU’s internal security; calls on Europol to examine the Mafia threat at European level more carefully in future reports and to draw up an OCTA on the subject of Mafias in the EU by 2012;
Amendment 150 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13b. Calls on the Member States to transpose and implement immediately Council Decision 2009/426/JHA on the strengthening of Eurojust and to comply with all its recommendations, particularly those concerning the functions and powers assigned to national members and to the College, the follow-up to Eurojust requests and opinions, the Eurojust national coordination system and the exchanges of information with the Member States and between national members; calls on the Member States to give a firm commitment that their Eurojust national member will be informed without delay in the case of crimes involving at least two Member States and in which there are clear indications that a criminal organisation is involved;
Amendment 158 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Reiterates its firm support for the implementation of Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union concerning the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office and calls on the Commission to arrange, as soon as possible, an impact assessment on the added value of this institution, considering as being within its scope both the protection of the EU’s financial interests and the combating of cross-border organised crime, as provided for under Article 86(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; reiterates its request that the Commission immediately launch debates and consultations with the parties concerned, including civil society, on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and make at the earliest opportunity all the necessary arrangements to set up the appropriate institutional infrastructure, giving Eurojust full powers and consolidating, clarifying and simplifying its relations with key players such as the European Judicial Network, OLAF and Europol and with individual national judicial and administrative institutions, between which and Eurojust two-way communication needs to be stepped up and improved; calls on Europol and Eurojust to continue their efforts to raise awareness of their roles among national authorities, involving the liaison offices and drawing on the best experience in this area;
Amendment 161 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Encourages Eurojust and Europol to ensure that magistrates and police from the various Member States – particularly those engaged in combating organised crime – have as many opportunities as possible to meet, get to know each other, talk and compare views;
Amendment 162 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15b. Endorses the five-year strategy for the development of Europol outlined in the 2009 report entitled ‘Europol Review’, which seeks to ensure that the agency serves as the principal EU support centre for law enforcement operations, becomes the criminal information hub of the European Union and develops further as a centre for building expertise and pooling best practice for Member State police authorities; calls on Europol to step up meetings and relations with the European Parliament in order jointly to review progress with this strategy and any problems at periodic intervals; calls on the Commission to submit, by the end of 2011, the communication on the procedures for the scrutiny of Europol’s activities by the European Parliament, together with national parliaments, which is provided for in the Action Plan;
Amendment 168 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Recognises that despite the protocols and bilateral agreements between Europol, Eurojust and OLAF there is still significant room for improvement as far as cooperation between these institutions is concerned; calls, therefore, on Europol, Eurojust and OLAF to make tangible, joint efforts both to assess and constantly update the cooperation agreements and to implement them, notably with reference to exchanges of case summaries, information relating to cases and strategic information and data; considers that, for cooperation between the two agencies and OLAF to be fully effective, a clear breakdown of responsibilities needs to be established with a view to avoiding any duplication of effort;
Amendment 169 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Calls on Europol to collaborate and integrate ever more closely with Interpol with a view to combating criminal organisations at international level, with particular reference to the issue of information sharing; calls on Europol to press ahead with its external cooperation activities, establishing closer links and concluding strategic and operational agreements with the competent authorities of third countries; in recognition of the fundamental importance of enhancing judicial cooperation and increasing and improving the coordination of transnational investigations, calls on the European institutions to bring their political influence to bear at international level to launch a review of the possibilities of exchanging some of the experience acquired by the EU, including by Eurojust, at international level also and, possibly, making available the know-how acquired to date at EU level;
Amendment 172 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Recognises that judicial cooperation is one of the pillars for combating transnational organised crime and for establishing a common area of security and justice, and calls on the Member States to honour their commitments and immediately to incorporate into their legislation all the judicial cooperation instruments that already exist at EU level, in particular the 2000 Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and its implementing protocol and the Framework Decision on joint investigation teams;
Amendment 175 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Calls on the Commission to submit at the earliest opportunity a proposal for a directive on the European arrest warrant that will remove the leeway currently afforded to Member States in the transposition of, in particular, Article 2 (scope), Article 3 (grounds for mandatory non-execution), Article 4 (grounds for optional non-execution) and Article 5 (guarantees to be given by the issuing Member State in particular cases), which have hitherto given rise to the greatest disparities, and at the same time to propose the inclusion of a clause providing for the possibility of refusal in the event of a breach of fundamental rights; calls on the Commission to consider whether the grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant referred to in Article 4 of the Directive should be made more restrictive in respect of offences generally associated with organised crime, including the offence of mafia association; calls on the Commission to draw on the experience gained with the Nordic Arrest Warrant;
Amendment 176 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18b. Acknowledges the central role played by Eurojust in steadily increasing the effectiveness of the European arrest warrant and in supporting and assisting Member States in settling the most complex cases, and supports and encourages it in its efforts in this area; calls on Member States to comply with the framework decision on the European arrest warrant and to inform Eurojust, in accordance with Article 17(7) of that decision, of any failure to observe the time limits for execution of the warrant, so as to enable the agency to record and analyse the reasons for delays in execution;
Amendment 177 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 c (new)
Paragraph 18 c (new)
18c. Calls on the judicial authorities of the Member States to make every effort to ensure that the European arrest warrants they issue are forwarded to Interpol, so as to enable that agency to use its red alert notice system to provide the police authorities belonging to the Interpol network around the world with information on the warrants that have been issued;
Amendment 178 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 d (new)
Paragraph 18 d (new)
18d. Acknowledges the fundamental role played by joint investigation teams in combating cross-border organised crime and voices its concern at the fact that, owing to inadequate transposition of the relevant framework decision and to foot dragging on the part of some national judicial authorities, this investigative instrument is not being used to best effect; calls for better and more frequent use to be made of joint investigation teams and undercover operations, as provided for in the Convention of 29 May 2000 on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and Framework Decision 2002/465/JHA; calls on Eurojust and the European Judicial Network actively to disseminate information on the opportunities afforded by the framework decision on joint investigation teams and the provisions of the 2000 Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters;
Amendment 179 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 e (new)
Paragraph 18 e (new)
18e. Acknowledges the important role played by Eurojust in relation to joint investigation teams and welcomes the commencement of Eurojust’s funding project for those teams; calls on the Commission to support this approach with appropriate funding; calls for the role of the informal network of experts on joint investigation teams to be stepped up with a view to helping the Member States to understand the reasons behind the underuse of those teams, exchange information on their establishment, pool best practices and establish links with other experts and other organisations;
Amendment 180 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 f (new)
Paragraph 18 f (new)
18f. Points to the significance of the fact that the results achieved by joint investigation teams can be assessed at European level (e.g. on the basis of the value of items confiscated) and at national level (e.g. on the basis of the effectiveness of individual team members), and calls on the Commission to address this issue in cooperation with Eurojust and Europol;
Amendment 181 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 g (new)
Paragraph 18 g (new)
18g. Considers it essential to continue and step up the efforts being made by the EU and the international institutions in the Balkans, particularly in connection with action to combat organised crime; stresses the need for full and free interaction and information exchange between the national authorities of the countries in the Balkans region and international bodies involved in combating organised crime (Council of Europe, UNODC, EULEX Kosovo, etc.);
Amendment 182 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 h (new)
Paragraph 18 h (new)
18h. Calls on the Commission to continue to hone the effectiveness of and regularly update agreements on judicial and investigative cooperation with non-EU countries aimed at combating cross- border organised crime; calls, furthermore, for due account to be taken when drafting such agreements of the specific threats that organised crime in the individual countries poses to the EU’s internal and external security; calls on Europol to produce more frequent and more detailed analyses of non-European criminal organisations whose activities have a direct or indirect impact on the European Union;
Amendment 183 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 i (new)
Paragraph 18 i (new)
18i. Calls on the Commission, in collaboration with Europol, to develop a joint project with Interpol to support the establishment and implementation of a regional system for the exchange of police and judicial information with West Africa, while making available to the Economic Community of West African States the necessary know-how and resources, not least in the field of training and follow-up;
Amendment 184 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 j (new)
Paragraph 18 j (new)
18j. Recalling Recommendation No 37 of the European Union Strategy for the New Millennium on the prevention and control of organised crime (OJ C 124/2000, p. 1), urges the European Union to bring all its political weight to bear so as to lead a global campaign to combat organised crime through those bodies in which all the Member States are represented, such as the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Financial Action Task Force, Interpol and the United Nations;
Amendment 194 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Emphasises the vital importance of public sector transparency in the fight against organised crime and calls on the Commission to take action to lay down the necessary rules and ensure that the allocation and use of EU funds is fully traceable and monitored both by the competent institutions and the citizens and press; calls for this information to be promptly made available on the internetan appropriate internet site in a format which is machine-readable, comparable and open-data, and in at least one of the EU's working languages, to ensure that such information is easily accessible and can be re-used and processed by civil society; calls on the Member States to adopt similar measures to make all transactions using public funds transparent, with particular reference to local authorities, which are more liable to infiltration by organised crime;
Amendment 200 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Calls, with a view to adopting ever more effective strategies for preventing and combating organised crime, on the competent EU institutions (including agencies) and the Member States to make joint efforts to improve the collection and sharing of statistics on organised crime, with special reference to transnational and cross-border crime; awaits, in this connection, the submission in 2011 of the New Action Plan on development of statistics on crime and criminal justice 2011-2015, and calls on the Commission to take due account of the specific requirements arising in connection with combating organised crime and mafia- style crime;
Amendment 201 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 b (new)
Paragraph 21 b (new)
21b. Calls, with reference to Recommendation 27 of the European Union strategy for the beginning of the new millennium on the prevention and control of organised crime (2000/C 124/01), for all European and international instruments (framework decisions, convention, agreements, directives) relating directly or indirectly to action to combat organised crime to be ratified within the given timetable; points out that, if the timetable is not kept to for a given instrument, the Member State concerned must report in writing to the Commission, the Council and Parliament on the reasons therefor, every six months until it is ratified;
Amendment 202 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 c (new)
Paragraph 21 c (new)
21c. Warmly welcomes the adoption of Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, in particular in view of the fact that Article 4 thereof doubles the maximum penalty for offences concerning trafficking in human beings that are committed within the framework of a criminal organisation; calls on the Member States to endeavour thoroughly to transpose that instrument into their national law at the earliest opportunity; calls on the Member States and national rapporteurs, when assessing trends in trafficking in human beings in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 2011/36/EU, to make a separate analysis of the role of organised crime in trafficking in and exploitation of human beings, so as to provide the European anti-trafficking coordinator with the information required in order to assess trends in such trafficking carried out by criminal organisations, with a view to gaining a better understanding of such activities and combating them more effectively;
Amendment 208 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Is convinced of the intrinsic link between organised crime and corruption and emphatically reiterates the request it expressed when adopting Written Declaration 02/10, both with reference to the creation of a mechanism to assess and monitor the policies of the 27 Member States in combating corruption and with regard to the framing of a comprehensive anti-corruption policy by the EU institutions; stresses the need for a proactive approach to combating corruption and calls on the Commission to place emphasis on measures to counter political corruption, that of the civil service, the courts, the police and customs officers, in addition to private sector corruption; considers it, moreover, a priority to develop effective measures to combat corruption in the neighbourhood policy, in the area of pre-accession and in the use of development aid funds, in particular by the European Investment Bank and the new bodies being set up under the auspices of the European External Action Service;
Amendment 214 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Undertakes to lay down rules to ensure that those who have been convicted of membership of criminal organisations or who have committed offences relating to such organisationsof offences typically committed in connection with such organisations (such as traffic in human beings, international drug trafficking, money laundering, fraud and extortion), including aiding and abetting, or of corruption offences, will be unable to stand for election to the European Parliament; calls on European political groups to draw up binding internal codes of ethics to prevent those who have been convicted, even if not definitively, of such offences from standing for election; calls on the Member States to lay down similar rules for national and local elections and on the national parties to draw up binding codes of conduct to prevent those who have been convicted, even if not definitively, of the above-mentioned offences from standing for election; undertakes to suspend or exclude MEPs who are convicted during the current parliamentary term;
Amendment 219 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Amendment 224 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Calls on the European institutions to send out a clear message at EU level and to assert their political influence internationally with a view to curbing all forms of money laundering through the use of the financial markets, in particular by: drawing up better capital control rulesenvisaging possible capital control measures, as recently suggested by the International Monetary Fund itself; encouraging a reduction of the pervasiveness of the financial markets (usingin the context of short-term operations through the use of tools such as the taxation of investment income and the introduction of a tax on international financial transactions); imposing increased transparency on the use of public funds, first and foremost on those to support private sector development, and carrying out a serious and effective offensive against tax havens by imposing country- by-country financial reporting on all multinational economic operators; promoting a multilateral agreement on the exchange of tax-related information whilst revising the definition of ‘tax haven’ and the list of these secret jurisdictions;
Amendment 226 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Calls on the European Investment Bank and all the European development financial institutions of the Member States to improve their policies on offshore financial centres and uncooperative jurisdictions, in particular by adopting a list of jurisdictions that should be monitored more stringently by reference to the OECD’s blacklist and greylist and by carrying out specific ‘due diligence’ of every country as necessary, while prohibiting any form of support for financial intermediaries in jurisdictions which are regarded as high-risk, as is currently the case for Panama, and requiring the relocation of registered companies resident in uncooperative jurisdictions and offshore financial centres as an essential prerequisite for financial support for specific activities; calls on the European institutions and the Member States to actively commit to ensuring the correct implementation of all 40 recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force through the adoption of specific policies for each institution including enhanced due diligence, particularly in politically sensitive cases;
Amendment 227 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 b (new)
Paragraph 25 b (new)
25b. Calls on the Commission, with reference to Recommendation No 17 of the European Union Strategy for the Beginning of the New Millennium on the Prevention and Control of Organised Crime (2000/C 124/01) and with a view to its legislative proposal to update the Money Laundering Directive, to generalise as far as possible the criminalisation of laundering of the proceeds of crime and to establish a legal basis for the widest possible range of investigative powers in this area; calls, in this connection, for all the Member States to be required to criminalise ‘self- laundering’, or the laundering of illicit funds by the very person or entity having obtained those funds by unlawful means; also calls on the Commission, in its proposal, to consider the possibility of extending the criminalisation of laundering to cases where the perpetrator should have known that the assets in question were the proceeds of crime;
Amendment 228 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 c (new)
Paragraph 25 c (new)
25c. Calls on the Council, with a view to the evaluation of the EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012) and the drafting of the future strategy document and in the light of the results achieved and any criticisms made, to emphasise and step up its work in the following areas as a means of reducing supply: a) closer investigative and judicial cooperation between Member States, b) consistent enforcement policies across the various Member States, c) more intensive efforts to ensure the application of the law in respect of non-EU countries, especially producer countries and those situated along drug trafficking routes, d) more intensive and effective efforts in the area of cooperation with, and the provision of international aid to, non-EU countries, especially producer countries and those situated along drug trafficking routes, with a view to combating trafficking in those countries, curbing demand and supporting alternative development initiatives endorsed by the local community;
Amendment 230 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Calls on the Commission carefully to monitor the transposition by the Member States of the EU directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law, to ensure that it is done promptly and effectively; requests that clarification be given by the EU institutions, to avoid problems of interpretation in the courts of the Member States, as to the civil liability of legal persons provided for in Directive 2008/99/EC; calls on the Commission to submit a proposal to extend to the EU Italy’s positive experience with the offence of ‘organised illegal waste trafficking’, as provided for in Article 260 of Legislative Decree 152/06;
Amendment 239 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Intends, within three months of the adoption of this resolution, to set up a special committee on international waste trafficking, including trafficking between Member States and trafficking to non-EU countries and the problem of ‘poison ships’ suspected to have been sunk in the Mediterranean; calls, therefore, on the Conference of Presidents to put forward a proposal under Rule 184 of the Rules of Procedure;
Amendment 240 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 b (new)
Paragraph 26 b (new)
26b. Calls for stronger action by the CITES offices and closer coordination between those offices at European level in combating illegal trafficking in protected and endangered animal and plant species;
Amendment 241 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 c (new)
Paragraph 26 c (new)
26c. Calls on the Member States to adopt a proactive approach to investigating cases of extortion, for example through incentives and forms of financial support to enable complainants to continue their business activities, along with the launch of investigations on the basis of intelligence work; believes it is essential to strengthen both the role of civil society and partnerships between civil society and the judicial system and the police, and that this is to be encouraged; calls on the Member States to take action to combat inter-ethnic extortion, for example by employing police officers of different nationalities who have been trained to encourage cooperation and increase victims’ trust in the authorities; calls on the Commission, in its proposal for a directive on the confiscation of the proceeds of organised crime to extend the measures currently provided for in Article 3(1) of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA to the offence of extortion;
Amendment 242 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 d (new)
Paragraph 26 d (new)
26d. Endorses the decisions set out in the Council resolution of 23 October 2009 on a reinforced strategy for customs cooperation, with particular reference to the development of new forms of cooperation and new investigative techniques, the adoption of an institutional approach based on cooperation between customs services, the police and other competent authorities, and improvements to the existing cooperation process in order to develop an effective approach to fighting cross- border organised crime and allow the confiscation of illicit goods across the EU; maintains that the greatest possible emphasis must be placed on these aspects in the context of the adoption and implementation of the Fifth Action Plan for Customs Law Enforcement Cooperation;
Amendment 243 #
2010/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and, the national parliaments, Europol, Eurojust, the European Investment Bank, Interpol and the UNODC.
Amendment 24 #
2010/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4.Takes note of the progress made by the Member States and the Commission in the context of the EU policy cycle on organised crime with a view to implementing the general strategic objectives through actions based on intergovernmental cooperation at operational level; believes, however, that a clear division of tasks between the EU and national levels is necessary, that Parliament needs to be part of the process during the stage when priorities are being established, in the discussion of strategic objectives and in the evaluation of results, and that an in-depth assessment of the European policy cycle should be undertaken in 2013; with the aim of eventually revising and democratising the same; reaffirms the necessity of holding an annual meeting between the European institutions and agencies, the Member States and parliaments (both national and European parliaments) to ascertain the complementarity of national plans for countering organised crime with plans which are to be developed on a European level, and to analyse the results achieved and the future prospects from a European strategic and operational viewpoint; believes that such a meeting should be organised by the Commission, with the involvement of the Council and Parliament, and with the support of COSI and the European agencies (Europol, Eurojust), by the end of 2013, in correspondence to the evaluation of the first policy cycle 2011-2013 and the defining of the following cycle on the basis of funding which will be made available by the multi-year funding measures;
Amendment 32 #
2010/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Endorses, in this connection and on the basis of the existing cooperation between the European Parliament and national parliaments, the idea of a ‘parliamentary policy cycle’ – which must be finely tuned to, inter alia, the Commission’s annual reporting in this field – ending with an annual parliamentary report on the current state of play as regards the ISS; believes that such a parliamentary policy cycle should be integrated into the current European strategic and operational structure relating to internal security, and should intervene during policy guidance and during the monitoring of the implementation and evaluation of results, in full execution of the provisions of the European Treaties which, since the signing of the Lisbon Treaty, have passed the shared legislative responsibility with regard to cooperation between the police and the judiciary regarding criminal matters on to the European Parliament and to the Council;
Amendment 46 #
2010/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Believes that organised crime in all its forms, but more particularly that perpetrated by the mafia, constitutes a majorgrowing threat to freedom, security and justice for EU citizens, and calls on the Commission and the Council to prioritise it further in the light of the recommendations set out in its resolution of 25 October 2011 on organised crime in the European Union, on the basis of specific data and information on existing cooperation between the EU and the Member States in the fight against the mafias, corruption, money laundering and other serious forms of organised crime;
Amendment 59 #
2010/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Is disappointed, in this connection, that the ISS still lacks a proper ‘justice dimension’, andis lacking the ‘justice dimension’ which is fundamental both in terms of respect for rights as well as in terms of the overall effectiveness of the interventions: believes that the establishment of a set of priorities in the field of judicial cooperation must be seen in the context of the close link between all the dimensions of the Area enshrined in Title V TFEU, namely the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice; believes that careful and in-depth reflection should be developed on a European level regarding the fact that all national legal systems, while having their differences, should guarantee citizens the fullest impartiality, independence and autonomy of the judiciary;
Amendment 74 #
2010/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Welcomes the focus on border security in the context of the ISS, but believes that border management and human mobility are not merely security issues, but key features of a wider political strategy involving not only the security dimension, but also – more importantly – immigration, asylum, development and employment policies at EU level as well as policies supporting economic, social and democratic development and promoting human rights in third countries;
Amendment 85 #
2010/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Reaffirms, in this connection, the need for proper democratic oversight and evaluation of the work of AFSJ agencies in order to avoid the risk of blurring the divide ‘between policy advice and actual policy-making’ in relation to AFSJ agencies;
Amendment 6 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas citizens call for more democracy, transparency, openness of institutions and of political actors and a stronger fight against corruption, as demonstrated by the current demonstrations in Spain and all over Europe; whereas access to documents and information is one of the ways to make sure citizens can be involved in the democratic process and that corruption is prevented and fought,
Amendment 7 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas furthermore the EU progressively risks to become the target of criticism because of the continuous lack of transparency, openness and access to documents and information for citizens, as demonstrated by the impossibility to adopt a new Regulation on the right of access to documents, due to the Commission refusal to accept Parliament’s amendments and Member States’ unwillingness to open up their documents, discussions and deliberations to citizens and the Parliament,
Amendment 8 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D c (new)
Recital D c (new)
Dc. whereas further and more stringent measures against corruption should be taken at EU level to ensure that EU institutions are immune from it, at all levels and everywhere, and whereas the EP shall learn from recent negative experiences by elaborating rules, including providing for enhanced transparency, on the relations of MEPs and Parliament’s staff with lobbyists and interest groups,
Amendment 9 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D d (new)
Recital D d (new)
Dd. whereas, in order to ensure the accountability and legitimacy of a democratic political system, citizens have a right to know how their representatives act, once elected or appointed to public bodies or representing the Member States at European or international level (principle of accountability), how the decision-making process works (including documents, amendments, timetable, players involved, votes cast, etc), and how public money is allocated, spent and with which results (principle of traceability of funds),
Amendment 12 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas Article 15 TFEU and Article 4142 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights introduce a broad notion of the term ‘document’ relating to information whatever its medium of storage,
Amendment 21 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that interventions by the Court of Justice, the European Ombudsman and the EDPS, which basically take positions on individual cases, cannot replace legislative activity as regards legal certainty and equality before the law; regrets that even when the Court of Justice has established a clear principle, as for example in the Turco case on legislative transparency, it is still not complied with; consequently repeats its call to institutions to abide by the Turco judgment on legal service opinions drafted in the framework of the legislative process; reaffirms that the legislator shall address and overcome the problems highlighted by the Court of Justice jurisprudence and implement the right to access to documents fully and more extensively, in the spirit of the new Treaty modifications clearly establishing a fundamental right of access to documents;
Amendment 24 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers, in the light of ten years of experience with the application of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and taking into account the case-law of the Court of Justice, that it is necessary to revise that Regulation in order to clarify some of its provisions, narrow its exceptions and ensure that the transparency promised by the Treaties becomes a reality, by strengthening the right of access to documents, without in any way reducing the existing standards for the protection of that right;
Amendment 28 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recalls that the Court of Justice has clarified in the case Sweden v Commission (case C-64/05 P) that Member States do not have an absolute veto right regarding documents originating from them, but only the possibility of an assent procedure, confirming that none of the exceptions to the right of access to documents set out in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is applicable; considers that a legislative clarification is needed in order to ensure the correct application of this case-law to avoid the still existing delays and controversies, as shown by the IFAW case;
Amendment 32 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls especially on the Council to grant Parliament full access to classified documents connected with international agreements, as provided for by Article 218 TFEU, as well as classified documents connected with EU evaluation procedures, to avoid interinstitutional problems such as were encountered, for example, regarding the EU’s accession to the ECHR, the Schengen evaluation regarding Bulgaria and Romania, ACTA or the EU- China Human Rights dialogue;
Amendment 35 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Recalls that the landmark judgment of the Court of Justice in the joined cases Sweden and Turco v Council stressed an obligation of transparency in the legislative procedure, as ‘openness in that respect contributes to strengthening democracy by allowing citizens to scrutinise all the information which has formed the basis of a legislative act’; stresses therefore that any exceptions referring to the legislative procedure, including legal advice and the so-called ‘space to think’, should be extremely limited, if permitted at all;
Amendment 37 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Emphasises that, regardless of this clear principle, this is still not implemented in practice, as shown by the recent judgment in the Access Info Europe case regarding the refusal by the Council to disclose positions of Member States on the proposed recast of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, and by the case ClientEarth v Council, pending before the General Court, on a legal opinion regarding the recast of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; notes that the public disclosure of Member States’ positions during the negotiation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and many subsequent adopted measures did not in any way undermine the decision-making capacity of the Council, since these disclosures did not prevent the successful conclusion of the relevant legislative procedures;
Amendment 39 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the Council to review its rules and extend transparency to the working groups by providing for example minute, expert groups and committees by providing at least the minutes of the discussions, the documents examined, the amendments, the documents approved, the identity of the Member States’ delegations and lists of members; strongly opposes the current practice of such groups, where the deliberations until the final decision are closed to the public, and the use of ‘limited’ documents (a term not deriving from Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001) for this purpose; opposes as well the practice of unregistered documents, such as room documents;
Amendment 41 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the Commission to make publicly available agendas, minutes and declarations of interests as regards expert groups, and names of members, proceedings and votes of the ‘comitology’ committees, as well as all of the documents considered by such groups and committees, including draft delegated acts and draft implementing acts; calls on the Parliament to adopt a more transparent and open procedures, including internally, to deal with these documents;
Amendment 43 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Recalls that transparency as required by the Treaties is not limited to legislative procedures but includes as well non- legislative work of EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies; stresses that Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is the only proper legal act for assessing the right of access to documents, and that other legal acts, such as theinternal or founding regulations of agencinstitutions, agencies and bodies, cannot introduce additional grounds for refusing access;
Amendment 45 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Regrets that recent negotiations between the EU institutions for a ‘common understanding’ on delegated acts and for a new framework agreement between the Commission and the Parliament have not been fully transparent; commits itself to make fully transparent its negotiations with the Council and Commission for ongoing or future Inter-Institutional Agreements or for comparable agreements;
Amendment 47 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Notes that the Court of Justice, like all other EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, must carry out its work ‘as openly as possible’, pursuant to Article 1 TEU; emphasises that while Article 15 TFEU only specifically applies to the administrative documents of the Court, this does not preclude the adoption of measures on a different legal base, conferring the right of access on other Court documents, in accordance with Article 1 TEU; considers that the current proposal for the amendment of the Statute of the Court of Justice should be amended by the Parliament and Council to adopt rules to this end, and also to adopt rules concerning access to the Court proceedings, as an amicus curie, by EU bodies such as the Fundamental Rights Agency, by civil society organisations and by certain international bodies such as the UNCHR; believes that such rules should be modelled on the best practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the Member States’ judicial traditions and the procedures applicable in the courts of some third States;
Amendment 56 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Emphasises that the so-called ‘comitology’, first reading trialogues and the conciliation procedures (as explicitly listed in Article 294 TFEU) are a substantial phase of the legislative procedure, and not a separate ‘space to think’; requests, therefore, that the documents created in their framework should not be treated differently from other legislative documents, and that they should be made publicbelieves that the current procedures fail to ensure a satisfactory level of transparency and access to documents, both internally to the Parliament, and externally in relation to citizens and the public opinion; underlines that the Parliament has a statutory duty to hold its meetings in public and an obligation to publish the documents it examines, notably of legislative nature, as foreseen by the Treaties, jurisprudence of the Court of Justice and its rules of procedure; requests, therefore, that the documents created in their framework should not be treated differently from other legislative documents, and that they should be made public; consequently charges its competent bodies to standardize this procedure and publish such documents and calls other institutions to do the same;
Amendment 59 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Highlights the need to establish an appropriate equilibrium between transparency and data protection, as made clear by the Bavarian Lager case-law, and stresses that data protection should not be ‘misused’, in particular, for the purpose of covering conflicts of interest and undue influence in the context of EU administration and decision-making; points out that the judgment of the Court of Justice in the Bavarian Lager case is based on the current wording of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and does not prevent the legislature from establishing a new equilibrium, which is necessary and urgent notably after the clear proclamation of the right of access to documents in the Treaties and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
Amendment 62 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Reiterates the importance of the principle of traceability, so to ensure that citizens can know how public money is allocated, spent and with which results, and calls EU institutions to apply this principle in relation to the running of the institution and to the policies and funds allocated to implement them, at all levels;
Amendment 63 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Stresses that when international agreements have legislative effects, access should be granted to the public, including access to documents adopted by or submitted to any bodies which have the task of implementing or monitoring the application of such agreements; points out that Parliament, which is elected by the EU citizens, has a speciis entrusted by the Treaties to have an institutional role in representing the public interest; stresses, therefore, the need to fully respect the new prerogatives assigned to Parliament by the Lisbon Treaty in the field of international agreements, and that no bilateral agreements with third countries may prohibit this; expresses its firm determination to make sure that Parliament’s institutional prerogatives as foreseen by Article 218 TFEU are fully respected, including if necessary by bringing other institutions to the Court of Justice;
Amendment 67 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Emphasises the current lack of coherent EU administrative law, such as rules regarding the delivery of administrative decisions that can be appealed against, or a clear concept of ‘administrative tasks’ as mentioned in Article 15(3) TFEU; calls, therefore, on the EU institutions to urgently define a common EU administrative law, pursuant to Article 298 TFEU, and to provide a common and horizontally applicable definition of an ‘administrative task’ especially for the European Central Bank, the European Investment Bank and the Court of Justice; commits itself to make a recommendation for a legislative proposal on this issue, pursuant to Article 225 TFEU, which should inter alia address the issue of the transparency and accountability of the Commission’s conduct of infringement proceedings to complainants, the Parliament and citizens;
Amendment 71 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)
Paragraph 34 a (new)
34a. Considers that copyright rules, to the extent that they apply at all to documents within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, cannot be invoked to refuse public access to documents or to prevent the publication of such documents on the Internet;
Amendment 78 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Reiterates that Parliament should be at the forefront of the proactive approach on publicity, transparency, openness and access to documents and highlights the success of webstreaming of hearings and committee meetings in addition to plenary sittings, and believes that this should become the norm and that the Legislative Observatory (OEIL) should be even further expanded to include all EU official languages and information, both at committee and plenary level, such as amendments, opinions from other committees, Legal Service opinions, voting lists, roll call votes, present and voting MEPs, interinstitutional letters, names of shadow rapporteurs, a ‘search by word’ function, multilingual search, tabling deadlines, RSS feeds, an explanation of the legislative procedure, links to webstreamed discussions, etc.;
Amendment 80 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Believes at the same that transparency has to apply to the work of Parliament’s internal bodies (such as the Conference of Presidents, the Bureau and the Quaestors, as well as other temporary or high-level bodies), as well as to MEPs’ activities, such as participation in parliamentary work and parliamentary attendance, under the same terms requested by the Parliament in its resolution of 14 January 2009 and MEPs’ allowances and spending, in conformity with data protection rules and the position taken by the European Ombudsman differentiating between the databases for general expenditure, the pension scheme, parliamentary assistance expenses and travel and subsistence allowances;
Amendment 82 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38 a (new)
Paragraph 38 a (new)
38a. Considers that transparency at EU level should be mirrored by Member States when transposing EU legislation into national law, notably by establishing correlation tables, and invites national parliaments and the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union to examine the proposals contained in this resolution and to promote an EU register of parliaments’ and parliamentarians’ activities which could serve to ensure and increase mutual cooperation and consultation between the EU, the Parliament and national parliaments, drawing also on best practice in terms of e-Parliament and e- government transparency;
Amendment 83 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Notes some improvements in the registers of the Council and the Commission, but draws attention to the still existing lack of coordination and interoperability between the different institutions, as no common information model for their registers exists that would allow the citizen to find the necessary documents and the information they include at a ‘single point’, as well as to use a common search engine integrally connected notably to the Legislative Observatory (OEIL) where documents pertaining to one legislative procedure are grouped together;
Amendment 84 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 a (new)
Paragraph 39 a (new)
39a. Believes that, in order to make the legislative process more accountable, comprehensible and accessible to the public, Parliament’s committees should in all cases adopt orientation votes prior to entering into trialogues with the Council; the Council, for its part, should adopt ‘general approaches’ or approve negotiating positions agreed in Coreper prior to entering into trialogues with the Parliament, with all such Parliament and Council documents immediately made public; furthermore, to make available to the public the agendas and a summary of the outcome of all trialogue meetings, as well as the ‘four column’ documents drawn up for the purposes of facilitating negotiations, also indicating to citizens the precise state-of-play of each set of ongoing negotiations;
Amendment 85 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 b (new)
Paragraph 39 b (new)
39b. Calls on the Council and Commission to negotiate with the Parliament to amend the Joint Declaration on the co-decision procedure, and the Inter-Institutional Agreement on better law-making, to this end; commits itself, in the interim, to amend its rules of procedure, including the annexed code of conduct on co-decision negotiations, to give full binding effect to these principles;
Amendment 87 #
2010/2294(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Considers that the Interinstitutional Committee established by Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 should meet at least once a year, that the results of its deliberations should be public, and that it shouldwork more intensely, report to the competent committees on the issues discussed, on the positions the Parliament defends, on the problematic issues raised by other institutions, as well as on the achievements reached, if any; calls it consequently to meet more regularly and at least 4 times a year and to open up internal discussions and deliberations by ensuring they are public, by inviting and considering submissions from civil society and the European Data Protection Supervisor; the committee should work on an annual ‘audit’ report on transparency and openness in the EU which should be prepared by the European Ombudsman; calls it to urgently address the problems mentioned abovein this resolution;
Amendment 14 #
2010/2154(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notes that only few Member States have carried out trials of body scanners1 and many of these have abandoned body scanners subsequently, due to the high costs, delays and inefficacy2, while most of the Member States have not deployed body scanners or have opposed or affirmed that they do not intend to buy, deploy and use of body scanners; 1 UK, NL, DE, DK. 2 IT and FIN.
Amendment 15 #
2010/2154(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Notes that, regardless of the inclusion of body scanners in the list of methods of screening allowed, those Member States already using body scanners are bound to ensure that citizens’ fundamental rights enshrined in the ECHR and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights are respected, protected and promoted, notably the right to privacy and to health, as furthermore requested by the European Parliament;
Amendment 16 #
2010/2154(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Highlights that those Member States that used body scanners have excluded some categories of vulnerable persons, such as children, pregnant woman, elderly people and persons with disabilities or with implanted medical devices and workers who are frequently exposed to radiations, and that common rules in this field shall be applied at EU level when Member States deploy and use body scanners;
Amendment 17 #
2010/2154(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2d. Believes that body scanners should only be used by those Member States that decided or will decide to deploy them, on an ad hoc basis, and for those flights were there are reasons to believe that security is at stake, for instance on the basis of intelligence information, of specific risks or threats, of the country of destination of the flights (if the country of destination requested body scanning of the passengers for specific security reasons) or of origin (if the country of origin is targeted by terrorist groups); believes that body scanners should not be used for intra-EU flights;
Amendment 18 #
2010/2154(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 e (new)
Paragraph 2 e (new)
Amendment 19 #
2010/2154(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 f (new)
Paragraph 2 f (new)
2f. Calls the Commission not to add body scanners to the list of authorised screening methods, as this would create an incentive for the use of body scanners at national level, but calls it to issue instead binding recommendations to Member States in relation to the rules for the use of body scanners, shall they decide to continue trials or apply more stringent measures in relation to the use of body scanners in aviation security;
Amendment 20 #
2010/2154(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 g (new)
Paragraph 2 g (new)
2g. Calls for a in depth analysis, evaluation and review of current security situation and procedures at airports, including the liquids regulation, and for an anticipation of the timetable related to the suspension of the ban on liquids and of the conditions foreseen in relation to the availability of screening technologies, while questioning the efficacy and high costs of the future procedures for systematic screening of liquids;
Amendment 21 #
2010/2154(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 h (new)
Paragraph 2 h (new)
2h. Believes that the comitology procedure in the aviation security sector, at least for measures having an impact on citizens' rights, is inappropriate and calls for the EP to be fully involved through co- decision;
Amendment 26 #
2010/2154(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. PoUnderlintes to the fact that the use of body scanners is not restricted only to airports but also to other public places; urges therefore that the Commission present a proposal coverhat the obligation to respect the fundamental rights to privacy, data protection and health in relation to the use of body scanners applies wherever these are used and also outside of airports and in general in all public places where body scanners are or could be deployed and consequently calls on the Commission to monitor Member States practices ing the deployment and use of security scanners in places other than airportsis respect and ensure that the upcoming rules on the protection of citizens' rights to privacy, data protection, heath, non-discrimination are applied whenever body scanners are used;
Amendment 84 #
2010/2154(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Expects that the Commission will base its proposal on extensive independent and objective scientific information gathered among EU experts in the field and without interferences from the industry sector, Member States governments and third countries;
Amendment 89 #
2010/2154(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Calls the Commission, the Council and Committee responsible to substitute the words ‘security scanner(s)’ with the words ‘body scanner(s)’ where the scanners are used to screen persons, including in the title of the report, hereby avoiding inappropriate and unnecessary confusions and ambiguities;
Amendment 81 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a – point ii
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a – point ii
(ii) any other judicialcompetent authority as defined by the issuing State and, in the specific case, acting in its capacity as an investigating authority in criminal proceedings with competence to order the gathering of evidence in accordance with national law,
Amendment 83 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b
Amendment 85 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c
Amendment 104 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. If the issuing authority so wishes, transmission may be effected via the secure telecommunications system of the European Judicial Network or via Eurojust.
Amendment 105 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. If the executing authority is unknown, the issuing authority shall make all necessary inquiries, including via Eurojust and the European Judicial Network contact points, in order to obtain the information from the executing State.
Amendment 107 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 6 – paragraph 6
Article 6 – paragraph 6
6. All difficulties concerning the transmission or authenticity of any document needed for the execution of the EIO shall be dealt with by direct contacts between the issuing and executing authorities involved or, where appropriate, with the involvement of the central authorities of the Member States. Within the limits of its mandate, Eurojust shall provide assistance in any matter connected with the issue, transmission or execution of the EIO, in order to facilitate its use.
Amendment 112 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. When the executing authority decides to avail itself of the possibility referred to in paragraph 1, it shall first, possibly with the assistance of Eurojust, confer with the issuing authority in order to identify the alternative measures best suited to the circumstances concerned; following this consultation stage, the executing authority shall officially inform the issuing authority, which may decide to withdraw the EIO.
Amendment 124 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. The executing authority shall without undue delay transfer the evidence obtained as a result of the execution of the EIO to the issuing State. Where requested in the EIO and if possible under national law of the executing State, the evidence shall be immediately transferred to the competent authorities of the issuing State assisting in the execution of the EIO in accordance with Article 8(3).
Amendment 133 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 14 – title
Article 14 – title
Grounds for postponement of recognition or execution
Amendment 134 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The recognition or execution of the EIO may be postponed in the executing State where:
Amendment 135 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 14 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Where the objects, documents, or data concerned are already relevant to other proceedings the executing authority may, at the explicit request of and after conferring with the issuing authority, temporarily transfer the evidence on condition that it be returned to the executing State as soon as it is no longer required in the issuing State or at any other time agreed between the competent authorities.
Amendment 171 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point b
Amendment 172 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) the witness or expert does not agree to the hearing taking place by that method, citing reasonable grounds which must be assessed by the judicial authority of the executing State in accordance with its national rules.
Amendment 177 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 21 – paragraph 10 – point a
Article 21 – paragraph 10 – point a
(a) the accused person does not consent, citing reasonable grounds which must be assessed by the judicial authority of the executing State in accordance with its national rules, after consulting the issuing authority;
Amendment 180 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) the witness or expert does not agree to the hearing taking place by that method, citing reasonable grounds which must be assessed by the judicial authority of the executing State in accordance with its national rules.
Amendment 185 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 23 – paragraph 4
Article 23 – paragraph 4
Amendment 188 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 24 – paragraph 3
Article 24 – paragraph 3
Amendment 192 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 27
Article 27
Amendment 196 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 31 – paragraph 3
Article 31 – paragraph 3
3. By …**, Member States shall transmit to the General Secretariat of the Council and to the Commission the text of the provisions transposing into their national law the obligations imposed on them under this Directive.
Amendment 197 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 31 – paragraph 4
Article 31 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall, by …***, submit 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 and implement this Directive, accompanied, if necessary, by legislative proposals.
Amendment 198 #
2010/0817(COD)
Draft directive
Article 32
Article 32
Amendment 94 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b – introductory part
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b – introductory part
(b) "child pornographyabuse images" shall mean
Amendment 104 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
Amendment 207 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) the organisation of travel and/or other arrangements with the purpose of committing any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 6.
Amendment 208 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
(ba) material acts in connection with travel for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with a child leading to a meeting, regardless of the actual sexual abuse and exploitation of the child.
Amendment 231 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Article 10 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall require authorities to ensure that candidates for professions working with children and/or persons involved in regular activities with children do not hold a criminal record including offences in relation to the offences governed by Articles 3 to 8 of this Directive. Where applicable, the criminal record of any Member State in which the candidate was resident for more than two years should be checked. By way of derogation from Articles 7 (2) and 9 (2) of the Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from criminal records between Member States, Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, for the purpose of effectively implementing the measure consisting in temporarily or permanently preventing the person from exercising activities involving regular contacts with children, in particular insofar as the requesting Member State subjects access to certain activities to conditions to ensure that candidates have not been convicted of any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 of this Directive, information concerning the disqualification arising from conviction of any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 of this Directive is transmitted when requested under Article 6 of that Framework Decision from the central authority of the Member State of the person's nationality, and that personal data concerning such disqualification provided under Article 7(2) and (4) of that Framework Decision may in all cases be used for such purpose. It is imperative that Member States require that the criminal record of candidates for a position or activities involving children are checked prior to the offer of employment, through pre-employment checks. Otherwise, the requirement only relates to the publication of a criminal list without any requirement that the list is actually checked.Or. enJustification
Amendment 233 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Amendment 242 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Member States shall provide for the possibility of not prosecutingnot prosecute child victims or imposinge penalties on child victims of the offences referred to in Articles 4 and Article 5 (4) to (6) for their involvement in unlawful activities as a direct consequence of being subjected to those offences.
Amendment 245 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 14 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that investigations should be carried out bearing in mind the best interests and the rights of the child at all times and that investigations into or the prosecution of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 are not dependent on a report or accusation being made by the victim, and that the criminal proceedings may continue even if the victim has withdrawn their statements.
Amendment 252 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 4
Article 14 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall take the necessary measures to enable and support investigative units or services to attempt to identify the victims of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7, in particular by analysing child pornography material, such as photographs and audiovisual recordings transmitted or made available by means of information and communication technology. It is important that Member States provide the necessary financial and human resources to ensure that the units, once established, become fully operational and effective.Or. enJustification
Amendment 262 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Member States shall ensure that the rights of victims are fully realised through: a) informing child victims of their rights and the services at their disposal and, unless they do not wish to receive such information, the follow-up given to their complaint, the charges, the general progress of the investigation or proceedings, and their role therein as well as the outcome of their cases; b) ensuring, at least in cases where the victims and their families might be in danger, that they may be informed, if necessary, when the person prosecuted or convicted is released temporarily or definitively; c) protecting the privacy of child victims, their identity and their image and by taking measures in accordance with internal law to prevent the public dissemination of any information that could lead to their identification; d) providing for their safety, as well as that of their families and witnesses on their behalf, from intimidation, retaliation and repeat victimisation; e) ensuring that contact between victims and perpetrators within court and law enforcement agency premises is avoided, unless the competent authorities establish otherwise in the best interests of the child or when the investigations or proceedings require such contact.
Amendment 272 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a child is provided with assistance and support as soon as the competent authorities have an indication that the child might have been subject to an offence referred to in Articles 3 to 7.
Amendment 273 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Amendment 278 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Amendment 280 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 4
Article 18 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall take measures, where appropriate and possible, to provide assistance and support to the victim’s family. In particular, Member States shall, where appropriate and possible, apply Article 4 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA to the family. Solid national child protection and child friendly judicial systems constitute the very found, regardless of whether a criminal investigation ofr protecting children against the crimes governed by the Directive Proposal. That Directive Proposal should be amended to ensure that child protection systems and multi- disciplinary systems are put in place in each Member State.ceedings have been instituted. Or. enJustification
Amendment 284 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Member States shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to encourage and support the setting up of information services, such as telephone or Internet helplines, to provide advice to callers, even confidentially or with due regard for their anonymity.
Amendment 286 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall take the necessary measures to inform victims of their rights and the services at their disposal and, unless they do not wish to receive such information, the follow-up given to their complaint, the charges, the general progress of the investigation or proceedings, and their role therein as well as the outcome of their cases.
Amendment 287 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that assistance and support are provided to victims before, during and for an appropriate time after criminal proceedings in order to enable them to exercise the rights set forth in Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings and in this Directive.
Amendment 288 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1 c (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that criminal investigations and proceedings are carried out in the best interest of the child.
Amendment 289 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1 d (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that investigations are conducted promptly and without unjustified delay.
Amendment 290 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1 e (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 1 e (new)
1e. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that investigations and criminal proceedings do not aggravate the trauma experienced by the child.
Amendment 291 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1 f (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 1 f (new)
1f. Each Member State shall, in the context of investigations and proceedings, apply Articles 13(1) and 13(2) of Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA.
Amendment 317 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 1
Article 21 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to obtain the blocking of access by Internet users in their territory to Internet pages containing or disseminating child pornography. The blocking of access shall be subject to adequate safeguards, in particular to ensure that the blocking is limited to what is necessary, that users are informed of the reason for the blocking and that content providers, as far as possible, are informed of the possibility of challenging itensure the removal of webpages containing or disseminating child abuse images.
Amendment 334 #
2010/0064(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 2
Article 21 – paragraph 2
2. Without prejudice to the abovePending the removal, Member States shall take the necesscomplementary measures to obtain the removal of internet ensure that access to webpages containing or disseminating child pornography. Child abuse images are visual representations of a child being abused. On top of the devastating impact of sexual abuse itself, research indicates there it creates additional distress for the child to have to live with the knowledge that once an image has been uploaded to the internet it may be replicated and downloaded an unlimited number of times. Child abuse images on the internet have massively increased in prevalence over the last few years and the internet has enabled a shift from small-scale, ‘amateur’, non-profit production of images, to the distribution of images by members of organised crimabuse images are blocked towards the Internet users in their territory. The blocking of access shall be subject to adequate safeguards, in particular to ensure that the blocking, taking into account technical characteristics, is limited to what is necessary, that users are in forder to benefit financially. Images of child abuse on websites should be deleted at source. The speed at which these images are taken down must be substantially improved. Moreovmed of the reason for the blocking and that content providers, where imageas fare housed outside a country’s national jurisdiction, we support the Directive’s measures to oblige internet service providers to block access to them. as possible, are informed of the possibility of challenging it. Or. enJustification
Amendment 7 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6
Citation 6
– having regard to all the related conventions, recommendations, reports and activities of the Council of Europe and the United Nations, including specialised monitoring bodies and human rights commissioners, in the area of fundamental rights,
Amendment 11 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 12 a (new)
Citation 12 a (new)
– having regard to the reports and works by NGOs in the field of human rights,
Amendment 28 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Draws attention to its recent resolutions, as well as its oral questions with debates, in 2009 and 2010 on specific fundamental rights such as privacy, personal dignity and data protection, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and information, press freedom,and media freedom, on free movement, on non-discrimination and the use of minority languages, on Roma issues, on discrimination against same-sex marriages, and onhomophobia and the discrimination of same-sex couples married or in a civil partnership, on protection of asylum seekers and migrants, on the respect of the principle of non refoulement, on detention conditions, including irregular migrants retention centers, and on extraordinary renditions and the illegal detention of prisoners; stresses that all these resolutions reflect the spirit of the Charter, show its clear commitment to the everyday protection of fundamental rights, and send political messages to European citizens, Member States and the EU institutions;
Amendment 74 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to raise awareness of the benefits of accession to the ECHR and of the requirements to be fulfilled, by developing guidelines on the adequate application and the effects of this additional mechanism so that excessive expectations on the part of EU citizens can be avoido ensure that citizens can have their fundamental rights protected and that violations are sanctioned;
Amendment 91 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Considers that the European institutions have often acted in parallel in the field of protection of fundamental rights and therefore calls for reflection on actions taken and for enhanced cooperation among these institutions; calls for the establishment of an interinstitutional structured procedure for the annual monitoring of the situation of human rights in the EU, involving the FRA, the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament, defining contents and a timetable for the respective reports, so that each institution can build upon other institutions' reports;
Amendment 106 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Reminds the Commission to undertake objective investigations and start infringement proceeding if there are good grounds for doing so, thus avoiding double standards, whenever a Member State, in implementing EU legislation, violates the rights enshrined in the Charter; further reminds the Commission to requo Member Statest that Member States provide reliable data and facton the basis of the principle of loyal cooperation they have a duty to provide to the Commission reliable data and facts; calls on the Commission to collect directly from NGOs, or via the FRA or human rights bodies, information to evaluate the situation, including through on the spot missions;
Amendment 123 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Calls on the Commission to build on the new institutional and legal framework a new courageous and ambitious policy on fundamental rights in the EU, to update its 2003 Communication on Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union2 on the basis of the new human rights architecture, and to address the issue of possible violations of human rights that could fall outside of strict EU competence but that are anyway against EU values, for instance by defining how diplomatic means could be used in this context; 2 COM(2003)0606.
Amendment 127 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Highlights that also the European Parliament should strengthen its autonomous impact assessment on fundamental rights in relation to legislative proposals and amendments under examination in the legislative process to make it more systematic, notably by enlarging the possibilities currently foreseen by Rule 36 of the Parliament's Rules of Procedure on the respect for the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and to ask to the Legal Service opinions on legal issues in relation to fundamental rights issues in the EU; recalls the importance of delegation visits to collect on the spot information from authorities, NGOs and citizens and believes that such practice should be strengthened and enlarged notably in relation to possible human rights violations; calls for a more structured cooperation with the FRA and NGOs dealing with human rights issues, as well as with the Council of Europe and the Commissioner for Human Rights, that should be involved systematically when discussions take place on issues relating to human rights, for instance by inviting them to committee meetings;
Amendment 133 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls on the Council to adapt to the changes required by the Treaty and to comply with the Charter when legislating; therefore welcomes the establishment of a standing Working Party on Fundamental Rights, Citizens Rights and Free Movement of Persons and hopes that this new body will work transparently and efficiently; calls on the Council to ensure that the Working Party has a broad mandate to include any issue in relation to fundamental rights of EU and Member States' relevance, adhesion, ratification and compliance with international conventions related to fundamental rights, etc.;
Amendment 147 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Emphasises that the FRA is charged with the constitutes a guarantee of the ongoingnuous monitoring of the effective protection of fundamental rights within the Union and that it should therefore have adequate resources for its increased tasks following the implementation of the Charter; points out that its monitoring role should extend at least to the acceding countries; consequently calls on the Commission to issue a proposal in 2011 to strengthen and review the mandate and independence of the FRA so to align it as a minimum with the new Lisbon Treaty and Charter of Fundamental Rights competences, i.e. the respect of fundamental rights by the EU and by each Member State when implementing EU law and policies; reiterates its request to be fully associated in revising the multi-annual programme of the FRA;
Amendment 159 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Underlines the fact that the EU and the Member States share competenceobligations in the field of the implementation and/or enforcement of human and fundamental rights, in their respective spheres of responsibility, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, and that this shared responsibility and competence represents both an opportunity and a right, as well as an obligation on the part of the Member States and of EU institutions; highlights the enhanced role of the national parliaments provided by the Treaty of Lisbon and supports the establishment of a formal ongoing dialogue between the European Parliament and national parliaments;
Amendment 165 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Believes that EU action should not only address violations of fundamental rights after they have happened, but should also seek to prevent them; consequently calls for a reflection on mechanisms for early detection of potential violations of fundamental rights in the EU and in its Member States, temporary freezing of the measures which constitute such violations, accelerated legal procedures for determining if a measure is contrary to EU fundamental rights and for sanctions in the event that these measures are nonetheless implemented contrary to EU law;
Amendment 190 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 – introductory part
Paragraph 35 – introductory part
35. Recalls, therefore, all its resolutions and debates, as well as findings from missions and country visits, on fundamental-rights issues in 2009 and 2010, which have shown that there are many outstanding issues and specific cases of violation of fundamental rights, which require urgent steps, mid- term strategies and long-term solutions and follow up by EU institutions; such as:
Amendment 219 #
2009/2161(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 – indent 6
Paragraph 35 – indent 6
– prohibiting and eliminating all forms of discrimination against a large number of minorities,on any of the grounds referred to in Article 21 of the Charter, such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age, sexual orientation and nationality, notably by adopting the directive on the application of the principle of equality outside of employment, by ensuring that Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States1 is applied without discriminations and by ensuring the free circulation and mutual recognition of civil status documents, 1 OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 77.
Amendment 128 #
2009/2134(INI)
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – indent 11 a (new)
– anyone who has been convicted, by means of a judgment that has the force of res judicata, of corruption, abuse of public office, incitement to racism, crimes relating to involvement with mafia groups, organised crime or terrorism, or sexual abuse;
Amendment 129 #
2009/2134(INI)
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – indent 11 b (new)
– anyone who has already served three full, but not necessarily consecutive, terms as a member of the European Parliament;
Amendment 7 #
2009/2002(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses that under the budget line ‘Prevention of and fighting crime’ further wide-ranging studies should be financed in order to analyse the current situation in Europe as regards drug-trafficking and money-laundering. Requests that funds from this line be earmarked for anti- mafia and anti-racketeering organisations managing property confiscated from the mafia. Requests also that appropriations be provided to fund information campaigns by recognised NGOs in the countries concerned designed to combat racketeering and extortion;
Amendment 63 #
2009/0164(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point d – subparagraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point d – subparagraph 2
Depending on the circumstances in the country of origin, a particular social group mightshall include a group based on a common characteristic of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation cannot be understood to include acts considered to be criminal in accordance with national law of the Member States. Gender related aspects shouldGender related aspects, including gender identity, shall be given due consideration for the purposes of determining membership of a particular social group or identifying a characteristic of such a group.
Amendment 70 #
2008/0090(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2
Article 2
Beneficiaries and scope 1. Any natural or legal person shall have a right of access to documents of the institutions, subject to the principles, conditions and limits defined in this Regulation. 2. This Regulation shall apply to all documents held by an institution, namely, documents drawn up or received by it and in its possession concerning a matter relating to the policies, activities and decisions falling within its sphere of responsibility , in all areas of activity of the European Union. 3. Without prejudice to Articles 4 and 9, documents shall be made accessible to the public either following a written application or directly in electronic form or through a register. In particular, documents drawn up or received in the course of a legislative procedure shall be made directly accessible in accordance with Article 12. 4. Sensitive documents as defined in Article 9(1) shall be subject to special treatment in accordance with that Article. 5. This Regulation shall not apply to documents submitted to Courts by parties other than the institutions. 6. Without prejudice to specific rights of access for interested parties established by EC law, documentor any association of legal or natural persons shall have a right of access to documents of the institutions, bodies, offices forming part of the administrative file of an investigation or of proceedings concerning an act of individual scope shall not be accessible to the public until the investigation has been closed or the act has become definitive. Documents containing information gathered or obtained from natural or legal persons by an institution in the framework of such investigations shall not be accessible to the public. 7. This Regulation shall be without prejudice to rights of public access to documents held by the institutions which might follow from instruments of international law or acts of the institutions implementing them agencies, subject to the principles, conditions and limits defined in this Regulation.
Amendment 76 #
2008/0090(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 a (new)
Article 2 a (new)
Article 2a Scope 1. This Regulation shall apply to all documents held by a Union institution, body, office and agency, that is to say documents drawn up or received by it and in its possession, in all areas of activity of the Union. This Regulation shall apply to the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank, only in the course of the performance of their administrative tasks. 2. Documents shall be made accessible to the public either in electronic form in the Official Journal of the European Union, or in an official register of an institution, body, office or agency, or following a written application. The documents drawn up or received in the course of a legislative procedure shall be made directly accessible in accordance with Article 12 of this Regulation. 3. This Regulation shall be without prejudice to enhanced rights of public access to documents held by the institutions which might follow from instruments of international law or acts of the institutions implementing such instruments or by the law of the Member States.
Amendment 78 #
2008/0090(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – point a
Article 3 – point a
(a) "document" shall means any data, information or content whatever its medium (written on paper or stored in electronic form or as a sound, visual or audiovisual recording) drawn-up by an institution and formally transmitted to one or more recipients or otherwise registconcerning a matter relating to the policies, activities and decisions falling within the sphered, orf received by an institution; data contained in electronic storage, processing and retrieval systems are documents if they can be extracted in the form of a printout or electronic-format copy using the available tools for the exploitation of the system ;sponsibility of a Union institution, body, office or agency; data and information contained in electronic storage, processing and retrieval systems, including external systems used for the institution's work, constitute a document. The functions for the retrieval of information stored in electronic storage systems shall be adapted in order to satisfy requests from the public. An institution, body, office or agency that intends to create a new electronic storage system, or to substantially change an existing system, shall ensure that the right of access guaranteed by this Regulation is guaranteed and act so as to promote the objective of transparency.
Amendment 84 #
2008/0090(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
Amendment 91 #
2008/0090(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Access to the following documents shall be refused if their disclosure would manifestly and seriously underminedisrupt the decision-making process of the institutions: and only as long as the decision has not been taken. This exception does not apply to documents forming part of the legislative procedure.
Amendment 93 #
2008/0090(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point a
Amendment 96 #
2008/0090(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point b
Amendment 98 #
2008/0090(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. The exceptions under paragraphs (2) and (3)receding paragraphs shall apply unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure. As regards paragraph 2(a)Such an overriding public interest in disclosure shall be deemed to exist where the information requested relates to emissions into the environment, the principle of publicity, democracy, the rule of law, the protection of fundamental rights, and particularly the right to live in a healthy environment. Disclosure of public procurement or framework contracts between an institution and a supplier shall not fall within the scope of the exceptions set out in paragraph 2.
Amendment 110 #
2008/0090(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7
Article 4 – paragraph 7
7. The exceptions as laid down in this Article shall onlynot apply for the period during which protection is justified on the basis of the content of the document. The exceptions may apply for a maximum period of 30 years. In the case of documents covered by the exceptions relating to the protectto documents transmitted in the framework of procedures leading to a legislative act or delegated or implementing act of general application, or to documents relating to the implementation of Union acts and policies or use and beneficiaries of Union funds. The exceptions may apply only for as long as is justified by the content of the document and in any event for a maximum periond of personal data or commercial inter30 years. At each requests and in the case of sensitive documents, the exceptions may, if necessary, continue to apply after this perioany event at regular intervals, the applicability of the exception shall be reviewed.
Amendment 118 #
2008/0090(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. Where an application concerns a document originating from a Member State, other than documents transmitted in the framework of procedures leading to a legislative act or a non-legislativedelegated or implementing act of general application, the authorities of that Member State shall be consulted in case of doubt as to whether the document could be covered by one of the exceptions. The institution holding the document shall disclose it, unless the Member State gives reasons for withholding it, based on the exceptions referred to in Article 4 or on specific provisions in its own legislation preventing disclosure of the document concerned. The institution shall appreciate the adequacy of reasons given by the Member State insofar as they are based on exceptions laid down in this Regulation. The institution shall appreciate the adequacy of reasons given by the Member State and take a decision on the basis of its own judgment as to whether the exceptions cover the document concerned. This Article shall not apply to documents relating to the implementation of Union acts or policies or of use and beneficiaries of Union funds, or to documents of Member States acting in their capacity as members of the Council.
Amendment 122 #
2008/0090(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5a Legislative acts 1. In compliance with the democratic principles outlined in Articles 9 to 12 TEU and with the case-law of the Court of Justice, institutions acting in their legislative capacity, including under delegated and implementing powers, shall grant the widest possible access to documents relating to their activities. 2. Documents relating to legislative programmes, preliminary civil society consultations, impact assessments and any other preparatory documents, as well as documents relating to the implementation of Union law and policies linked to a legislative procedure shall be accessible on a user-friendly and coordinated interinstitutional site and published in a special electronic series of the Official Journal of the European Union. 3. During the legislative procedure, each institution, body, office or agency associated in the decision-making process shall publish its preparatory documents and all related information, including legal opinions, in a special series of the Official Journal of the European Union as well on a common Internet site reproducing the lifecycle of the procedure concerned. 4. Once adopted, legislative acts shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union as provided for by Article 13.
Amendment 125 #
2008/0090(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. In exceptional cases, for example in the event of an application relating to a very long document or to a very large number of documents, the time-limit provided for in paragraph 1 may be extended byonly once for a maximum period of 15 working days, provided that the applicant is notified in advance and that detailed reasons are given.
Amendment 126 #
2008/0090(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. In exceptional cases, for example in the event of an application relating to a very long document or to a very large number of documents, the time limit provided for in paragraph 1 may be extended byonly once for a maximum period of 15 working days, provided that the applicant is notified in advance and that detailed reasons are given.
Amendment 127 #
2008/0090(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4
Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. Failure by the institution to reply within the prescribed time limit shall be considered as a negapositive reply and shall entitle the applicant to institute court proceedings against the institution and/or make a complaint to the Ombudsman, under the relevant provisions of the EC Treatyhave access to the document.
Amendment 130 #
2008/0090(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The content of a document shall be available without discrimination on the grounds of visual impairment, working language or operating system platform. Institutions shall provide for actual access by an applicant to the content of documents without technical discrimination.
Amendment 134 #
2008/0090(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Financial transparency and traceability shall also be ensured. Information relating to the Union budget, its implementation and beneficiaries of Union funds and grants shall be made public and accessible to citizens. Such information shall contain the budget line, the call for tender, the list of applicants for the selection procedure, the names of the recipients and beneficiaries, the names, sectors, types and dates of the operations and the amount of public funding allocated to the operations, the reasons for selection, the recipient (State, international organisation, Member State and region, etc) involved, and any implementation, evaluation or audit document. Such information shall also be accessible via a specific website and database, searchable on the basis of the above information, dealing with financial transparency in the Union.
Amendment 135 #
2008/0090(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1
This Regulation shall be without prejudice to any existing rules on copyright which may limit a third party's right to obtain copies of documents or to reproduce or exploit released documents.
Amendment 1 #
2001/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 a (new)
Citation 3 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,
Amendment 7 #
2001/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the environment through criminal law defines a minimum number of serious environment-related offences and requires Member States to provide for more dissuasive criminal penalties for this type of offence when committed intentionally or as a result of gross negligence;
Amendment 18 #
2001/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital S a (new)
Recital S a (new)
Sa. whereas illegal waste disposal has also become part of the activities of organised crime, which raises questions about the role of the authorities responsible and, in respect of industrial waste, of industry collusion;
Amendment 39 #
2001/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Calls on the Commission to carefully monitor the transposition by the Member States of the EU directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law, to ensure that it is done promptly and effectively; calls on the Commission to develop inovative instruments for the prosecution of environmental offences in which organised crime plays a role;
Amendment 67 #
2001/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Recommends the imposition of adequate and dissuasive fines and penalties for the illegal disposal of waste, especially toxic and hazardous waste, partly to compensate for environmental damage in accordance with the polluter-pays principle; calls for effective measures to combat any infiltration of waste management by organised crime and against any connections between organised crime and lawful industry or public authorities;