Activities of Loránt VINCZE
Plenary speeches (75)
One-minute speeches on matters of political importance
Review of the Romanian Presidency of the Council (debate)
Importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe (RC-B9-0097/2019, B9-0097/2019, B9-0098/2019, B9-0099/2019, B9-0100/2019)
One-minute speeches on matters of political importance
Taking forward the Horizontal anti-discrimination Directive (debate)
The 30th Anniversary of the Velvet revolution: importance of the fight for freedom and democracy in Central and Eastern Europe for the historical unification of Europe (debate)
Commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the Romanian revolution of December 1989 (debate)
Commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the Lisbon Treaty and the legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights (debate)
Presentation of the programme of activities of the Croatian Presidency (debate)
Ongoing hearings under article 7(1) of the TEU regarding Hungary (debate)
Proposed mandate for negotiations for a new partnership with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (debate)
Conclusions of the special European Council meeting of 20 February 2020 on the Multiannual Financial framework (debate)
Migration situation at the Greek-Turkish border and the EU's common response to it (debate)
European coordinated response to the COVID-19 outbreak (debate)
EU coordinated action to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences (continuation of debate)
Emergency Legislation in Hungary and its impact on the Rule of Law and fundamental rights (continuation of debate)
Use of contact tracing apps in the fight against the coronavirus (debate)
Order of business
Preparation of the European Council meeting of 19 June 2020 - Recommendations on the negotiations for a new partnership with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (debate)
First voting session
Presentation of the programme of activities of the German Presidency (debate)
Boosting Roma inclusion process in Europe for the next decade (debate)
The case of Dr. Denis Mukwege in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)
Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 15 and 16 October 2020, in particular the negotiations of the future relations with the UK (debate)
Stocktaking of European elections (continuation of debate)
European Citizens’ Initiative – Minority SafePack (continuation of debate)
Achieving an effective policy legacy for the European Year of Cultural Heritage (debate)
Implementation of the Anti-Trafficking Directive (debate)
Public access to documents for the years 2016-2018 (short presentation)
Activities of the European Ombudsman – annual report 2019 (debate)
Long-term vision for rural areas (debate)
The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement - The outcome of EU-UK negotiations (continuation of debate)
Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Programme 2021-2027 (debate)
Digital Green Certificate - Union citizens - Digital Green Certificate - third country nationals - The accessibility and affordability of Covid-testing (debate)
Roma Equality, Inclusion and Participation (debate)
Prisoners of war in the aftermath of the most recent conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan
The future of EU-US relations (debate)
European solutions to the rise of energy prices for businesses and consumers: the role of energy efficiency and renewable energy and the need to tackle energy poverty (debate)
Human rights situation in Myanmar, including the situation of religious and ethnic groups
Condemning police violence against Romani people in the EU (debate)
The European Commission Guidelines on inclusive language (topical debate)
Activities of the European Ombudsman – annual report 2020 (debate)
The Power of the EU – Joint European Action for more affordable, secure and sustainable energy (debate)
One-minute speeches on matters of political importance
EU Protection of children and young people fleeing the war against Ukraine (debate)
The situation of marginalised Roma communities in the EU (debate)
The call for a Convention for the revision of the Treaties (debate)
Illegal logging in the EU (debate)
Existence of a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded (debate)
The accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen area (debate)
The Media freedom crackdown in Myanmar, notably the cases of Htet Htet Khine, Sithu Aung Myint and Nyein Nyein Aye
Whitewashing of the anti-European extreme right in the EU (topical debate)
The European Year of Youth 2022 Legacy (debate)
Order of business
Deliberations of the Committee on Petitions in 2021 (debate)
Deliberations of the Committee on Petitions in 2021 (debate)
The 30th anniversary of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (debate)
Presentation of the programme of activities of the Swedish Presidency (debate)
Electoral rights of mobile Union citizens in European Parliament elections - Electoral rights of mobile Union citizens in municipal elections (debate)
2022 Rule of Law Report - The rule of law situation in the European Union - Rule of law in Greece - Rule of law in Spain - Rule of law in Malta (debate)
Institutional relations between the EU and the Council of Europe (short presentation)
Question Time (Commission) - Legacy of the European Year of Youth
Implementation of the Regulations on the European citizens' initiative (short presentation)
Composition of the European Parliament (A9-0214/2023 - Loránt Vincze, Sandro Gozi) (vote)
Composition of the European Parliament (debate)
Composition of the European Parliament (debate)
Reviewing the protection status of wolves and other large carnivores in the EU (topical debate)
Situation in Nagorno-Karabakh after Azerbaijan’s attack and the continuing threats against Armenia (debate)
Islamist terrorist attack on French schools and the need to protect people and promote social cohesion (debate)
European Citizens' Initiative 'Fur Free Europe' (debate)
Proposals of the European Parliament for the amendment of the Treaties (debate)
Empowering farmers and rural communities - a dialogue towards sustainable and fairly rewarded EU agriculture (debate)
This is Europe - Debate with the President of Romania, Klaus Iohannis (debate)
Need for an urgent Council decision in favour of amending the protection status of wolves in the Bern Convention (debate)
Asset recovery and confiscation (A9-0199/2023 - Loránt Vincze) (vote)
Reports (7)
REPORT on the outcome of the Committee on Petitions’ deliberations during 2021
REPORT on the institutional relations between the EU and the Council of Europe
REPORT on the implementation of the Regulations on the European citizens’ initiative
REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on asset recovery and confiscation
REPORT on the composition of the European Parliament
RECOMMENDATION on the draft European Council decision establishing the composition of the European Parliament
TUARASCÁIL maidir leis an togra le haghaidh Treoir ón gComhairle lena leasaítear Treoir (AE) 2015/637 maidir leis na bearta um chomhordú agus um chomhar chun cosaint chonsalach a éascú le haghaidh shaoránaigh an Aontais nach ndéantar ionadaíocht orthu i dtríú tiortha agus Treoir (AE) 2019/997 lena mbunaítear Doiciméad Taistil Éigeandála AE
Shadow reports (7)
REPORT on the implementation of Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims
REPORT on a European Parliament recommendation to the Council and the Commission on the negotiations for a cooperation agreement between the European Union and the International Criminal Police Organization (ICPO-INTERPOL)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a collaboration platform to support the functioning of Joint Investigation Teams and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1726
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 of the European Parliament and the Council and Council Decision 2005/671/JHA, as regards the digital information exchange in terrorism cases
REPORT on the proposal for a Council directive laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for Union citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals (recast)
REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2005/671/JHA, as regards its alignment with Union rules on the protection of personal data
RECOMMENDATION FOR SECOND READING on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (Kosovo*)
Opinions (6)
OPINION on recommendations on the negotiations for a new partnership with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
OPINION on Public Access to Documents (Rule 122(7)) – Annual report for the years 2016-2018
OPINION on citizens’ dialogues and citizens’ participation in EU decision-making
OPINION on upscaling the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework: a resilient EU budget fit for new challenges
OPINION on the implementation report on the Agreement on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU
Opinion on monitoring the application of European Union Law in 2020, 2021 and 2022
Shadow opinions (10)
Opinion on the Proposal for a Council decision on the system of Own Resources of the European Union (
OPINION on the Situation of Fundamental Rights in the European Union - Annual Report for the years 2018-2019
OPINION on the Commission’s 2020 Rule of law report - COM(2020)0580
OPINION on the implementation of the common security and defence policy – annual report 2021
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism and amending Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010, (EU) 1094/2010, (EU) 1095/2010
Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Decision amending Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/2053 on the system of own resources of the European Union
OPINION on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law and replacing Directive 2008/99/EC
OPINION on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law
OPINION on the implementation report on the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement
OPINION on the implementation of the Treaty provisions on EU citizenship
Institutional motions (161)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation at the USA-Mexican border
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Russia, notably the situation of environmental activists and Ukrainian political prisoners
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Situation in Hong Kong
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in Hong Kong
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Russia, notably the situation of environmental activists and Ukrainian political prisoners
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Iran, notably the situation of women's rights defenders and imprisoned EU dual nationals
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Myanmar, notably the situation of the Rohingya
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Situation in Turkey, notably the removal of elected mayors
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Iran, notably the situation of women’s rights defenders and imprisoned EU dual nationals
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Myanmar, notably the situation of the Rohingya
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on situation in Turkey, notably the removal of elected mayors
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on The proposed new Criminal Code of Indonesia
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Egypt
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION On The situation of LGBTI people in Uganda
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the proposed criminal code of Indonesia
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation of LGBTI people in Uganda
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Haiti
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Cuba, the case of José Daniel Ferrer
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Situation of freedoms in Algeria
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Haiti
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Cuba, the case of José Daniel Ferrer
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation of freedoms in Algeria
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the Romanian revolution of December 1989
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Nigeria, notably the recent terrorist attacks
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Burundi, notably the case of imprisoned journalists
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Nigeria, notably the recent terrorist attacks
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Burundi, notably freedom of expression
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Guinea Conakry, notably violence towards protesters
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Child labour in mines in Madagascar
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the Republic of Guinea, notably violence towards protestors
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on child labour in mines in Madagascar
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on European protection of cross-border and seasonal workers in the context of the COVID-19 crisis
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on The humanitarian situation in Mozambique
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the case of Dr. Denis Mukwege in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on The situation in the Philippines, including the case of Maria Ressa
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the humanitarian situation in Mozambique
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in the Philippines, including the case of Maria Ressa
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the case of Dr Denis Mukwege in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Eritrea, the case of Dawit Isaak
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION The situation of Ethiopian migrants in detention centres in Saudi Arabia
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the "Foreign Agents" Law in Nicaragua
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the ‘Foreign Agents’ Law in Nicaragua
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Eritrea, notably the case of Dawit Isaak
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION The continuous violations of human rights in Belarus, in particular the murder of Raman Bandarenka
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION Situation in Ethiopia
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION The deteriorating situation of human rights in Algeria, in particular the case of journalist Khaled Drareni
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the continuous violations of human rights in Belarus, in particular the murder of Raman Bandarenka
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in Ethiopia
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the deteriorating situation of human rights in Algeria, in particular the case of journalist Khaled Drareni
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Minority SafePack – one million signatures for diversity in Europe’
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Iran, in particular the case of 2012 Sakharov Prize Laureate Nasrin Sotoudeh
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on forced labour and the situation of the Uyghurs in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the crackdown on the democratic opposition in Hong Kong
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Human rights situation in Turkey, notably the case of Selahattin Demirtas and other prisoners of conscience
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Human rights situation in Vietnam, in particular the case of human rights journalists Pham Chi Dung, Nguyen Tuong Thuy et Le Huu Minh Tuan
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the human rights situation in Vietnam, in particular the case of human rights journalists Pham Chi Dung, Nguyen Tuong Thuy and Le Huu Minh Tuan
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the human rights situation in Turkey, notably the case of Selahattin Demirtaş and other prisoners of conscience
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the crackdown on the democratic opposition in Hong Kong
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Human rights situation in Kazakhstan
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Political situation in Uganda
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Rwanda, the case of Paul Rusesabagina
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the human rights situation in Kazakhstan
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the political situation in Uganda
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Rwanda, the case of Paul Rusesabagina
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Situation in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo and the assassination of the Italian Ambassador Luca Attanasio and his entourage
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the human rights situation in the Kingdom of Bahrain, in particular the cases of death row inmates and human rights defenders
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the mass trials against opposition and civil society in Cambodia
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the human rights situation in the Kingdom of Bahrain, in particular the cases of death row inmates and human rights defenders
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the mass trials against the opposition and civil society in Cambodia
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo and the assassination of the Italian Ambassador Luca Attanasio and his entourage
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on COVID 19 pandemic in Latin America
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Blasphemy laws in Pakistan, in particular the case of Shagufta Kausar and Shafqat Emmanuel
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Bolivia and the arrest of former President Jeanine Añez and other officials
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the blasphemy laws in Pakistan, in particular the case of Shagufta Kausar and Shafqat Emmanuel
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Bolivia and the arrest of former President Jeanine Añez and other officials
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the COVID-19 pandemic in Latin America
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in Chad
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Prisoners of war in the aftermath of the most recent conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in Haiti
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in Chad
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in Haiti
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on prisoners of war in the aftermath of the most recent conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in Sri Lanka, in particular the arrests under the Prevention of Terrorism Act
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on The listing of German NGOs as 'undesirable organisations' by Russia and the detention of Andrei Pivovarov
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Breach of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child and the use of minors by the Moroccan authorities in the migratory crisis in Ceuta
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in Sri Lanka, in particular the arrests under the Prevention of Terrorism Act
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the use of minors by the Moroccan authorities in the migratory crisis in Ceuta
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the listing of German NGOs as ‘undesirable organisations’ by Russia and the detention of Andrei Pivovarov
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the case of Ahmadreza Djalali in Iran
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the death penalty in Saudi Arabia, notably the cases of Mustafa Hashem al-Darwish and Abdullah al-Howaiti
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Hong Kong, notably the case of Apple Daily
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the death penalty in Saudi Arabia, notably the cases of Mustafa Hashem al-Darwish and Abdullah al-Howaiti
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Hong Kong, notably the case of Apple Daily
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the case of Ahmadreza Djalali in Iran
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the case of human rights defender Ahmed Mansoor in UAE
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the government crackdown on protests and citizens in Cuba
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the case of Paul Rusesabagina in Rwanda
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on human rights situation in Myanmar, including the situation of religious and ethnic groups
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the human rights situation in Myanmar, including the situation of religious and ethnic groups
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the case of Paul Rusesabagina in Rwanda
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on situation in Somalia
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the human rights situation in Cameroon
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in Somalia
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the human rights situation in Cameroon
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in Cuba, namely the cases of José Daniel Ferrer, Lady in White Aymara Nieto, Maykel Castillo, Luis Robles, Félix Navarro, Luis Manuel Otero, Reverend Lorenzo Rosales Fajardo, Andy Dunier García and Yunior García Aguilera
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on continuous crackdown on civil society and human rights defenders in Russia: the case of human rights organisation Memorial
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the continuous crackdown on civil society and human rights defenders in Russia: the case of human rights organisation Memorial
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in Cuba, namely the cases of José Daniel Ferrer, Lady in White Aymara Nieto, Maykel Castillo, Luis Robles, Félix Navarro, Luis Manuel Otero, Reverend Lorenzo Rosales Fajardo, Andy Dunier García and Yunior García Aguilera
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the political crisis in Sudan
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in Kazakhstan
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on violations of fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the political crisis in Sudan
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on violations of fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in Kazakhstan
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION the political crisis in Burkina Faso
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION the recent human rights developments in the Philippines
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the death penalty in Iran
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the death penalty in Iran
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the political crisis in Burkina Faso
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the recent human rights developments in the Philippines
on the Russian aggression against Ukraine
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation of journalists and human rights defenders in Mexico
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Destruction of cultural heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Myanmar, one year after the coup
on the situation of journalists and human rights defenders in Mexico
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the destruction of cultural heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh
Myanmar, one year after the coup
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION On human rights situation in North Korea, including the persecution of religious minorities
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation of the rule of law and human rights in the Republic of Guatemala
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on increasing repression in Russia, including the case of Alexey Navalny
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the human rights situation in North Korea, including the persecution of religious minorities
on the Increasing repression in Russia, including the case of Alexey Navalny
the State of play on the EU-Moldova cooperation
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the human rights situation in Xinjiang, including the Xinjiang police files
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the human rights situation in Xinjiang, including the Xinjiang police files
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the candidate status of Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and Georgia
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the candidate status of Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and Georgia
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on human rights violations in the context of forced deportation of Ukrainian civilians to and forced adoption of Ukrainian children in Russia
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Nicaragua, in particular the arrest of the bishop Rolando Álvarez
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on human rights violations in the context of the forced deportation of Ukrainian civilians to and the forced adoption of Ukrainian children in Russia
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Nicaragua, in particular the arrest of the bishop Rolando Álvarez
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the media freedom crackdown in Myanmar, notably the cases of Htet Htet Khine, Sithu Aung Myint and Nyein Nyein Aye
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the recent humanitarian and human rights situation in Tigray, Ethiopia, notably that of children
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Russia’s escalation of its war of aggression against Ukraine
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the Media freedom crackdown in Myanmar, notably the cases of Htet Htet Khine, Sithu Aung Myint and Nyein Nyein Aye
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Russia’s escalation of its war of aggression against Ukraine
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the recent humanitarian and human rights situation in Tigray, Ethiopia, notably that of children
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen area
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the continuing repression of the democratic opposition and civil society in Belarus
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION the forced displacement of people as a result of escalating conflict in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the human rights situation in Afghanistan especially the deterioration of women´s rights and attacks against educational institutions,
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the continuing repression of the democratic opposition and civil society in Belarus
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the forced displacement of people as a result of the escalating conflict in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the human rights situation in Afghanistan, especially the deterioration of women’s rights and attacks against educational institutions
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the challenges facing the Republic of Moldova
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on taking stock of Moldova’s path to the EU
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on taking stock of Moldova’s path to the EU
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the return of Romanian national treasure illegally appropriated by Russia
Oral questions (4)
Functioning of the internal market
Putting forward an EU Strategy for Demography
Timetable and vote for the accession of Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia to the Schengen Area
Poor sanitary conditions, low levels of security and lack of parking places in rest areas for truck drivers
Written explanations (100)
Draft amending budget No 3/2019: proposal to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide assistance to Romania, Italy and Austria (A9-0006/2019 - John Howarth)
8,2 millió eurót hagytunk jóvá Románia számára az Európai Unió Szolidaritási Alapjából a 2018 folyamán bekövetkezett árvízkatasztrófák kárainak orvoslására, valamint a régiókban történő újjáépítési projektek fedezésére. A Románia észak-keleti régióját 2018. június közepétől augusztus elejéig ismétlődő súlyos esőzések és az ezt követő kiterjedt áradások sújtották, amelyek jelentős károkat okoztak az infrastruktúrában és a háztartásokban, valamint a mezőgazdaságban. Károkat szenvedtek a védőgátak és töltések a belvízi vízfolyásokon, több mint 4 000 kilométernyi országos és helyi út és utca, a hidak, a szennyvíztelepek és csatornahálózatok, a villamosenergia- és gázelosztás, az ivóvíz- és öntözőrendszerek, 32 iskola és egyéb középületek.Szavazatommal támogattam az Unió és az Európai Parlament természeti katasztrófák által sújtott polgárokkal és régiókkal szolidaritást kifejező döntését, hangsúlyozva, hogy sürgősen szükség van a pénzügyi támogatás elérhetővé tételére a természeti katasztrófa által sújtott régiók számára.
Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027 and own resources: time to meet citizens' expectations (B9-0110/2019, B9-0112/2019, B9-0113/2019)
Megszavaztam a 2021-2027 közötti pénzügyi keretterv javaslatáról szóló parlementi állásfoglalást, mivel úgy vélem, hogy Románia szempontjából rendkívül fontos, hogy egy megfelelő többéves pénzügyi keret mielőbb elfogadásra kerüljön.Egyetértek a Parlament által javasolt ambiciózusabb költségvetési főértékkel, elsősorban mivel az alapvető uniós szakpolitikák, illetve a kohéziós és a mezőgazdasági pénzalapok fenntartása kulcsfontosságú régióink számára. Támogatom továbbá az ifjúságpolitika, a kutatás, az innováció és a környezetvédelem terén való kiemelt programok fellendítését is.Sajnálatos, hogy az EU finn soros elnökségének előterjesztése a költségvetés főösszegét tekintve még kevésbé ambiciózus, mint az Európai Bizottságé. Ezért is fontos világossá tenni, hogy a Parlament csak egy olyan többéves pénzügyi kerethez fogja hozzájárulását adni, amely biztosítani tudja az EU politikai kötelezettségvállalásainak és törekvéseinek fedezését, illetve polgárai elvárásainak teljesítését.
Opening accession negotiations with North Macedonia and Albania (B9-0155/2019, RC-B9-0156/2019, B9-0156/2019, B9-0157/2019, B9-0158/2019, B9-0159/2019, B9-0160/2019, B9-0161/2019)
Megszavaztam az Európai Parlament Észak-Macedóniával és Albániával folytatandó csatlakozási tárgyalások megkezdéséről szóló állásfoglalását. Az Európai Parlament azután tűzte plenáris napirendjére a témát, hogy az Általános Ügyek Tanácsa - Franciaország, Hollandia és Dánia vétójának hatására - az október 15-i ülésén a tárgyalások megkezdésének elutasításáról döntött.A két balkáni ország rendkívüli erőfeszítéseket tett ahhoz, hogy teljesítse a csatlakozási előkészületek megkezdéséhez szükséges feltételeket. Az EU nyomására, Albánia elfogadta, hogy független testület ellenőrizze valamennyi bíráját, ugyanakkor hozzáférést biztosított az EU határvédelmi hatóságának az albán rendőri műveletekhez. Észak-Macedónia pedig ennél is tovább ment, még a nevét is megváltoztatta, hogy rendezzen egy két évtizede tartó vitát Görögországgal. Ezek után, a Tanács döntése miatt kiírt előrehozott választásokon Zoran Zaev, a miniszterelnökségét is elveszítheti a csatlakozást ellenzők javára.Döntésével a Tanács egyik legfontosabb külpolitikai eszközét gyengítette, aláásta az ígéreteibe vetett bizalmat, de ugyanakkor destabilizálta balkáni szomszédságát is.A bővítési folyamat valóban szükséges reformja nem gördíthet akadályokat azon országok elé, amelyek már teljesítették a tárgyalások megkezdésére vonatkozó követelményeket, már csak azért is, mert ezek előreláthatólag akár egy évtizedig is eltarthatnak. Nagyon remélem, hogy a közeljövőben a tagállamoknak sikerül felelős magatartást tanúsítani Albániával és Észak-Macedóniával szemben, és egyhangú pozitív határozatot fogadnak el a tárgyalások megkezdéséről.
Election of the Commission
Az Európai Parlament bizalmat szavazott az Ursula von der Leyen elnökölte új Európai Bizottságnak. Szavazatommal én is támogattam beiktatásukat, mert az elnöktől és a biztosoktól eddig kapott visszajelzések pozitívak voltak az erdélyi magyarok és Európa jövője szempontjából fontos kérdésekben. Bízom benne, hogy az új biztosok mentalitásváltást hoznak az intézményben, nagyobb nyitottságot a kisebbségi jogok kérdésében. Ugyanakkor remélem, jövőben elkezdődik a jogalkotás is a Minority SafePack kezdeményezésben megfogalmazott igényeknek megfelelően.
Situation of the Uyghur in China (China-cables) (RC-B9-0246/2019, B9-0246/2019, B9-0247/2019, B9-0248/2019, B9-0249/2019, B9-0250/2019)
In the past two years, China has sent more than one million Uyghurs from Xinjiang to gulag—style prisons, in which people locked up for no other reason than their ethnicity and religion are forced to undergo political indoctrination, are deprived from all contact with loved ones and are subjected to forced labour and beatings.The cables released last month provide strong evidence that all the reports we have heard so far are true beyond doubt. The information from the leaked cables are an addition to what we already know about China’s long hands extending far beyond its borders and maintaining a strong grip over Uyghur exiles in Europe, America and elsewhere.We cannot continue ignoring the grave violation of the human rights of millions of people. The silence of Western democracies about these practices only emboldened China in increasing its repression against religious minorities and ethnic groups it deems unreliable: the Uyghurs, Tibetans, and Kazakhs.I welcome that the EU Foreign Affairs Council has started working on an EU global sanctions regime for human rights violations that would also include China. No economic relationship, no matter how important it is, should undermine our capacity to act in the defence of our values.
The European Green Deal (RC-B9-0040/2020, B9-0040/2020, B9-0041/2020, B9-0042/2020, B9-0043/2020, B9-0044/2020, B9-0045/2020, B9-0046/2020)
The Commission’s Green Deal proposal is a crucial and ambitious programme intended to reconcile our economic prosperity and the health of our planet. Many of its essential details and policies would have to be ironed out in the near future, however.Regarding financing, we know that there’s a high price attached to reaching our net-zero emission goals. While some of this money will come from private investors, the Member States themselves would also need to invest enormous amounts of money. We would therefore have to pay greater attention to providing financial support for Member States with below-average economic development through the Just Transition Fund. On top of this, we would also need a cohesion policy supporting green investments that is a lot more ambitious than the current proposal on the table.With regard to policy, we would also need to allow for a certain amount of flexibility that takes into account the national circumstances of each Member State in order to reach our targets, involving, for example, recognising the principle of technological neutrality and of nuclear as a clean source of energy and the possibility of transitional use of less polluting sources, such as natural gas.
Annual report 2018 on the human rights and democracy in the world and the European Union's policy on the matter (A9-0051/2019 - Isabel Wiseler-Lima)
Sadly, looking back at all the human rights resolutions referred to in this report, on top of violent conflicts, the year of 2018 also saw massive rights violations across the globe, from Africa through the Middle East and Asia to the Americas. Our close neighbourhood was not spared human rights abuses either, as the reports on Russia, Belarus and Moldova show.I am proud that the EU, through actions at bilateral and multilateral level, has continued to be a supporter of the advancement of human rights in 2018, using tools that it is best at: strengthening political dialogue with non-EU countries around the globe and establishing new international agreements, including its trade and economic partnerships and its enlargement discussions.In a worsening human rights international context, beyond leading by example, the EU must strive to do its utmost to build a common future, where human rights violations, violations against minorities, children, women and vulnerable groups in general cannot be tolerated.
European Parliament's position on the Conference on the Future of Europe (B9-0036/2020, B9-0037/2020, B9-0038/2020)
Starting an honest conversation about the future of our Union, its purpose, its direction and actions could not be timelier. Not just because the10 years that have passed since the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty already provide a good indication of what we need to change to make our Union function better, but also because there is no shortage of new challenges we must face up to.While we are witnessing the emergence of a multi-polar world in which our relative power is diminishing, we still have a squabble-generating budget-setting system which is out of tune with our goals; we are locked in endless divisive fights on migration and rule of law issues; and, for the first time in history, we are incapable to give a clear answer to European states that would like to join us. These are the problems we should find solutions to, so we can move our Union forward.To succeed, one issue is a priority: formalising the content and finality of this Conference in a common interinstitutional agreement between the Commission, the Parliament and the Council to guarantee that we do not run this big conversation exercise only for its outcomes to be disregarded in the end by the Council.
Activities of the European Ombudsman in 2018 (A9-0032/2019 - Peter Jahr)
Megszavaztam az európai ombudsman 2018-as évi tevékenységéről szóló, Petíciós Bizottságban készült jelentést. A jelentés bizonyítéka annak, hogy nagyon is az élethez és az időszerű kérdésekhez kapcsolódik az ombudsman, illetve a Petíciós Bizottság munkája. Foglalkozik például az intézmények közötti ún. háromoldalú egyeztetések átláthatóságának növelésével, az uniós dokumentumokhoz való jobb hozzáféréssel. Ezeknek a témáknak mind abból a szempontból van jelentőségük, hogy követhetőbbé, hozzáférhetőbbé tegyék az uniós intézmények működését és jogalkotási folyamataikat a polgárok számára. A tájékozott, felkészült polgárok a jövőbeli viták kulcsszereplői.Javaslatomra a jelentés támogatja az ombudsmant abban, hogy további iránymutatásokat készítsen az uniós intézmények számára, milyen módon fejlesszék nyelvi politikájukat, hogyan valósuljon meg az összes hivatalos nyelven a kommunikáció, beleértve a polgárokkal történő kapcsolattartást. Hasonlóképpen, felvetésemre kéri a Parlament, hogy kövesse nyomon az európai polgári kezdeményezésnek, mint a közvetlen demokrácia egyetlen uniós eszközének használatát.Az elmúlt években pozitív előrelépés történt az európai ombudsman munkájának minél szélesebb körben való megismertetése terén. A Szerződésekben biztosított uniós polgári jogok teljesértékű érvényesüléséhez mindez elengedhetetlen. Bízom abban, hogy mivel az ombudsman tevekénységéről számot adó honlap tartalmának egyre nagyobb része érhető el az összes uniós hivatalos nyelven, magyarul egyaránt, ez a lehetőség közelebb hozza az ombudsman hivatalát az erdélyi magyarokhoz és egyben megerősíti panasztételhez való jogukat.
Gender pay gap (B9-0069/2020, B9-0073/2020, B9-0083/2020, B9-0084/2020)
A nemek közötti bérszakadék egy valós probléma. Az Európai Unióban a nők átlagosan még mindig 16 százalékkal kevesebbet keresnek, mint a férfiak. Ezért is szavaztam meg az Európai Parlament erről szóló állásfoglalását, amely javaslatokat tartalmaz a helyzet javítására, illetve az egyenlőtlenségek megszüntetésére. Bár tagállamonként eltérő a nemek közötti bérrés nagysága, a jelenség mindenütt beárnyékolja a gazdaság működését és negatívan hat a társadalomra. A nyugdíjak közötti különbség még jelentősebb. A 21. század Európájában meg kell szüntetnünk ezeket az eltéréseket.Az állásfoglalás számos okát felsorolja a bérkülönbségnek, illetve azt, milyen megoldásokkal lehet javítani a nők helyzetét e tekintetben. A parlamenti állásfoglalás szorgalmazza többek között a nemek közötti bérszakadékra vonatkozó cselekvési terv naprakésszé tételét, de további konkrét elképzeléseket is tartalmaz, mint például a magas színvonalú gyermekgondozási szolgáltatások elérhetőbbé tételét, vagy a nők vállalkozói készségének fejlesztését. Mindezek mellett egyértelmű, hogy ha változást szeretnénk elérni, ahhoz az uniós intézmények, a tagállamok és a vállalkozói, üzleti szféra megfelelő szerepvállalása is szükséges.
Regulation amending the Multiannual financial framework 2014-2020
Megszavaztam a többéves pénzügyi keretről (MFF) szóló rendelet módosítását, amely előfeltétele volt a koronavírus elleni intézkedésekhez kapcsolódó további költségvetési módosítások foganatosításának. A módosításra a hétéves költségvetési ciklus utolsó évében azért volt szükség, hogy megoldható legyen a 2/2020. számú költségvetés-módosítási tervezetben javasolt, a koronavírus-járvány által kiváltott uniós válságra adott válaszintézkedésekre fordítandó három milliárd euró finanszírozása. A konkrét intézkedések finanszírozásához szükséges összeg meghaladja az egyéb Rugalmassági Eszköz és a rendkívüli tartalék keretében kombináltan rendelkezésre álló forrásokat, ezek a források nem lettek volna elegendőek a Szükséghelyzeti Támogatási Eszközhöz, valamint az uniós polgári védelmi mechanizmus/rescEU megerősítéséhez szükséges finanszírozás fedezésére.Az eredeti rendeletszöveg értelmében, a kötelezettségvállalásokra vonatkozó összesített tartalék igénybevétele a növekedésre, különösen a fiatalok foglalkoztatására, valamint a migrációra és a biztonságra vonatkozott. A módosítást követően ez a korlát megszűnt, ezzel együtt lehetőség nyílt a költségvetési előirányzatok e részének felhasználására a járvány okozta válsághelyzet enyhítése céljából.
Draft amending budget No 2/2020: Providing emergency support to Member States and further reinforcement of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism/rescEU to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak
Szavazatommal támogattam a 2/2020. számú költségvetés-módosítási tervezet jóváhagyását. Ez a módosítás teszi lehetővé, az uniós kiadások meghatározott részének átszervezésével azt, hogy a tagállamok és az Európai Bizottság olyan konkrét intézkedéseket foganatosítsanak, amelyek segítenek a koronavírus okozta jelenlegi válsághelyzet enyhítésében az egészségügy terén. Három milliárd euró mozgósítása válik lehetővé az uniós költségvetésből a tagállami egészségügyi rendszerek számára a járvány elleni küzdelemre, kiegészítve a tagállami intézkedéseket.Ebből 2,7 milliárd euró, a Szükséghelyzeti Támogatási Eszköz keretében áll hamarosan a tagállamok rendelkezésére. A támogatott intézkedések a tagállami szükségletektől függően sokfajták lehetnek, így például lehetséges az egészségügyi védőfelszerelések behozatala, szállítása és elosztása; betegek más tagállamba történő átszállítása, továbbá gyógyszerek és a szűrési eljárások fejlesztésének elősegítése, vagy ideiglenes szükségkórházak építése.Az uniós polgári védelmi mechanizmus vagy rescEU megerősítése keretében 300 millió euró jut az uniós szintű egészségügyi kapacitás javítására.Ez a megoldás a jövőbeli esetleges válsághelyzetekre készíti fel jobban unió szerte a tagállamokat, teljes bizottsági finanszírozással és egy uniós koordinációval, hogy a szükséges eszközök a megfelelő tagállamba juthassanak el. Több tagállam is otthont adhat majd az orvostechnikai felszereléseknek (például lélegeztető gépeknek), az első ilyen fogadó állam Románia lesz.A rendelkezésre álló uniós költségvetési támogatásokat a február 1-jétől kezdődően foganatosított intézkedésekre lehet felhasználni.
Macro-financial assistance to enlargement and neighbourhood partners in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic crisis
. – Szavazatommal támogattam a jelentést, amely az EU tíz bővítési és szomszédságpolitikai partnerének nyújtandó, 3 milliárd eurós összegű makroszintű pénzügyi segítségről szól. A támogatásban részesülő országok között van a Keleti Partnerség három társult országa (Grúzia, a Moldovai Köztársaság, Ukrajna), a nyugat-balkáni országok, valamint Jordánia és Tunézia. A középtávú hitelek formájában nyújtandó támogatás egy fontos jelzés a tíz ország számára a jelenlegi válság idején, amely nem ismer határokat. A koronavírus járvány következményeként jelentkező gazdasági nehézségek enyhítésében jelentős szerepet játszik ez az uniós gyorssegély, amely egyes országokban segíthet elkerülni akár a gazdasági összeomlást is. További kedvező hatása a támogatásnak abban rejlik, hogy az érintett régiók stabilitása is megőrizhető ezáltal és továbbra is szem előtt maradnak az európai reformok, illetve az olyan európai értékek, mint a demokrácia, a jó kormányzás és az emberi jogok tiszteletben tartása.
Request for funding for biomedical research on Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (B9-0186/2020)
Becslések szerint az EU-ban mintegy kétmillió ember szenved myalgiás encephalomyelitisben (krónikus fáradtság szindróma, ME/CFS). Az ismeretlen eredetű betegség tünetei, súlyossága és progressziója változó, és jelenleg nem létezik rá gyógymód. Sajnálatos módon a betegségről korlátozottak a jelenlegi tudományos ismeretek, és a rendelkezésre álló adatok is kevésnek bizonyulnak a betegség teljes körű feltárásához az átfogó kutatások hiányában.A betegség ismertségi szintje szintén alacsony, ez pedig annak társadalmi elfogadottságát nehezíti. A betegek számára mindez jelentős hátrányt jelent, például a foglalkozási fogyatékosság elismertetése terén. Hasonlóan, a kórban szenvedő gyermekek és fiatalok helyzete is aggodalomra ad okot, akik az oktatáshoz való hozzáférés korlátozottságában érzékelhetik leginkább a betegség hatását.A Petíciós Bizottságot számos petíciós kereste meg ezzel a ritka betegséggel kapcsolatban, amelynek kutatása megfelelő anyagi források hiánya miatt nehézségekbe ütközik. A petíciósok, érintett betegek vagy családtagjaik beszámolói és tapasztalatai, illetve a rendelkezésre álló adatok mind azt mutatják, hogy fokozottabb uniós és tagállami fellépésre és együttműködésre van szükség a betegség jobb megismerése, annak kutatása, oktatása és a lehető legmegfelelőbb orvosi és társadalmi kezelése érdekében. A 21. században elérhetővé kell tennünk azokat az uniós finanszírozási eszközöket, amelyek a betegség orvosbiológiai kutatását és a betegek támogatását biztosítják.Egyetértek a megfogalmazott elképzelésekkel és szavazatommal támogattam a parlamenti állásfoglalást.
Conference on the Future of Europe (B9-0170/2020, B9-0179/2020)
The COVID-19 pandemic halted the progress on the Conference on the Future of Europe. But there is also a silver lining: the past 5 months have already generated an intense reflection on many issues we normally tend not to think about in ‘normal’ times. The experiences of citizens in the past few months about economic and social processes on which the EU has an impact or on which it was widely thought to have had one ‒ such as the case of public health ‒ were very condensed and thought provoking.To name a few, people got to see the effects of uncoordinated member state actions and egoistic national reflexes, re-experienced what day-long queues at borders are like, felt the effects of over-reliance on external supply chains, but also understood the importance of seasonal workers in putting food on their table.People will want to have a stronger say about such things in the future. Together with the Council we must seize the opportunity in this crisis and start preparing the groundwork to bring their views on board to improve our Union.
European citizens’ initiative: temporary measures concerning the time limits for the collection, verification and examination stages in view of the COVID-19 outbreak (C9-0142/2020 - Loránt Vincze)
As rapporteur for the file, I voted together with the near unanimity of MEPs for the Commission’s proposal to extend retroactively the limits for collecting, verifying and examining European Citizens’ Initiatives (ECIs).I also voted with the large majority in favour of lowering the thresholds required for the Commission to further prolong the applicable collection periods, from a majority of Member States (or States representing more than 35% of the Union) to a quarter of EU countries, and in favour of allowing for the remote participation of ECI organisers in hearings or meetings with the Commission and Parliament.By acting this way, Parliament has improved the original proposal, which in this form may better respond to the serious impact of the pandemic on ongoing ECIs. We must make sure that the EU’s main instrument for participative democracy gets back on track as quickly as possible, with full legal clarity and effectiveness. Citizen engagement is essential to strengthen our Union.
Situation in the Schengen area following the Covid-19 outbreak (B9-0165/2020)
Az elmúlt hónapokban annak voltunk tanúi, hogy a koronavírus terjedésének következtében megszokott életvitelünk teljesen megváltozott. A járvány megfékezésére hozott intézkedések egyike volt a még ma is tapasztalható utazási korlátozások bevezetése Európa-szerte. A tagállamok szinte egyik napról a másikra állították vissza a belső határállenőrzést, illetve zárták le teljesen határaikat az utazók előtt. Ezek az intézkedések a személyek szabad mozgását korlátozzák és ezzel súlyos hatást gyakorolnak az emberekre, más tagállamban élő családtagjaikra, de az európai vállalkozásokra is.(A témában korábban sürgősségi kérdéssel fordultam az Európai Bizottsághoz.)Az uniós szintű koordináció hiánya idézte elő a jelenlegi helyzetet, erre hívja fel a figyelmet az állásfoglalás, továbbá javasolja, hogy a jövőben felkészültebben válaszoljon az EU a hasonló kihívásokra, készítsen többek között vészhelyzeti tervet.Az állásfoglalás sürgeti Romána, Bulgária, valamint Horvátország mielőbbi csatlakozását a schengeni térséghez. Jelenleg a három ország méltánytalanul rekedt az övezeten kívülre, hiszen minden technikai követelménynek több éve megfelel. Az Európai Tanácsnak és a tagállamoknak meg kell érteniük, hogy a kettős mérce és a diszkrimináció nem tartható fenn többé.Megszavaztam az állásfoglalást, mert úgy gondolom, hogy ebben a kérdésben mind a tagállamoknak, mind az uniós intézményeknek összehangoltan kell eljárniuk, megerősítve a tagállamok közötti kölcsönös bizalmat és szem előtt tartva az uniós polgárok érdekeit.
European protection of cross-border and seasonal workers in the context of the COVID-19 crisis (B9-0172/2020)
The free movement of workers is a fundamental principle of the European Union and it is essential that fair and equal treatment is assured for all workers, regardless of the type of work contract they have.Today whole industries are based fully or to a large degree on seasonal labour, like the tourism and the hospitality industry or agriculture. Most Member States rightfully granted aid for their HORECA or tourism sectors, which obviously suffered under the coronavirus pandemic.Agriculture, however, could not stop, crops had to be harvested. The European Commission recognised the importance of seasonal workers in agriculture. We could also observe how a large number of Member States asked for derogations from the border restrictions for seasonal workers. Given the importance of labour mobility in the sector, seasonal workers in agriculture should be granted the same treatment as other workers. Proper hygiene, proper work conditions, proper information on the rights and responsibilities are essential and basic elements we all expect from our workplaces. Making sure that seasonal workers do not contact and spread the coronavirus is essential; by protecting our workers, we protect everybody.
International and domestic parental abduction of EU children in Japan (B9-0205/2020)
. – Öröm számomra, hogy a Parlament egyértelműen mellé állt a Petíciós Bizottságból indult kezdeményezésnek, amely az uniós állampolgársággal is rendelkező, de Japánban élő gyermekek és uniós állampolgár szüleik jogainak védelmében született meg. Az állásfoglalás kezdeményezőjeként azt szavazatommal támogattam azzal a céllal, hogy a Parlament egyértelmű üzenetet küldjön ebben a kérdésben mind a többi uniós intézmény, mind a tagállamok, illetve Japán számára.Nem hagyhatjuk figyelmen kívül azt a sok európai szülői kérést, amely arra irányul, hogy hassunk a japán hatóságokra, és segítsünk érvényesíteni a szülői láthatási, kapcsolattartási jogokat EU-Japán viszonylatban.A gyermekek jogainak biztosítása a legfontosabb érdek, a nemzetközi és uniós szabályok mentén és azokat tiszteletben tartva. Az eddigi diplomáciai úton folytatott tárgyalások nem vezettek kézzelfogható eredményre, ezért is fontos, hogy az EP állásfoglalás keretében fektette le, milyen megoldásokkal javasolja előbbre vinni a gyermekeik jogaiért küzdő uniós szülők ügyét. Az állásfoglalás összehangolt európai fellépést sürget az ügyben, illetve javasolja a hatékonyabb állampolgári tájékoztatást és figyelmeztetést a japán viszonyokkal kapcsolatban. Az állásfoglalás a japán hatóságokkal szemben megfogalmazza azt az elvárást, hogy hozzák összhangba a nemzeti jogot és annak végrehajtását nemzetközi kötelezettségvállalásaikkal.
Adapting to development in the road transport sector (A9-0116/2020 - Ismail Ertug)
. – Nem szavaztam meg a mobilitási csomag részeként elfogadott korlátozó jogszabályi rendelkezéseket. Véleményem szerint a jogszabály-tervezet számos protekcionista, az unión belüli fuvarozási szolgáltatásokat nehezítő intézkedést tartalmaz. Ezek közül az egyik az a fuvarozó vállalatokra, és egyben a vállalkozások járművezetőire háruló plusz teher, amely 8 hetente hazautazásra kényszeríti a fuvarozókat cégük székhelyére. Abban az esetben is, ha éppen nincs szállítandó áru a cég székhelyének irányába.A koronavírus okozta válsághelyzet rámutatott, mennyire fontos a közúti fuvarozás mindennapjainkban ahhoz, hogy az áruk Európán belül időben és épségben célba érjenek.Az elfogadott mobilitási csomag a kelet-európai fuvarozókat sújtó, diszkriminatív kötelezettségek bevezetésével a belső piac működését egyértelműen károsítani fogja, meghazudtolva a munkaerő és szolgáltatások szabad mozgása alapvető elveiben megfogalmazottakat.Összeurópai vonatkozásban a mobilitási csomag aránytalan terheket ró a közúti közlekedési ágazatra, csökkenti az egész unió versenyképességét, és a harmadik országok árufuvarozóit hozhatja előnyös helyzetbe az európai közúti áruszállítók rovására.
European citizens’ initiative: temporary measures concerning the time limits for the collection, verification and examination stages in view of the COVID-19 outbreak (C9-0142/2020 - Loránt Vincze)
. – As rapporteur for the file, I voted together with the near unanimity of MEPs for the Commission’s proposal to extend retroactively the limits for collecting, verifying and examining European Citizens’ Initiatives (ECIs). I also voted with the large majority in favour of lowering the thresholds required for the Commission to prolong further the applicable collection periods, from a majority of Member States (or States representing more than 35% of the European Union), to a quarter of EU countries, as well as of allowing for the remote participation of ECI organisers in hearings or meetings with the Commission and Parliament.By acting this way, Parliament has improved the original proposal, which in this form may better respond to the serious impact of the pandemic on ongoing ECIs. We must make sure that the EU’s main instrument for participative democracy gets back on track as quickly as possible, with full legal clarity and effectiveness. Citizen engagement is essential to strengthen our Union.
Draft Council decision on the system of own resources of the European Union (A9-0146/2020 - José Manuel Fernandes, Valerie Hayer)
I am glad that Parliament voted in favour of the need to introduce new sources of revenue to the EU budget. These should at least cover the costs related to the Next Generation EU recovery plan. Financing the recovery must be sustainable through the introduction of, for example, taxes on transnational polluters and multinational corporations, and must not become a burden for the next generation.The current system of own resources is overly complex, unequitable and incomprehensible to citizens. Its thorough reform through the introduction of new genuine own resources is essential to increase the availability of revenue for the EU to achieve its objectives, predictability, efficiency, clarity and fairness among Member States.New genuine own resources are necessary also in order to break with the legacy of budgetary rebates and corrective mechanisms, the raison d'être of which has ceased to exist now that the UK has left the EU.
Implementation of National Roma Integration Strategies: combating negative attitudes towards people with Romani background in Europe
Setting up the European Roma strategy was an immense achievement. It placed the need to improve the situation of Roma on the European policy agenda and created vital institutional structures and support networks and motivated Member States to develop national strategies.Unfortunately, in the ten years since it is in place, the situation of Roma has not improved significantly across Member States; this is why the strategy needs to be updated and revised.I am glad that the amendments I put forward were incorporated into the report, as I strongly believe that there is a need for more embeddedness of strategies into national, regional and local sectoral policies and for a more efficient use of EU financing, especially for long-term integration projects.We need to move forward from the institutional and political inertia that often hampers the improvement of the situation of Roma. Money needs to be allocated for objectives and projects that have the biggest potential long-term impact.One key aspect is inclusive education, which needs to be incorporated into well-funded, long-term educational strategies in order to break the cycle of poverty, but also in order to address the prejudices of the majority.
Situation in Belarus
I welcome that this house rejected the ‘official’ results of the Belarusian presidential elections, and that it will no longer recognise the incumbent leader, Alexander Lukashenko, as the president of the country once his current term in office expires.With my vote, I too condemn the mass arrests and violent crackdown on peaceful protesters and journalists in the country, welcome the recently established Coordination Council as an ‘interim representation of the people demanding democratic change’ and call for new, free and fair elections under international supervision.At the same time, I find it extremely disappointing that, more than a month after the fraudulent presidential election in Belarus, the European Union still hasn’t decided on a list of sanctions against individuals responsible for the falsification of the results and the repression in Belarus. Our common foreign policy needs to be quicker and bolder in reacting to international developments of such significance.
Cultural recovery of Europe
A kultúra sokaknak nyújtott támaszt az elmúlt hónapokban, főleg az online térben, ugyanakkor a kulturális életet, annak szereplőit sem kímélte a járványhelyzet. A Bizottság adatai szerint a kulturális és kreatív ágazatok 2020 második negyedévében forgalmuk 80%-át veszthették el a járvány és annak megfékezésére irányuló intézkedések miatt. A kulturális ágazatokban és iparágakban dolgozók jelentős része egyéni vállalkozó, vagy kis-és közepes vállalkozói formában működik, őket még érzékenyebben érinthette a válság. Az EU helyreállítási tervében egyértelműen helyet kell kapjon a kulturális és kreatív szektor támogatása.Az állásfoglalás külön foglalkozik a helyi és regionális médiával, annak támogatására közép- és hosszútávú uniós stratégiát kérve, továbbá az Európa kulturális és nyelvi sokszínűségének megőrzésében központi szerepet betöltők, legyenek azok egyének vagy szervezetek, uniós szintű támogatását javasolja. Minden olyan uniós kezdeményezés, amely külön kitér a helyi, regionális szereplők támogatására és a kulturális és nyelvi sokszínűség fontosságára, hasznos lehet hazai közösségünk számára. Támogattam az állásfoglalás elfogadását.
Covid-19: EU coordination of health assessments and risk classification and the consequences on Schengen and the single market (RC-B9-0257/2020)
Egyetértek a koronavírussal kapcsolatban az egészségügyi értékelések koordinációjára és a belső piacra tett hatásokra vonatkozóan elfogadott állásfoglalással. A vírushelyzet - kivétel nélkül - mindannyiunk életét megváltoztatta. Mind az EU-n, mind a tagállamokon belül alkalmazkodnunk kellett azokhoz az új intézkedésekhez, amelyeket a tagállamok a járvány megfékezése érdekében hoztak.A parlament az állásfoglalással sorra veszi azokat a nehézségeket, amelyekkel az uniós belső piacon az elmúlt időszakban az emberek találkozhattak, elsősorban a közlekedésre, szabad mozgásra vonatkozó korlátozásokra, illetve az egyészségügy terén tapasztalt nehézségekre összpontosítva.Az állásfoglalás az elmúlt hónapok történéseiből levonva következtetéseit olyan javaslatokat fogalmaz meg a tagállamok és az Európai Bizottság irányába, amelyek hozzájárulnak ahhoz, hogy a jövőben elkerülhetők, megelőzhetők vagy enyhíthetők legyenek a válsághelyzetek, elsősorban megfelelően koordinált uniós fellépéssel, illetve szükséges, a járvány terjedésére vonatkozó, egységesen értelmezhető adatgyűjtéssel és adatmegosztással.Az állásfoglalás javasolja az uniós egységes piac megerősítése és a tagállamok közötti különbségtétel megszüntetése érdekében a schengeni térség teljessé tételét.Az érthető, világos tájékoztatásra a járványhelyzetről és az intézkedésekről is felhívja a figyelmet a parlament. A legfontosabb információknak minden polgár számára elérhetőknek kell lenniük, valamennyi hivatalos nyelven, valamint a lakosság meghatározó része által használt nyelveken is. Ez egyértelműen mutatja, hogy a parlament figyel a soknyelvű kommunikáció kérdésére.
European Climate Law (A9-0162/2020 - Jytte Guteland)
Tartózkodtam az európai klímavédelmi jogszabályjavaslat parlamenti szavazásán, mert úgy gondolom, hogy a 2030-ig megvalósítandó 60%-os kibocsátás-csökkentés, amely a Parlament szövegében szerepel, nem reális célkitűzés a jelenlegi körülmények és lehetőségek ismerete alapján. Az eredeti bizottsági javaslat 55%-ot tartott megvalósíthatónak és vállalhatónak az EU részéről, ennek a célnak az elérésére kell koncentrálnunk, feltételezhető, hogy a tagállamok is ezt az irányt támogatják majd. A klímasemlegesség elérése terén az Európai Unió és annak egyes tagállamai külön-külön is zászlóvivők, ugyanakkor nem rugaszkodhatunk el a valóságtól, nem kérhetünk olyan radikális változásokat, amelyek a gazdaságra, az európai iparra és a munkaerőpiacra felmérhetetlen terheket rónának.Egy zöldebb és élhetőbb Európa megvalósítása nem százalékos számháborúval érhető el, hanem fokozatos, jól átgondolt klímavédelmi intézkedésekkel, amelyek minden szektorra tekintettel vannak, legyen az az energiaszektor, a közlekedési, az építési szektor vagy a mezőgazdaság. Az intézkedésekkel együtt a jövőben, úgy vélem, hogy nagy szerep hárul a tagállami és uniós kommunikációra is, ugyanis a téma iránti érzékennyé tétel központi kérdése a helyzet javításának.
Recommendation to the Council, the Commission and the VPC/HR on relations with Belarus (A9-0167/2020 - Petras Auštrevičius)
A belarusz helyzettel kapcsolatban az Európai Parlament a többi uniós intézménynek címezve ajánlásokat fogadott el, ugyanis nem kérdés, hogy támogatjuk a belarusz embereket, akik jogosan demokratikus választásokat követelnek és egy jobb, élhetőbb országot szeretnének.Indokoltak a jelentésben leírtak, az EU-nak a Belarusszal fenntartott kapcsolatát alapjaiban kell megváltoztatnia és a partnerségi prioritásokról szóló tárgyalásokat mindaddig fel kell függesztenie, amíg nem szerveznek új, szabad választásokat, nemzetközi megfigyelőkkel. A jelentés egyértelműen hangsúlyozza, hogy a belarusz nép szemében Szvjatlana Cihanouszkaja a megválasztott elnök, aki független felmérések szerint az elnökválasztáson a szavazatok több mint felét szerezhette meg. A Cihanouszkaja által kezdeményezett Koordinációs Tanácsot az EP a demokratikus változást követelők legitim képviselőjeként ismeri el.Belarusz földrajzi közelsége miatt sem nézheti az EU cselekvés nélkül az ott történteket, az augusztusi választások óta tartó népfelkelés résztvevőit, fiatalokat, nőket, férfiakat, civileket és újságírókat, a jogaikért kiálló polgárokat elhallgattatni szándékozó és kegyetlenül megtorló rezsim vezetői számára egyértelművé kell tennünk, hogy az EU nem tart fenn együttműködést diktatúrákkal. Világos üzenetet kell küldenünk Lukasenka elnök hamis rendszerének, de ami ennél is fontosabb, ki kell állnunk a demokratikus fordulatot követelő belarusz nép mellett.
The future of European education in the context of Covid-19 (B9-0338/2020)
A járvány következtében hirtelen bekövetkezett digitális oktatásra való átállás számos hiányosságra rámutatott az oktatás terén. A digitális infrastruktúrához és eszközökhöz való hozzáférés nagy egyenlőtlenségeket mutat, de a tanárok és oktatók digitális készségei is sokszor hiányosak, mindez pedig az oktatás minőségének rovására megy. Egyes országokban, főleg vidéki iskolákban és izolált, szegény régiókban egyáltalán nem biztosított az internet-hozzáférés sem az iskolában, sem a diákok otthonában. A járvány következtében így az egyes régiók közötti egyenlőtlenségek tovább mélyülnek.Állásfoglalásában a Parlament úgy véli, hogy a tagállamok közötti jobb együttműködés és koordináció, valamint egy ambiciózusabb uniós oktatási és képzési politika javítaná a Covid19 válságra adott válasz eredményességét, ezért sürgeti az Uniót, hogy a jövőben aktívabb koordinációs szerepet játsszon ezen a téren. Felkéri ugyanakkor a Bizottságot, hogy dolgozzon ki politikai keretet a jövőbeli európai oktatási politika számára és hogy biztosítson finanszírozási lehetőségeket a digitális oktatásra való átállás, valamint az oktatási egyenlőtlenségek csökkentése érdekében.A jól működő oktatási és képzési rendszerekhez magas szintű állami beruházások szükségesek. Mivel Romániában kevés jel mutatkozik arra, hogy hatékony intézkedésekkel és nagyobb pénzügyi erőforrásokkal biztosítsák a minőségi oktatást, mindenképp szükség van egy Uniós szintű iránymutatásra és támogatásra. Szavazatommal ezért támogattam a jelentést.
Obligations of the Commission in the field of visa reciprocity in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 (B9-0339/2020)
The Commission has achieved good progress in the past year towards achieving full visa reciprocity with countries on the EU’s visa-free list. Since last year, Polish citizens can travel to the US visa-free. Unfortunately, however, Bulgarian, Croatian, Cypriot and Romanian nationals are still required to hold a visa to enter the US, while all other EU citizens are exempt from that requirement for short-stays, as are US nationals when they visit the European Union.The discrimination that Bulgarians, Croatians, Cypriots and Romanians experience when travelling to the US is unacceptable. The Commission should do its utmost to change this, but not through the means of adopting a delegated act suspending visa-free travel for US nationals, which would be counterproductive. Together with my group, I supported the current approach of the European Commission, which has already borne fruit. Diplomatic engagement remains the most appropriate way forward.
The Schengen system and measures taken during the COVID-19 crisis (B9-0362/2020)
Egy állampolgári petíción alapul a schengeni rendszerről szóló állásfoglalás. A belgiumi német ajkú közösség kereste meg a parlamentet, hogy segítsen számukra a tavasszal bevezetett határzárak következtében kialakult helyzet megoldásában. Azóta a határlezárások megszűntek, ugyanakkor az állásfoglalás általános érvényű javaslatokat tesz a tagállamok és az uniós intézmények felé egy a mostani, ill. hasonló válság esetére. Összehangolt európai együttműködésre van szükség válsághelyzetekben, a legnagyobb biztonság és egészségvédelem biztosítása csakis így lehetséges. A határmenti régiók az EU jelentős részét teszik ki, az ott élők mindennapi élete általában két vagy akár három ország közötti ingázással zajlik, ezért különös elbánásban kell részesülniük, ha utazási korlátozásokat vezetnek be a tagállamok.Figyelmet kell szentelnünk a határvidéki régiókban élők helyzetének világjárvány esetén is. A szöveg tárgyalásánál egyetértettünk képviselőtársaimmal abban, hogy amennyire csak lehet, érvényesíteni kell a szabad mozgás adta jogokat.Az utazáshoz friss információkat kell a polgárok számára biztosítani és lehetőleg minél több nyelven. A határmenti régiókban ez jelentheti az ott lakó közösség nyelvét, kisebbségi, regionális nyelvet.Bár a schengeni rendszer több évtizede működik, annak megújítása időszerű, többek között azért is, hogy az ahhoz csatlakozni kívánó Bulgária és Románia végre teljesjogú tagjává válhasson.
Towards a more sustainable single market for business and consumers (A9-0209/2020 - David Cormand)
Az egységes belső piac lehetővé teszi, hogy fogyasztóként mindenütt érvényes jogszabályi keretek között hozzáférjünk az árukhoz, szolgáltatásokhoz, a vállalkozók pedig biztosíthatják termékeiket a vásárlók számára.A korábban követett fogyasztói viselkedési minták és ezzel együtt a belső piac a 21. században átgondolást igényel. Ma a fogyasztók szeretnének környezettudatosabban, az online vásárlásnál is megfelelő biztonsággal, minőségileg megbízható, tartós, környezetre kevésbé ártalmas termékeket vásárolni. A parlamenti jelentés alapvetően azokat a lehetőségeket térképezi fel, amelyek beillesztése a belsőpiaci előírások keretébe hozzájárulna egy fenntarthatóbb belső piac megvalósításához.Egyetértek azzal, hogy a belső piacnak folyamatosan fejlődnie kell, alkalmazkodva a kor kihívásaihoz, mindennek viszont az európai vállalkozások és fogyasztók érdekeivel összhangban kell történnie. Támogatom azt, hogy az európai termékek és szolgáltatások minél nagyobb hangsúlyt kapjanak a belső piacon, hiszen ezek a termékek a számunkra a legközelebb, legkönnyebben elérhetők, és ellenőrzött minőséggel rendelkeznek. A fenntarthatóság javítása érdekében arra kell ösztönöznünk a gyártókat, hogy azok tartósan jó minőségű termékeket állítsanak elő; és ahol megoldható, a javítás, nem pedig a teljes termékcsere legyen az első lehetőség. A szolgáltatások esetében pedig a meglévő jogszabályok végrehajtásának megerősítése érdekében kell több erőfeszítést tenni.A jelentés azon javaslatait, amelyek túlzott akadályokat gördítenének az európai vállalkozások elé, nem tudtam támogatni, ezért tartózkodtam a zárószavazáson.
Situation of Fundamental Rights in the European Union - Annual Report for the years 2018-2019 (A9-0226/2020 - Clare Daly)
Szerény támogatással tudta csak a Parlement elfogadni alapjogi jelentését. Azt én sem szavaztam meg. A csekély támogatás annak tudható be, hogy nem sikerült megtalálni a szükséges egyensúlyt az alapvető jogok terén bemutatott különböző helyzetek és jogsérelmek között. Míg bizonyos témákról, szinte trendként részletesen szól a dokumentum, legyen az a migráció vagy a szexuális és reproduktív jogok, illetve a jogállamisági eljárások megerősítésének szükségessége, más problémák létére csak említőlegesen tesz utalást. Ennek egyik példája az őshonos nemzeti kisebbségekhez tartozó és regionális, kisebbségi nyelveket beszélő személyek marginális említése a jelentésben. Bár a jelentés emlékeztet a jogállamiság és az alapvető jogok közötti szerves kapcsolatra, illetve elítéli a gyűlölet-bűncselekményeket és a megkülönböztetést, nem foglalkozik azzal, hogyan lehet uniós keretek között az őshonos kisebbségek helyzetén javítani.A Petíciós Bizottság korábban véleményt fogadott el a jelentéshez, amely aggodalmát fejezte ki azon számos petíció miatt, amely azt mutatja, hogy az uniós polgárok továbbra is hátrányos megkülönböztetéssel szembesülnek alapvető jogaik gyakorlása során, különösen a megkülönböztetésmentesség, nyelvi jogok, a kisebbségi jogok és a tulajdonhoz való jog terén. Az európai sokszínűség megőrzése érdekében támogató fellépéseket javasolt a vélemény, és azt is kimondta, hogy a Bizottság javasoljon jogi eszközöket a „Minority Safe Pack” elnevezésű európai polgári kezdeményezésben megfogalmazott javaslatok végrehajtására.
Deliberations of the Committee on Petitions 2019 (A9-0230/2020 - Kosma Złotowski)
A Parlament elfogadta a Petíciós Bizottság (PETI) éves tevékenységéről szóló jelentését, amelyet én is támogattam. 2019 az európai választások éve volt, új Parlament alakult, a beérkezett petíciók száma azt mutatja, hogy az emberek ebben az időszakban is éltek petíciós jogukkal.A jelentés beszámol az elmúlt időszak során megtárgyalt témákról és a PETI további aktivitásairól. A képviselők úgy gondolják, hogy egy széleskörűbb tájékoztatás a bizottság munkájáról, annak láthatóbbá tétele elősegítheti a polgárok petíciós joggal történő alaposabb megismertetését. A jelentéshez módosítókkal járultam hozzá, többek között felhívva a figyelmet arra, hogy számos „sikertörténet” köthető petíciókhoz, amikor egy petíciós által felvetett aggályra a bizottság támogatásával találtak megoldást.A PETI 2019-ben tárgyalt sok alapvető joggal kapcsolatos, továbbá környezetvédelmi, állatvédelmi, állampolgári jogi beadványt is. Az ún. nagytestű ragadozók, mint például a farkas és a barnamedve környezetre és vidéki közösségekre gyakorolt hatásairól nyilvános meghallgatást szervezett az illetékes szakbizottságokkal együttműködve. A jelentés felszólítja javaslatomra mind a tagállamokat, mind az Európai Bizottságot, hogy tegyenek meg mindent az emberek és nagytestű ragadozók megfelelő egymás mellett élésének biztosítására és a konfliktusok elkerülésére.A jelentés kitér az európai részvételi demokrácia gyakorlásának fontosságára és felhívja a Bizottságot az európai polgári kezdeményezések kapcsán, hogy a Parlament által támogatott sikeres kezdeményezések alapján javasoljon jogalkotást.
The arrest of Aleksei Navalny (B9-0090/2021, B9-0091/2021, B9-0092/2021, B9-0093/2021, B9-0094/2021, B9-0095/2021)
I voted in favour of the European Parliament Resolution on Russia, calling on EU member states to take an active stance on the arrest of Alexei Navalny and of his followers and to significantly strengthen the EU’s restrictive measures vis-à-vis Russia, including through the sanctioning of the ‘individuals and legal entities’ involved in the decision to arrest and imprison the pro-democracy political activist.With my vote I also joined the demand of the European Parliament for the immediate and unconditional release of Alexei Navalny and of all other persons detained in relation to his return to Russia, be they journalists, members of his team or citizens showing support.The use of a nerve agent against and the detention of a prominent government critic is the clearest sign of the increasingly restrictive civic and political environment in Russia ahead of the September parliamentary elections. The European Union cannot remain idle in the face of such grave human rights violations.
Establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (A9-0214/2020 - Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, Siegfried Mureşan, Dragoș Pîslaru)
Szavazatommal támogattam a Helyreállítási és Rezilienciaépítési Eszköz parlament általi jóváhagyását, amely a világjárvány hatásainak és következményeinek enyhítésében segíti a tagállamokat.A világjárvány hatásainak enyhítése céljából létrehozott eszköz a 750 milliárd eurós összköltségvetésű Next Generation EU helyreállítási terv legfőbb eleme.A vissza nem térítendő támogatások és kölcsönök formájában igénybe vehető összesen 672,5 milliárd eurót a tagállamok a világjárvány gazdasági és társadalmi következményeit enyhítő intézkedésekre fordíthatják.A Parlament mai döntésével elindulhat a pénz a járvány által sújtott emberekhez és régiókba a jelenlegi válság sikeres legyőzésének érdekében. Létrehoztuk az eszközt és megállapítottuk a források elköltésének szabályait, most már a tagállamokon lesz a sor, hogy a rendelkezésre álló forrásokat okosan és gyorsan felhasználják.
EU Association Agreement with Ukraine (A9-0219/2020 - Michael Gahler)
Nagy többséggel fogadta el az Európai Parlament az Európai Unió és Ukrajna közti társulási megállapodás végrehajtásáról szóló jelentését, amelyet én is támogattam. A dokumentum több cikkelye is foglalkozik a kisebbségeket – köztük is kiemelten a kárpátaljai magyarokat – érintő témákkal.Az Európai Parlament felkéri az ukrán hatóságokat, hogy az államnyelv támogatásáról szóló jogszabály végrehajtásakor tartsák tiszteletben a kisebbségi közösségek azon jogát, hogy saját nyelvüket ápolják és használják, valamint hogy a nemzeti kisebbségeket, nyelveiket és az oktatáshoz való jogukat a lehető legnagyobb mértékben figyelembe vegyék.A jelentés elítéli, hogy a 2019-es ukrán parlamenti választások során az egy mandátummal rendelkező választókerületek határait a nemzeti kisebbségek képviselete szempontjából kedvezőtlenül határozták meg. Arra is figyelmeztet, hogy egyes régiókban, például Kárpátalján választási visszaéléseket figyeltek meg, például „klónjelöltek” indítását, ami csökkentette annak esélyét, hogy magyar kisebbségi tagok kerüljenek a parlamentbe.Ukrajna nem hagyhatja figyelmen kívül azt a tényt, hogy az Unió által nyújtott politikai, technikai és pénzügyi támogatás szintje attól függ, hogy milyen mértékben teljesíti az Unió és tagállamai felé tett – különösen a reformfolyamattal, az emberi jogok tiszteletben tartásával, a kisebbségekkel és az alapvető szabadságokkal, valamint a valódi és hatékony jogállamiság megteremtésével kapcsolatos – kötelezettségvállalásait.
Programme for the Union's action in the field of health for the period 2021-2027 (“EU4Health Programme”) (A9-0196/2020 - Cristian-Silviu Buşoi)
A cselekvési program elfogadásának valódi ösztönzője az egy évvel ezelőtt kitört és világméreteket öltött COVID-19 járvány. A pandémia sok mindenre ráébresztette az EU-t és a tagállamokat, többek között az egészségügyi együttműködés terén is rámutatott a közös gyengeségekre, például arra, hogy a legtöbb tagállamban hiány van képzett egészségügyi dolgozókból, a gyógyszerek és orvosi felszerelések terén pedig az Unión kívüli gyártókra vagyunk utalva.Az egészségügyi rendszerek elsősorban tagállami hatáskörbe tartoznak, ugyanakkor olyan uniós szintű stratégiákra van szükség, amelyek keretében a tagállamok a határokon átnyúló járványokra és egyéb helyzetekre felkészültebben tudnak majd reagálni.A közép-európai térséget tekintve pedig annak van kiemelten nagy jelentősége, hogy a parlamenti jelentés szerint az EU-nak abban is szerepet kell vállalnia megfelelő támogatással, hogy az egészségügyi egyenlőtlenségek Európa-szerte egyre inkább csökkenjenek az egyészségügyi ellátás biztosításában. A program erősíteni kívánja a regionális és határokon átnyúló együttműködést, valamint támogatja az egészségügy további digitalizálását, modernizálását, a rák elleni hatékonyabb küzdelmet, és a jó gyakorlatok tagállamok közötti megosztását, valamint csökkenteni kívánja a harmadik országoktól való függőséget a gyógyszerek és orvostechnikai eszközök terén. Mindez hozzájárul ahhoz, hogy a betegek jogai és gyógyításuk, ápolásuk nagyobb összeurópai figyelmet kapjanak.A többi közép-európai országgal együtt, Románia egészségügyi rendszere számára is fejlődési lehetőséget biztosító, több milliárd eurós uniós közegészségügyi akciótervet én is támogattam.
Activities of the European Ombudsman - annual report 2019 (A9-0013/2021 - Sylvie Guillaume)
Az európai ombudsman tevékenységének célja, hogy elősegítse az emberközelibb, elszámoltathatóbb és áttekinthetőbb uniós intézményi működést. Az éves munkájáról szóló beszámolóhoz a Petíciós Bizottságban készül hagyományosan jelentés. A 2019. évi jelentés azt bizonyítja, hogy az ombudsman hivatala számos témában lépett fel eredményesen a polgárok jogainak védelmében, ezért is támogattam a jelentést.A panaszok jelentős részét az átláthatóság és a dokumentumok hozzáférhetőségének hiánya miatt nyújtják be, és továbbra is a Bizottság intézményi működését kifogásolják legtöbben.Az uniós döntéshozatal transzparenciájának kérdésénél elsősorban a Tanács előkészítő üléseit éri sok kritika. Az intézményeknek törekedniük kell a lehető legmagasabb szintű átláthatóság és objektivitás biztosítására, ugyanakkor az ilyen célú intézkedéseknek a munka hatékonyságát nem szabad befolyásolniuk.Az ombudsman lépéseket tett annak érdekében, hogy az uniós közigazgatásban a polgárokkal történő kapcsolattartás során általánossá váljon a soknyelvűség. Iránymutatás-tervezetet készített az uniós weboldalak nyelvhasználatára vonatkozóan, amelyet hasznos lenne minden intézménynek alkalmaznia, hogy az érdeklődők minél több információhoz saját nyelvükön is hozzáférjenek.A védőoltások engedélyezésének időszakában különösen értékes, hogy az ombudsman vizsgálatát követően az Európai Gyógyszerügynökség új intézkedéseket vezetett be a gyógyszerek forgalomba hozatali engedélye iránti kérelmezési eljárás függetlenségének és pártatlanságának javítására. A jelentés felhívja az EMA-t, hogy hajtsa végre az ombudsman új ajánlásait.
Shaping digital education policy (A9-0042/2021 - Victor Negrescu)
A digitális oktatási politika kialakításáról szóló jelentésben is megjelenik az a fő gondolat, hogy az EU jövője nagyrészt függ az oktatás fejlettségétől. Az oktatási politikák kidolgozása elsődlegesen nemzeti hatáskör, az uniós programok és támogatási háttér jócskán hozzájárulhatnak az oktatás, e konkrét esetben pedig a digitális oktatás alakításához. A parlament azt kívánja elérni, hogy az inkluzív és minőségi oktatás mindenki számára valósággá váljon, az elképzeléseket szavazatommal támogattam.Az elmúlt hónapok során a digitális oktatás hozzáférhetősége és hatékonysága a figyelem középpontjába került, annak következtében, hogy a járványügyi rendelkezések bevezetésével szinte kivétel nélkül minden tagállamban részleges vagy teljes átállást tapasztalhattunk az online oktatásra. Az átállás az adatok szerint nem mindenütt volt teljesen sikeres, ennek egyik oka a ma is meglévő ún. digitális szakadék, amely tagállamokon belül, régiónként is megfigyelhető. A széles sávú internetes hozzáférés és a technikai felszereltség hiánya árnyékot vet a digitális fejlődés lehetőségeire. A jelentés egyik célja, hogy tanárok, diákok és szülők úgyszintén jó minőségű, hozzáférhető digitális oktatási tartalmakhoz jussanak, ennek eléréséhez elkülönített finanszírozást javasolva.A jelentés alapját képező uniós cselekvési terv mindenkire vonatkozik, tehát a kisebbségi nyelvű oktatásban részt vevők szintén kedvezményezettjei lehetnek az ebben a keretben megvalósított fejlesztéseknek, ezért is kell majd a jövőben nyitott szemmel követni a projektlehetőségeket.
EU Strategy for Sustainable Tourism (A9-0033/2021 - Cláudia Monteiro de Aguiar)
A turizmus az egyik ágazat, amely a leginkább megérezte a világjárvány negatív hatásait, ezért is támogattam a jelentést, amely az európai turizmus újraindítása, illetve annak hosszú távú fejlesztése érdekében fogalmaz meg konkrét javaslatokat. Az utazások, üdülések lehetősége az elmúlt időszakban a minimálisra csökkent. A turizmus, vendéglátóipar szereplői gyakran családi, mikro-, vagy kis- és közepes méretű vállalkozások; mindannyian arra várnak, hogy uniós és tagállami segítséggel újra tudják nyitni vállalkozásaikat és fogadhassák vendégeiket. A kilábalásnak csak úgy lehet értelme, ha az ágazat szereplőire gondolunk az újratervezés során.A jelentés számos olyan javaslatot fogalmaz meg a fenntarthatóbb, innovatív és elérhető turizmus érdekében, amely támaszt jelentene az ágazat szereplőinek, beleértve a vidéki, hegyvidéki, és agroturizmusban dolgozókat is, tovább erősítené a régiók közötti együttműködést. Emellett a képviselők gondoltak az ágazat kellő mértékű uniós finanszírozására is, amelynek egyszerűnek, elérhetőnek kell lennie a kkv-k számára, továbbá, javasolják az EBB segítségével dekarbonizációs és innovációs projektek megvalósítását.A járványhelyzet rávilágított arra, hogy az innovációra a turizmusban is szükség van, egyre több múzeum, műemlék látogatható az online térben, biztosítva elérhetőségüket a közönség számára. A bezártság hónapjai alatt gyűjtött jó gyakorlatokat uniós szinten tovább kell vinni. Hasonlóképpen igaz ez a helyi, falusi és ökoturizmus továbbfejlesztésére, amely szabadidőtöltési alternatíva fontossága mára felértékelődött.
Chemical residues in the Baltic Sea based on petitions 1328/2019 and 0406/2020 under Rule 227(2) (B9-0224/2021)
A második világháború vége óta több tízezer tonnányi hagyományos és vegyi fegyvert süllyesztettek a Balti-tengerbe. Ezek nagyrészt veszélyes anyagokat tartalmaznak és több program, vállalkozás ellenére, máig nem megoldott teljes feltérképezésük és végleges kezelésük a térségben.Valószínűleg ezek a tengerbe süllyesztett vegyi hadianyagok ma nem jelentenek közvetlen fenyegetést az emberekre, ill. az élővilágra, de a Balti-tenger szempontjából ettől függetlenül továbbra is súlyos problémákat okoznak. Ha a lassan 80 éve a tenger mélyén található háborús eszközök és anyagok szakszerű és teljes feltérképezését és kezelését elodázzuk, az azokból származó káros vegyszermaradványok szivárgása megjósolhatatlan, határokon átnyúló, akár globális következményekkel járhat. Mindezt azt jelenti, hogy nem helyi problémáról beszélünk, a környezeti és egészségügyi veszélyek nemcsak regionális vagy európai szinten jelentenek súlyos problémát. Mivel a régióban aktív hajózás és halászat zajlik, a vegyszermaradványok potenciális veszélyt jelentenek a halászati ágazatra nézve, valamint negatív kihatással lehetnek a teljes gazdaságra.A Balti-tengerben fellelhető veszélyes anyagokra két petíció hívta fel az Európai Parlament figyelmét. A Petíciós Bizottság keretében elkészült állásfoglalást és annak javaslatát, hogy a Bizottság tegyen összehangolt erőfeszítéseket a Balti-tenger szennyezettségének kezelése érdekében, és e célból erősítse meg a regionális, a nemzeti és a nemzetközi együttműködés valamennyi formáját, szavazatommal támogattam.
EU-India relations (A9-0124/2021 - Alviina Alametsä)
Ahead of the EU—India Summit on 8 May, I welcome the Parliament’s recommendation concerning EU—India relations. Parliament sends a clear message to the other EU institutions and to the Republic of India about its vision how political and economic ties should be strengthened between the two strategic partners.The EU counts on India’s partnership in the fight against climate change, in accelerating green transition, digitalisation and aims to deepen the partnership on the shared values of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights.As member of the EP India delegation, I would like to emphasise the important role our house and a permanent Indian counterpart in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha could play in the improvement of our bilateral relationship. I strongly believe that it is our common interest to expand interparliamentary dialogue.The current situation requires attention from us. I very much support the EU Member States’ – including Romania’s – help to India in these difficult times of the pandemic through the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. This support is urgently needed in India and we have to show to one of our most important global partners that the EU is ready to help.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights: interim report (A9-0058/2021 - Lukas Mandl)
I supported with my vote the interim report on the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. I especially welcome the call in the report to discontinue the current five—year Multiannual Framework with a view to abandoning the establishment of thematic restrictions for each five—year period in order to enable the Agency to adjust its work and thematic focus.For example, one thematic area that the FRA has so far not been invited to study in past multiannual frameworks is the way in which Member States comply with the obligation to protect and promote the rights of national minorities – as is foreseen in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Clearly, there is a lot of progress to be done – and the report is a step forward in this regard.
European Citizens' Initiative "End the cage age" (B9-0296/2021, B9-0302/2021)
The Parliament adopted a resolution on another new successful European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), called ‘End the Cage Age’. I congratulate the initiators for their achievement and for bringing this topic to the attention of the EU institutions and generating a debate at EU level.I supported the resolution, as I believe that we have the capacity to ameliorate the living conditions of farm animals for the benefit of all sectors and consumers. Healthy animals mean healthy food. Changes should happen gradually, taking into account traditions and national characteristics. There are good examples and alternatives to cage farming in several Member States, and the EU should facilitate the exchange of experiences and conduct impact assessments in order to achieve cage-free animal farming soon.The resolution asks the Commission to come up with a legislative proposal concerning the ban on cage farming, as only this could guarantee a level playing field for all European farmers. Now it is up to the Commission to carefully examine the possibilities and decide on further action. As EP rapporteur for the ECIs, I can only hope that the Commission takes a brave step forward in the area of participatory democracy, leaving behind any little-known reservations.
Breaches of EU law and of the rights of LGBTIQ citizens in Hungary as a result of the adopted legal changes in the Hungarian Parliament (B9-0412/2021, B9-0413/2021)
Az Európai Parlament ismét olyan ügyben foglalt elhamarkodottan állást, amelyet nem vizsgált meg körültekintően, nem vette figyelembe a tagállami sajátosságokat és a törvény célját. Annak célja ugyanis nem más, mint a gyermekek védelme az életkoruknak nem megfelelő szexuális tartalmaktól, témáktól. A parlamenti állásfoglalás megengedhetetlen hangnemben és hatáskörét túllépve bírálja a tagállamot, az ellen abszurd szankciókat sürget.Továbbá, tévesen azzal is vádolja a jogalkotót, hogy az megbélyegez bizonyos kisebbségi csoportokat. A módosítások érdeke, hogy a kis- és fiatalkorúakat megvédje személyiségromboló behatásoktól, szem előtt tartva azt, hogy a gyermekek témák iránti érzékenysége nem hasonlítható össze a felnőttekével. A gyermekeket toleranciára, szeretetre, megértésre, de nem egy félreértelmezett szabadságra kell nevelni, amely azt hirdeti, hogy a nemi identitás bármikor megváltoztatható. A magyar jogszabály uniós jogot érintő passzusait az Európai Bizottság hivatott vizsgálni. E részei a törvénynek azok, amelyek a műsorszolgáltatás, a szolgáltatások szabadsága területét érintik.A nemzeti kisebbségek jogaiért küzdő EP-képviselőként egyben elszomorít és bosszant, hogyan viszonyul az EU a kisebbségekhez. Jelenlegi politikája nem a közös megértést szolgálja. Az unió alapvető értékeihez tartozik a kisebbségek védelme, megkülönböztetés nélkül minden kisebbség ide értendő. Ideje lenne, ha erre a Bizottság ráébredne, és több figyelmet szentelne az unió lakosságának 10%-át kitevő őshonos kisebbségekre!
LGBTIQ rights in the EU (B9-0431/2021)
Az EP minden ülésszakon elfogad új határozatot, amely ugyanarról a témáról más megközelítéssel ugyan, de gyakorlatilag ugyanazon javaslatokat fogalmaz meg. Olyan hangulatot generáltak egyes véleményformálók és parlamenti támogatóik, hogy azt hihetnénk, az EU-ban semmilyen más kérdéssel nem kell már foglalkozni, csakis az LMBTIQ-személyek jogaival. Nem szavazhattam meg egy olyan állásfoglalást, amellyel nyitott ajtókat döngetünk. Az uniós intézmények részéről számos gesztus és pozitív lépés történt a közelmúltban a szexuális kisebbségek felé. A Bizottság teljes mellszélességgel kiáll mellettük, nemrég stratégiát fogadott el az LMBTIQ-személyek egyenlőségéről.Meg kell állapítanom ugyanakkor, hogy az őshonos kisebbségek több mint egymillió aláírása nem tudta meggyőzni a Bizottságot egy hasonló, rájuk vonatkozó stratégiáról.A személyek szabad mozgása a négy uniós alapelv egyike, mindannyiunk számára fontos jog. Az alapító atyák viszont annak idején nem láthatták a téma minden aspektusát, jelen esetben a tagállami családjogi rendszerekre az ún. szivárványcsaládokkal gyakorolt nyomást.Nem lehet a modern kor kérdései mellett elmenni, viszont nem jó az, amire itt próbálkozás zajlik, a több mint ezer éves kultúra, hagyomány és jog által meghatározott hagyományos család, a társadalom magjának megkérdőjelezése a pár évtizede megalkotott uniós jog rendszerén keresztül. A polgári jog nem közös kompetencia és, ha volna erre vonatkozó javaslat, akkor ebben a csomagban a felvetett kérdés csupán egyik részlet volna.
Strengthening transparency and integrity in the EU institutions by setting up an independent EU ethics body (A9-0260/2021 - Daniel Freund)
I abstained at the vote on the report on the proposal for an independent ethics body because I believe that the proposal in its current form violates basic principles of rule of law and democracy. It basically is a direct attack on the principle of the separation of powers – a cornerstone of the rule of law. The ethics body cannot and must not replace police, prosecutors and judges all at once. Such a body cannot hold a superpower over both the legislative and executive branches of the European Union.Even if it were only to oversee the Members of Parliament and not all three main institutions at once, it still should not damage the democratic rights of Parliament. In all democracies, it is the central role of parliaments to scrutinise and approve governments. An ethics body cannot take this right away from Parliament. It may assist the European Parliament with non-binding confidential proposals, but the approval process of the European Commission must remain in the hands of the European Parliament, that is legitimated by the citizens. This is also a right we have fought hard for over several years and on which we should not give up.
The protection of persons with disabilities through petitions: lessons learnt (A9-0261/2021 - Alex Agius Saliba)
Évente számos petíció érkezik a fogyatékossággal élő személyek jogaival, illetve azok érvényesítési nehézségeivel kapcsolatban a Petíciós Bizottsághoz. Az ezekben felvetett témákból kiindulva próbál átfogó európai képet adni a szakbizottság jelentése a jelenlegi helyzetről és megoldásokat javasolni a fogyatékkal élő személyek életminőségének javítására. Az európai kép nagyon változó, ezért is javasolja például azt a jelentés, hogy a határokon átnyúló szabad mozgást megkönnyítendő, a fogyatékossági státus kölcsönös tagállami elismerése felé kell lépéseket tenni.A dokumentum rámutat arra is, hogy a fogyatékossággal élő férfiak és nők közötti foglalkoztatási és bérezési szakadék egy létező probléma. A különböző politikai megközelítések eredményeképpen található pár ambiciózus elképzelés a szövegben, amelyekhez elsősorban megfelelő pénzügyi forrásokra lenne szükség, ugyanakkor összességében elmondható, hogy a jelentés gyakorlatias megközelítésekkel kívánja jobbá tenni az érintett személyek mindennapjait. Fontosnak tartom, hogy külön kiemeltük a nyelvi kisebbségekhez tartozó, sajátos nevelési igényű gyermekek és azok anyanyelvi oktatását, az EP arra szólítja fel a tagállamokat, hogy a sajátos nevelési igényű gyermekek számára biztosítsák a kisebbségi nyelvi oktatáshoz való hozzáférést.
Farm to Fork Strategy (A9-0271/2021 - Anja Hazekamp, Herbert Dorfmann)
Az Európai Bizottság „A termelőtől a fogyasztóig” címmel megjelentetett stratégiája a zöld megállapodás részeként ambiciózus célokat mutat be a környezetbarát, egészségesebb és fenntartható európai élelmiszertermelés érdekében. Az Európai Unió már ma is jól teljesít a fenntartható és egészséges élelmiszertermelésben, ehhez képest a javasolt újítások, beleértve a parlament támogatásával szorgalmazott intézkedéseket, nem teljesen megalapozottak. Azok mögött konkrét hatástanulmányok sem állnak.A Covid19 járvány egyértelműen rámutatott, mennyire fontos, hogy megőrizzük, sőt megerősítsük az európai élelmiszerpiacot és annak szereplőit, az uniós termelőket és gazdákat. Az európai, regionális és helyi termékek, alapanyagok elérhetősége és minőségi javítása a környezetbarát megközelítést is alátámasztja, ugyanakkor az uniós szinten javasolt intézkedések és előírt, teljesíthetetlen célszámok – beleértve a növényvédőszerek csökkentését vagy állatjóléti szabályokat – éppen az ellenkező hatást válthatják ki, mint maga az eredeti elképzelés.Az eltúlzott szigorítások, teljesíthetetlen feltételek ellehetetlenítik a termelők, gazdák életét és vállalkozásait, ezzel együtt háttérbe szorítják a piaci versenyben az európai termékeket az unióba érkező importtermékekkel szemben. A zöldebb, környezetbarátabb jövő megteremtése egyben élhetőbb vidéket, és elérhetőbb minőségi, európai termékeket, kell, hogy jelentsen. Átgondoltabb, fokozatos fejlesztésre van szükség, amely figyelembe veszi a helyi, regionális jellegzetességeket, adottságokat, én egy ilyen stratégia mellett tudnék kiállni.A környezet- és klímavédelmi célok elérése csakis úgy valósítható meg egészében, ha annak nemcsak az EU, hanem nemzetközi partnerei is részesei. Ugyanez érvényes az élelmiszerre és élelmiszer-alapanyagokra vonatkozó zöld előírásokra, azoknak fokozatosan teret kellene nyerniük a kontinens határain kívül is, hogy elmondhassuk, az európai példa követésre érdemes, ezzel nemcsak az ökologikus, egészséges és biztonságos termékek mellett tehetünk hitvallást, hanem az európai szereplők védelme mellett is.
EU transparency in the development, purchase and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines (B9-0519/2021, B9-0520/2021)
A Petíciós Bizottsághoz a Covid19-járvány kitörése óta számos petíció érkezett, amelyek a járvány okozta nehézségekre, az új helyzetben felmerült uniós szintű kérdésekre hívják fel a figyelmet. Az oltóanyagokkal foglalkozó állásfoglalás a Covid19-vakcina kifejlesztéséről, megvásárlásáról és forgalmazásáról szóló ilyen petíciók alapján készült. A petíciókban az érintettek elsősorban a Covid19 elleni oltóanyagok előállítására és szállítására vonatkozó szerződések átláthatóságát kérdőjelezték meg.Mindezeket alapul véve, a szöveg felszólítja a Bizottságot, hogy nyújtson részletes tájékoztatást a szerződések részleteiről, az uniós előlegek felhasználásáról, és a Covid19 elleni vakcina uniós stratégiájáról. Az uniós vakcinabeszerzés nem mondható hibátlannak, a Parlament már korábban is kifejezte elégedetlenségét a Bizottság eljárásával szemben, és több tájékoztatást követelt. A járvány kirobbanása óta, úgy gondolom, sokat tanultunk a példátlan helyzet hozta szituációk kezeléséből és a hiányosságokat igyekeztünk orvosolni. Az EU az elsők között gyártotta a Covid-elleni vakcinákat, ma minden tagállamban biztosított azok elérhetősége. Az elmúlt időszak arra is rámutatott, hogy az intézkedések sürgőssége nem írhatja felül a transzparencia elvét.Az átláthatóságnak a közérdeket kell szolgálnia, vannak viszont az oltóanyagok előállításánál és beszerzésénél is olyan érzékeny témák, amelyekre vonatkozóan a parlament beleszólási joga az átláthatóságra hivatkozva megkérdőjelezhető. Fontosnak tartom, hogy a témával egy állásfoglalás keretében foglalkoztunk, és, hogy ezt közvetlenül uniós polgárok javaslata alapján tettük meg, ugyanakkor a végleges, plenáris ülés elé utalt szakbizottsági szöveg tartalma túllépte a parlamenti hatáskörben megtárgyalandó kérdések körét, ezért nem szavaztam meg az állásfoglalást.
European Year of Youth 2022 (A9-0322/2021 - Sabine Verheyen)
A fiatalabb generációkkal történő állandó kapcsolattartást és eszmecserét EP-képviselőként mindig is kulcsfontoságú feladatomnak tekintettem, ezért is örülök annak, hogy a jövő évet hivatalosan is az ifjúság évének nevezzük majd. Az európai év hozzá fog járulni a fiatalok demokratikus élet iránti érdeklődésének, valamint abban való aktív részvételének növeléséhez.A világjárvány különösen érzékenyen érintette gyermekeinket, fiataljainkat, azt a generációt, akiknek tudásbeli, szakmai felkészülése és fejlődése szempontjából akár pár hónap is meghatározó lehet. Sokan küzdenek még ma is tanulmányi lemaradással, sajnos az iskolából való kimaradások száma sem ritka a Covid19 kezdete óta. Az online oktatás bár pótolta egy részét az iskolai oktatásnak, a tapasztalatok országonként eltérőek, és a személyes, jelenléti oktatást nem pótolhatja teljesen a kényszerhelyzetben kialakított megoldás. Az elmúlt időszakban megnövekedett családi megbetegedések és halálesetek száma pedig gazdaságilag is hátrányosan befolyásolta sok fiatal életét. Ma mindennél nagyobb szükség van arra, hogy támogatásunkról biztosítsuk a jövő nemzedéket.A parlament elképzelése egyértelmű azt illetően, hogy az ifjúságpolitikákat valamennyi vonatkozó uniós szakpolitikában érvényesíteni kell, és ez a tervezés szempontjából is jó lépésnek ígérkezik. Bízom benne, hogy 2022 több pozitívumot hoz mindannyiunk és elsősorban a fiatalok számára. Az ifjúság európai éve egy olyan új lehetőség, amellyel az EU minden szegletében, ez jelenti a Kárpát-medencét és Erdélyt is, támogató programokkal járulhatunk hozzá fiataljaink boldogulásához, jövőbeli elképzeléseihez. Azon kell lennünk, hogy tudjunk újra pozitív perspektívákat kínálni a fiataloknak.
Digital Markets Act (A9-0332/2021 - Andreas Schwab)
Felettébb időszerű volt az Európai Bizottságnak jogszabály-javaslatokat az asztalra tennie az európai digitális piac játékszabályainak tisztázása, moderné tétele érdekében. A parlamenti jelentéssel, amelyet támogattam, még inkább egyértelművé tesszük az internetes óriáscégek, online platformok (amelyek elsősorban az EU-n kívüliek) számára, hogy ezentúl nem lesz kivételezés, szabály-megkerülés; mindenkinek azonos szabályok mellett kell platformjait működtetnie az uniós egységes digitális piacon a tisztességes versenyfeltételek betartásával. Az új jogszabály olyan európai keretet kíván biztosítani, amely megerősíti az európai kis- és középvállalatok helyzetét, és egyenlő feltételeket biztosít számukra a digitális piacon.Az online tartalmak megfelelő ellenőrzése, elsősorban a kiskorúak jogainak védelme érdekében egy fontos elem, ezért is lényeges, hogy a személyre szabott online hirdetéseket a gyermekek esetében tiltja az új jogszabály, csakis így lehet kivédeni, hogy olyan reklámok érjék el gyermekeinket ellenőrzés nélkül, amelyek hatása kiszámíthatatlan fiatal, fejlődő egyéniségükre. Továbbá, a jogszabálynak köszönhetően, az adatvédelmi előírásokat az egész EU-ra kiterjedően, általánosan egységesen kell majd a jövőben alkalmazni a személyre szabott reklámok esetében. Végül kiemelném azt a fontos lépést a parlament részéről, amit az interoperabilitás terén szorgalmaz megtenni. A különböző alkalmazásoknak együtt kell tudniuk működni, az emberek online térben való megfelelő, indokolatlan korlátozásoktól mentes kommunikációja érdekében.
Deliberations of the Committee on Petitions in 2020 (A9-0323/2021 - Gheorghe Falcă)
Szokásos módon parlamenti jelentésben foglalta össze a Petíciós Bizottság előző évi munkájának lényegét. A tavalyi év munkáját nagyban meghatározta világjárvány, a petíciók tárgyalása során a helyzethez alkalmazkodva a járvány-adta élethelyzeteket érintő petíciók indokolt esetekben elsőbbséget élveztek. Személyesen is aktívan részt vettem a jelentésben szereplő Covid19-cel kapcsolatos schengeni rendszert érintő intézkedésekről, illetve a személyek szabad mozgásának helyreállításáról szóló állásfoglalás kidolgozásában. A Covid19 ellenére a PETI egy nagyon érzékeny gyermekvédelmi témában is meghallgatta a petíciós európai szülők kérését és állásfoglalást készített annak érdekében, hogy ezzel is nyomást gyakoroljon a japán hatóságokra az EU-ból jogellenesen elvitt gyermekek ügyében.E mellett az éves jelentést kiegészítő javaslatokkal támogattam, amelyek a végső szöveg integrált részét képezik. Ezek között szerepel a Minority SafePack kisebbségvédelmi Európai Polgári Kezdeményezésről 2020. októberében a járványhelyzet miatt hibrid módban megszervezett sikeres nyilvános meghallgatásra vonatkozó hivatkozás, amely esemény lehetőséget adott a kezdeményezőknek az EPK részletes bemutatására az uniós intézmények és a szélesebb közönség előtt. Felhívtam ismételten a figyelmet arra, hogy a kezdeményezéseket megfelelő nyitottsággal kell az uniós intézményeknek, elsősorban a Bizottságnak megközelíteniük, egyébként fennáll a veszélye annak, hogy a közvetlen demokrácia uniós eszköze célját veszíti és kiüresedik az emberek szemében.Maga a petíciózás olyan eszköz a polgárok kezében, amely egyben figyelemfelkeltő, kommunikációs és problémamegoldó elemeket hordoz magában, a felvetésükkel, problémájukkal a Petíciós Bizottsághoz forduló személyek ügyeit akkor tudjuk valóban sikeresen képviselni és a megoldást elősegíteni, ha mindannyian hatékonyan együttműködünk, uniós intézmények és tagállami hatóságok. Megszavaztam a jelentést.
Digital Services Act (A9-0356/2021 - Christel Schaldemose)
Szavazatommal támogattam a digitális szolgáltatások egységes piacáról szóló rendeletjavaslatot. A rendelet célja az illegális tartalmak eltávolítását, a tartalmak jobb moderálását és az algoritmusok felelős használatát hivatott biztosítani. Az online platformok egyre nagyobb szerepet töltenek be mindennapi életünkben, ami rengeteg lehetőséget teremt, de ugyanakkor kockázatokkal is jár, úgy a fogyasztók védelme, mint a gazdasági versenyhelyzettel való visszaélések szempontjából. Ezért van szükség olyan szabályokra, amelyek egyértelműen meghatározzák a köztes szolgáltatók – elsősorban az online platformok, így például a közösségi média és az online piacterek – felelősségi körét és elszámoltathatóságát. A szabályok azt hivatottak garantálni, hogy ami a valós világban törvénytelen, az online is legyen az. A rendeletjavaslat a jogellenesnek minősülő online termékek, szolgáltatások és tartalmak eltávolítására bejelentési és cselekvési kötelezettséget ír elő, és a fogyasztók jogait védő biztosítékokat vezet be. Az ilyen bejelentést követően a tárhelyszolgáltatóknak „indokolatlan késedelem nélkül cselekedniük kell. Az online piacterekkel szemben az a képviselők elvárása, hogy az „ismerd az üzleti ügyfeledet” elvet alkalmazva gondoskodjanak jobban a kereskedők nyomonkövethetőségéről, és ezáltal a fogyasztóknak online kínált termékek biztonságáról. Figyelembe véve, hogy az online óriásplatformok esetében különösen nagy annak a kockázata, hogy az illegális és káros tartalmak futótűzszerűen elterjednek rajtuk, a rendelettervezet további kötelezettségek ró azokra. A káros tartalmak kezelése és a dezinformáció megfékezése érdekében a tervezett rendeletben olyan rendelkezések is helyet kaptak, amelyek kötelező kockázatértékelést, kockázatcsökkentést és független ellenőrzést írnak elő, illetve átláthatóságot várnak el az úgynevezett „ajánlórendszerek” működése tekintetében, amelyek a felhasználók korábbi vásárlásai, értékelési stb. alapján határozzák meg a megjelenített tartalmakat vagy termékeket.
Protection of animals during transport (Recommendation) (B9-0057/2022)
Minden évben haszonállatok millióit szállítják vágóhídra, hízlalásra vagy tenyészállatként közúton, tengeren, vasúton és repülővel az Unión belül és azon túl. Szállítás közben az állatok jólétét a külön ezzel foglalkozó, 2005-ben elfogadott uniós szabállyal kellene garantálni, a tapasztalatok alapján azonban ez gyakran nem történik meg. Az elfogadott ajánlás a Parlament a haszonállatok szállítás közbeni védelmével foglalkozó vizsgálóbizottságának másfél éves munkájának következtetéseit foglalja magában. A vizsgálóbizottság arra a következtetésre jutott, hogy a tagállamok nem mindig tartják be az uniós szabályokat és a szállítás során nem veszik figyelembe az állatok eltérő igényeit. A szabályszegések olyan elemekre vonatkoznak mint a szükségesnél alacsonyabb belmagasság, kevés víz vagy takarmány biztosítása, a szállításra nem alkalmas állatok mozgatása, a túlzsúfoltság, az állatok szállítására alkalmatlan járművek használata vagy a szélsőséges hőmérsékleti viszonyok között, hosszú idő alatt történő szállítás. Ajánlásaival a Parlament felszólítja a Bizottságot és a tagállamokat, hogy fordítsanak nagyobb figyelmet az állatok jólétének biztosítására szállítás közben és vizsgálják felül a jelenlegi szabályzást. Ugyanakkor a dokumentum világosan kimondja, hogy az élőállat-szállításnak folytatódnia kell az Unión belül és azon kívülre, de szigorú állatjóléti előírások betartásával. Ez az Unió gazdasága és gazdálkodóink pénzügyi túlélése szempontjából egyaránt fontos. A javaslat a szállítási szabályok szociális következményeire is kitér és kimondja azt, hogy több befektetésre és olyan megoldásokra is szükség van, mint a vágóhidak gazdák közelében való létesítése, ami csökkentheti az élőállat-szállítás iránti igényt. A javaslatot ezért szavazatommal támogattam.
Macro-financial assistance to Ukraine(C9-0028/2022)
Az Ukrajnának nyújtandó pénzügyi támogatás múlt heti elfogadásakor még mindannyian abban bíztunk, hogy nem kerül sor az EU-val szomszédos állam elleni katonai beavatkozásra Oroszország részéről. A legfrissebb történések az ukrán állam szuverenitása elleni támadásnak tekinthetők, amelyre az EU-nak és a nemzetközi szervezeteknek a lehető legkeményebb szankciók formájában kell választ adniuk.Az Ukrajnának nyújtott uniós pénzügyi támogatásról szóló határozat elfogadása sürgős lépés ebben a kialakult kritikus és történelmi helyzetben. A támogatás arról szól, hogy az EU közvetlen szomszédságában lévő államot, amelyet most Oroszország megtámadott, pénzügyileg segítsük. Az EP által megszavazott támogatás alapján Ukrajna gazdasági stabilizációjának és reformprogramjának támogatása céljából az Unió 1,2 milliárd EUR összegű makroszintű pénzügyi támogatást nyújt Ukrajnának hitel formájában.A sürgősségi makroszintű pénzügyi támogatás célja elsősorban Ukrajna külső finanszírozási helyzetének helyreállítására és gazdaságának stabilizálása. A mai helyzetben az üzenet azzal értékelődött fel, hogy ily módon is kifejezzük az ország polgárai felé szolidaritásunkat. Megszavaztam a határozatot.
Strengthening Europe in the fight against cancer (A9-0001/2022 - Véronique Trillet-Lenoir)
A parlament rák elleni küzdelemmel foglalkozó különbizottságának (BECA) jelentése mérföldkő a rák elleni közös európai fellépés terén. Az átfogó jellegű jelentésre egy európai stratégia épül majd a rák megelőzésére és a rákos megbetegedések hatékonyabb gyógyítására, kezelésére az EU-ban mindenütt. A rák elleni küzdelemmel kapcsolatos kezdeményezéseket a törvénykezési ciklus kezdetétől támogattam, mert látom, hogy mekkora szükség van az európai együttműködés megerősítésére mind a kutatás, mind pedig a rák elleni harc egyéb formái területén.Nagy különbségeket mutatnak a számok jelenleg, rákos megbetegedés esetén Európa keleti részében akár 30%-kal is rosszabbak ma a gyógyulási esélyek. Ez hatalmas szakadék Nyugat és Kelet között, amelynek évtizedekre visszanyúló okai vannak. A tagállamok és az egészségügyi rendszerek közötti szakadékot meg kell szüntetnünk. Egy uniós rák elleni stratégia ehhez járul hozzá, 4 milliárd eurós finanszírozási tervvel. Támogattam a jelentést, mert hiszem, hogy minden embert megillet a minőségi kezeléshez és egészségügyi szolgáltatásokhoz történő hozzáférés.
Engaging with citizens: the right to petition and refer to the European Ombudsman, the European Citizens’ Initiative (A9-0018/2022 - Marie-Pierre Vedrenne)
A címben szereplő három uniós polgársághoz tartozó jog a Petíciós Bizottság (PETI) munkájának lényegét öleli fel, ugyanakkor a mostani jelentéshez hasonló jellegű összegzés és egyben számvetés e területekről korábban nem készült.E jogokkal kapcsolatban magam is - a jelentéstevővel egyetértve - az egyik legnagyobb kihívásnak azt tekintem, hogyan érhetünk el hatékonyan még több embert azzal a lényegi információval, hogy létezik uniós petíciós jog vagy az európai ombudsmanhoz lehet fordulni uniós intézmények és szervek ügyintézéséből fakadó hivatali visszásságokra vonatkozó panaszokkal, illetve polgári kezdeményezést lehet indítani uniós szinten megvalósítandó ötletek érdekében. Úgy vélem, ma annak lehetünk tanúi, hogy gyakran kiegyensúlyozatlan a helyzet a tagállamokat illetően, bizonyos országok és nyelvek alulreprezentáltak a petíciók terén. Hatékony tájékoztatási kampány hozzásegíthet ahhoz, hogy azonos esélye legyen egy petíció, panasz, vagy akár kezdeményezés benyújtására bármely tagállam polgárjának. Ennek megszervezése az EP és az EB közös feladata.Továbbá, a jogokat a gyakorlatban kell érvényesíteni, ehhez pedig a Bizottság támogatóbb hozzáállására is szükség van. A parlamentnek, ezen belül a PETI-nek a Bizottságra partnerként van szüksége a folyamatokban, arra, hogy átlátható módon és objektív hozzáállást mutasson a hozzá a parlamenti vagy egyéb csatornákon keresztül eljutó állampolgári felvetések kapcsán. Hasonlóképpen az uniós részvételi demokrácia egyedi eszközéről, az európai polgári kezdeményezések értékeléséről is elmondható, hogy indokolt lenne tágabb értelmezést biztosítani a Bizottság uniós jogalkotásra vonatkozó javaslattételi hatáskörének a kezdeményezésekkel kapcsolatban.Az Európa jövőjéről indított konferencia-sorozat megfelelő alkalom arra, hogy a petíciós jog és a polgári kezdeményezések kezelésének fejlesztéséről is beszéljünk. Erre vonatkozóan a parlamenti jelentés arra a végkövetkeztetésre jut, miszerint az Unió jövőjéről folytatott vitának a polgári részvételt biztosító eszközök javításához kell vezetnie, bízva abban, hogy egy demokratikusabb, átláthatóbb és az uniós polgárok számára nyitottabb Unió jöhet létre. Ezt az elképzelést egyértelműen támogatom, határozottan kiemelve, hogy meg kell ragadnunk minden alkalmat arra, hogy ismertté tegyük mindenki számára az uniós polgárság adta demokratikus életben való részvételi lehetőségeket.
EU Citizenship Report 2020 (A9-0019/2022 - Yana Toom)
Az Európai Bizottság uniós polgársághoz kötődő jogokra vonatkozó háromévente elkészített beszámolóját értékelte az Európai Parlament. Támogattam az uniós polgárságról szóló jelentést, elsősorban azért, mert számos alkalommal utal arra, hogy az uniós polgárok sokfélék, és az őshonos és nyelvi kisebbségek szerves részét képezik az EU-nak. Értékelem az uniós polgársághoz tartozó jogok fejlesztésével kapcsolatban megfogalmazott parlamenti elképzeléseket, például annak figyelembe vételét a következő EP-választásokat előkészítendő, hogy egyes szavazók - beleértve az európai nemzeti és nyelvi kisebbségeket - sajátos csoportérdek képviseletét igénylik, ilyen választási ajánlat hiánya pedig azt eredményezi, hogy a választásokon kisebb arányban vehetnek részt. A jelentés megemlíti a hontalan személyeket és hatékonyabb, koordinált uniós megoldásokat kér helyzetükre. Az EU szomszédságában két hete tartó háború okozta hangulat sajnos indokolatlanul rányomta bélyegét az uniós polgársággal kapcsolatos jelentésre is. A hontalanság további uniós szakmai egyeztetésre szoruló kérdéskörét a jelenlegi feszült helyzetben politikai játszmáknak kitenni számomra elfogadhatatlan.Az EU-ban nagyjából 600.000 hontalan személyt tartanak számon, ezek között sokan etnikai, nyelvi kisebbségekhez tartoznak. A hontalanságot és a huzamos (legalább 5 éves) tartózkodási engedéllyel rendelkező hontalan személyeket illetően az EU és a tagállamok csak olyan pozitív támogató intézkedéseket hozhatnak, amelyek megkönnyítik és lehetővé teszik e személyek mindennapi - emberhez méltó - életét az EU-ban. Ezt el lehet érni az uniós polgárokhoz hasonló jogokat biztosítva számukra például a munkavállalás, az oktatás, a szociális biztonság, a szolgáltatásokhoz való hozzáférés terén, továbbá, megkönnyítve számukra a szabad mozgást tanulási vagy munkavállalási célból. A Minority SafePack európai polgári kezdeményezés kilenc javaslatának egyike is - gondolva például a roma származású hontalan személyekre - ezt kérte a Bizottságtól.
Need for an urgent EU action plan to ensure food security inside and outside the EU in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (RC-B9-0160/2022, B9-0160/2022, B9-0162/2022, B9-0163/2022, B9-0164/2022, B9-0165/2022, B9-0166/2022, B9-0167/2022)
Szavazatommal támogattam az ukrajnai orosz invázió által szükségessé tett, az EU-n belüli és kívüli élelmezésbiztonság biztosítására vonatkozó sürgős uniós cselekvési terv szükségességéről szóló állásfoglalást. Ez a két ország a világ legfontosabb mezőgazdasági árutermelője, együtt a világ búzapiacának mintegy 30%-át adják. Emellett Ukrajna és Oroszország a világ három legnagyobb búza-, kukorica-, repce-, napraforgómag- és napraforgóolaj-exportőre közé tartozik. Ezen kívül a gazdálkodók által földjeik megmunkálására használt vegyipari termékek, például műtrágyák piaca is súlyosan érintett a jelenlegi válságban. Ezért úgy gondolom, hogy stabilizálni kell belső piacainkat, és az EU közös agrárpolitikájának, valamint a közös halászati politikának minden eszközét fel kell használnunk az élelmiszerimporttól való függőségünk csökkentése érdekében. Ezzel az állásfoglalással egyértelmű jelzést adunk, hogy fel kell lendíteni a hazai mezőgazdasági termelést azáltal, hogy támogatjuk gazdáinkat, hogy minél több élelmiszert termeljenek. Ezzel azt is biztosítjuk, hogy az élelmiszerek elfogadható áron jussanak el polgárainkhoz. Az agrár-élelmiszeripari rendszereink hosszú távú ellenállóképességének növelése érdekében az EU-nak csökkentenie kell a harmadik országoktól való függetlenségét, és fel kell használnia földjét annak érdekében, hogy hogy minden uniós polgárnak, de szomszédainknak is legyen elegendő élelme.
Parliament’s right of initiative (A9-0142/2022 - Paulo Rangel)
. ‒ I voted for Parliament’s call for a reform of the legislative process when the Treaties are next revised in order to ensure that the only directly elected EU institution, the European Parliament, has the right to propose legislation. I agree with the report’s argument that the existing rights of initiative demonstrate that the institutional architecture of the EU is ready for rights to be distributed in a different way and that it is possible and desirable to establish Parliament’s general direct right of initiative. Such a decision would also respond to the constitutional aspiration for a more democratically legitimate European Union.
A new trade instrument to ban products made by forced labour (B9-0291/2022)
Szavazatommal támogattam a kényszermunkával készült termékek betiltását célzó új kereskedelmi eszközről szóló indítványt. Ez többek között lehetővé tenné majd az EU tagállamai számára, hogy azonnal megállítsák az árukat a határainkon, ha alapos gyanúja merül fel annak, hogy azokat kényszermunkával készítették. Becslések szerint jelenleg világszerte 25 millió emberrel végeztetnek kényszermunkát. Még aggasztóbb viszont az, hogy 2020 elején 160 millió gyermeket is dolgoztattak világszerte, ez a világ összes gyerekének majdnem egytizedét jelenti. Az érintettek közül sokan olyan körülmények között dolgoznak, amelyek közvetlenül veszélyeztetik egészségüket, biztonságukat és fejlődésüket.Az emberi és munkajogokat sértő gyakorlatok elfogadhatatlanok, és együtt kell működnünk nemzetközi partnereinkkel is annak érdekében hogy kényszermunkával előállított árukkal senki ne kereskedjen. Az EU a világ számos országának fontos gazdasági partnere, ezért úgy vélem, hogy a kényszermunkával előállított termékek behozatalának betiltásával jó hatással leszünk a kizsákmányolás, a korrupció és a pénzmosás nemzetközi szinten való visszaszorítására is.
Illegal logging in the EU (B9-0329/2022)
A Petíciós Bizottság által kezdeményezett állásfoglalás az illegális fakitermelésről rávilágított erre a még ma is létező problémára. Az erdők védelme és a környezetvédelmi táj megőrzése egy egészségesebb jövő kulcsa. Ugyanakkor a fafeldolgozó ipar jelentőségéről sem szabad megfeledkeznünk, arról, hogy az erdő egyben fontos nyersanyagforrásokkal rendelkezik az ember számára, célunk pedig az, hogy ez így is maradjon, ezt pedig egy fenntarthatóbb erdőgazdálkodás keretében tudjuk megvalósítani.Az európai belső piac egysége és átjárhatósága a fa- és fafeldolgozó iparra is vonatkozik, ezért szükséges és jó, ha az illegális fakitermelés elleni fellépést, ha az határon-átnyúló és jelentős mértéket ölt, azt európai összefogással szorítsuk vissza. Ebben segítségünkre lehet a mai fejlett különböző felderítő és megfigyelő technika és a hatóságok közötti adat- és információcsere annak érdekében, hogy az európai szintű szervezetten működő környezetvédelmi bűncselekményeket megelőzzük, vagy megfelelően szankcionáljuk. Bár a Néppárt részéről felelőse voltam az állásfoglalásnak, annak végszavazásánál mégis tartózkodtam, így kifejezve véleményemet azzal kapcsolatban, hogy nem újabb hangzatos szupranacionális hivatalokra, mint pl. a környezetvédelmi ügyész, vagy jogszabályi harmonizációra van szükség, hanem hatékony tagállamok közötti együttműködésre és hogy ennek megvalósulásához az unió megfelelő hátteret biztosítson.
Negotiations for a cooperation agreement between the EU and Interpol (A9-0200/2022 - Jadwiga Wiśniewska)
I supported the report outlining the Parliament’s position towards the conclusion of a cooperation agreement between the EU and Interpol, as I believe it will enhance EU law enforcement efficacy and increase global security in general. Interpol is already a key partner of ours in the field of internal and external security, including countering terrorism and organised crime, as well as in integrated border management. Closer cooperation will address a series of the EU’s indispensable operational needs, allowing, first and foremost, swift access to information held by Interpol in relation to terrorism, organised crime, cybercrime, child sexual abuse and human trafficking. Furthermore, I appreciate that the report also contains requests for strong safeguards, especially on data protection but also on politically motivated red notices and diffusions.
EU-India future trade and investment cooperation (A9-0193/2022 - Geert Bourgeois)
. ‒ I voted in favour of this resolution. I believe that EU-India trade and investment cooperation could provide the framework for a mutually beneficial economic partnership. Statistically, the EU is India’s third largest trading partner and India is the EU’s ninth largest trading partner, and EU-India trade has increased by more than 70% between 2009 and 2019. This trend should continue to grow as we in the EU need to diversify our supply chains through new trade and investment agreements. India is a democratic partner and we should further base our bilateral discussions on values such as the rule of law and human rights. In this way, both partners will benefit by creating sustainable opportunities in our markets for workers and companies.
Objection pursuant to Rule 111(3): Amending the Taxonomy Climate Delegated Act and the Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act (B9-0338/2022)
A taxonómiai rendelet révén a Bizottság forrásokat biztosít a fenntartható növekedéshez és segítené a zöld beruházásokat. A rendelet ellen emelt parlamenti kifogás ellen szavaztam, mert úgy gondolom, hogy a jelenlegi helyzetben, amikor a szomszédunkban háború zajlik és a folyamatos energia-ellátás biztosítása kihívásokba ütközik, a földgáznak és az atomenergiának helyet kell biztosítani a beruházások terén, ahogy azt a Bizottság is javasolta. Ez azt jelenti, hogy a nukleáris energiával és földgázzal kapcsolatos tevékenységeket a környezeti szempontból fenntartható gazdasági tevékenységek körébe soroljuk a jövőben is, addig, amíg jobb alternatívát nem találunk a növekvő energiaigényeinkre, más megoldás nehezen mutatkozik. Bár a megújuló energiaforrások használata erősödik, mindez még mindig nem érte el azt a fejlettségi szintet, hogy azt tudjuk mondani, nincs szükség földgázra és nukleáris energiára. Felelőtlen hozzáállás lenne a részünkről egyik napról a másikra drasztikus lépéseket tenni ez irányba.
New EU Forest Strategy for 2030 – Sustainable Forest Management in Europe (A9-0225/2022 - Ulrike Müller)
elismeri az erdők többfunkciós szerepét, amelyek között kellő egyensúlyt kell tartani. Ezért támogattam a jelentés elfogadását.Az elmúlt hónapok eseményei rámutattak, hogy az erdők ökoszisztémáinak alkalmazkodó- és ellenálló képességének a fenntartható gazdálkodás révén történő megerősítése egyre sürgetőbb feladat. Ugyanakkor, mindezt a változatos erdő- és éghajlati viszonyokat figyelembe véve, nemzeti, regionális és helyi szinten kell kialakítani. Többek között, a faalapú termékeket a lehető leghatékonyabban és a nemzeti sajátosságoknak megfelelően kell felhasználni, ez lényeges elem számunkra, erdélyiek számára is, akik életének emberemlékezet óta része az erdő. Az energiaválság hatására pedig ismét sokan támaszkodnak még inkább fára, mint energiaforrásra, tüzelőanyagként.Olyan erdőgazdálkodásra van szükség, amely az erdőtulajdonosokkal közösen kialakított, és figyelembe veszi a tagállamokban az erdők tulajdonosi szerkezetének és irányítási formáinak sokféleségét. A jelentés kitér arra, hogy a rendelkezésre álló uniós forrásoknak alig a felét használták fel erdészeti intézkedésekre, többek között adminisztratív akadályok miatt, ezeket a tagállamoknak mielőbb meg kell szüntetniük, különös tekintettel az erdők kisbirtokosaira, akik a magánerdő-tulajdonosok jelentős részét alkotják. Óvjuk erdőinket, és használjuk ki az erre kijelölt uniós forrásokat.
Deforestation Regulation (A9-0219/2022 - Christophe Hansen)
Az erdők megélhetést biztosítanak a világ népességének mintegy egyharmada számára, világviszonylatban a hagyományosan őslakos népek által lakott földterület nagy részét erdők borítják, elpusztításuk súlyos következményekkel jár. Az erdőirtás és az erdőpusztulás aggasztó ütemben zajlik, ezért is fontos az uniós szintű kötelezettségvállalás annak érdekében, hogy a gazdasági-kereskedelmi tevékenységek ne járuljanak hozzá az erdőirtáshoz. A korábbi évtizedekhez képest csökkent az uniós fogyasztás relatív részesedése, azonban az EU még mindig aránytalanul nagy ösztönzője az erdőirtásnak.Elsősorban a fenntartható termelési és fogyasztási gyakorlatok előmozdítására kell több hangsúlyt fektetnünk. Továbbá el kell kerülnünk, hogy olyan feltételeket teremtsünk, amelyek tisztességtelen versenyt eredményeznének az uniós és a harmadik országbeli vállalatok között. Az uniós politikának arra kell törekednie, hogy ne csak az Unióba irányuló ellátási láncokra, de a globális piacra is befolyást gyakoroljon, nemzetközi együttműködés keretében.A rendelettervezettel kapcsolatban elfogadott jelentés elfogadásánál tartózkodtam, mivel ismét átestünk a ló túlsó oldalára. A dokumentum a kereskedelmet befolyásoló intézkedéseket vezetne be, adminisztratív terheket generálva, és ellehetetlenítve az európai gazdasági szféra szereplőit, beleértve a kis- és középvállalkozásokat, különösen a mezőgazdasági termelési és az agrár-élelmiszeripari ágazatban, ezzel jelentősen gyengítve az uniós gazdasági szereplők helyzetét a globális piacon.
Radio Equipment Directive: common charger for electronic devices (A9-0129/2022 - Alex Agius Saliba)
Hosszú várakozás után végre megvalósulhat a Parlament 2014 óta szorgalmazott elképzelése, hogy gyártótól függetlenül egységes töltőket lehessen használni különböző elektronikus eszközökhöz, mint az okostelefonok, tabletek és más mobil készülékek. Ez egy olyan kérdés, amelyben szinte mindannyian egyet tudunk érteni, nemcsak praktikus az azonos töltők bevezetése, hanem egyben környezetkímélőbb is lesz ez a megoldás. Nem kell minden új készülékkel új töltőt és vezetéket vennünk, hanem ugyanazt a töltőt használhatjuk az összes kis és közepes méretű elektronikus eszközhöz. Sokkal egyszerűbben tudjuk majd kezelni és tölteni készülékeinket minden környezetben.A témáról szóló irányelv az ún. körforgásos gazdaságra vonatkozó új cselekvési terv részét képezi, és 2024-ben lép életbe, azt követően hasonló takarékos, környezetbarát egyéb intézkedések következnek majd a fogyasztók és a környezet érdekében. Az elfogadott jelentés értelmében a hordozható készülékeket USB C típusú csatlakozóval kell ellátni, és a vezeték nélküli töltés egységesítése pedig egy következő lépés lesz. Az EP kérése, hogy az új termékeken egyértelmű tájékoztatás szerepeljen a töltési módokról, és arról, hogy a csomagolás tartalmaz-e töltőt.Az irányelvnek köszönhetően csökkentjük az elektronikai hulladékot, továbbá számítások szerint 250 millió euró takarítható meg évente. Támogattam az irányelv elfogadását.
Situation of Roma people living in settlements in the EU (B9-0413/2022)
I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on the situation of Roma people living in the settlements in the EU. The document touches upon many serious issues that the Roma are faced with in the usually inter-related areas of housing, education, health, employment and social inclusion. The document also called for strengthened action at both national and EU level, most importantly short- and long-term strategies supported by sufficient EU and national funding, in particular the European Social Fund, the European Regional Development Fund and national recovery and resilience plans. Better involving Roma representatives in the development, implementation and monitoring of public policies targeting their communities is imperative for the success of these projects, but contributes also to changing perceptions in EU societies. In 21st-century Europe, it is unacceptable not to take all available action to alleviate the poverty, social exclusion and lack of meaningful access to employment or services that the Roma struggle with every day.
Slot utilisation rules at Union airports: temporary relief (C9-0225/2022 - Dominique Riquet) (vote)
I supported the proposed Regulation on Temporary relief from the slot utilisation rules at Community airports due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the purpose of which is to grant temporary relief from the slot utilisation rules to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 crisis and Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine on air traffic. The aim of the Regulation is to set a different use threshold, to impose conditions on slot relief, and to change the slot-utilisation rate in response to changing traffic levels. I believe the proposal strikes a good balance between the need to grant airlines relief from the use-it-or-lose-it rule in response to low demand and the need to return to a normal application of slot allocation rules. It is important to guarantee the optimal use of existing infrastructure, connectivity, fluidity of transport and citizens' access to competitive offers, while maintaining flexibility in a market that still faces many uncertainties.
The accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen area (B9-0462/2022, B9-0463/2022)
Cu votul meu am sprijinit ferm, încă o dată, îndemnul Parlamentului European adresat Consiliului Uniunii Europene de a permite României și Bulgariei să adere fără întârziere la spațiul Schengen. Subliniez importanța punerii pe picior de egalitate a României și a Bulgariei cu statele membre ale spațiului Schengen pentru asigurarea efectivă a pieței interne și a libertăților oferite de aceasta. Admiterea în zona Schengen este un obiectiv important al celor două țări pentru că orice întârziere costă bani companiilor, transportatorilor și este o pierdere inutilă de timp pentru cetățeni. Chiar și mediul înconjurător are de suferit din cauza miilor de camioane care stau zeci de ore în trafic la punctele de trecere a frontierelor. Pe lângă faptul că România îndeplinește criteriile tehnice de acces de mai bine de 10 ani, anul acesta autoritățile românești au gestionat peste 2 milioane de refugiați ucraineni, arătând solidaritate și demonstrând încă o dată că sunt pregătiți să controleze eficient granițele externe ale Uniunii Europene. Consider că nu mai există motive pentru amânarea admiterii, iar Consiliul trebuie să urmeze rezoluția Parlamentului European fără întârzieri și condiții suplimentare.
UN Climate Change Conference 2022 in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt (COP27) (B9-0461/2022)
Támogattam az Európai Parlament állásfoglalását az ENSZ 2022. évi, Sarm-el-Sejkben tartandó éghajlatváltozási konferenciájáról. A biológiai sokféleség csökkenése és az éghajlatváltozás szorosan kapcsolódnak egymáshoz, felerősítik egymást, és azonos mértékű veszélyt jelentenek az életre a Földön. Ebből az okból kifolyólag sürgős, együttes kezelést igényelnek. Az ENSZ elkötelezte magát amellett, hogy szükséges, konkrét intézkedéseket tegyen a területen.A jelen eseményei, az Ukrajna elleni katonai invázió és annak hatásai, a megnövekedett energiaárak, még sürgetőbbé tették a globális energiarendszer gyors átalakítását, valamint a fosszilis tüzelőanyagoktól való túlzott függés, és a globális energiapiacok instabilitása rávilágít arra, hogy mind Európában, mind világszerte prioritásként kell kezelni az energiahatékonyságba és energiaellátásba, a dekarbonizációba, a hosszú távú energiatárolásba, az innovatív tiszta technológiák bevezetésébe, a megújuló energiába, az intelligens hálózati megoldásokba és a kibocsátásmentes fenntartható technológiákba történő beruházásokat. Az ambíciózus célok mellett viszont nem szabad figyelmen kívül hagyni azt, hogy a megvalósíthatóság országonként, régiókként különböző, ezért is kell megfelelő hatástanulmányokkal, tervezéssel alátámasztani a kihívásokra adandó válaszokat. Olyan társadalmi-gazdasági modellt kell kidolgozni, amely összeegyeztethető a jövő nemzedékek egészséges környezetével, és mindenképpen a bolygónk tűrőképességének határain belül kell maradni.
REPowerEU chapters in recovery and resilience plans (A9-0260/2022 - Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, Siegfried Mureşan, Dragoş Pîslaru)
Megszavaztam a Helyreállítási és Rezilienciaépítési Eszköz létrehozásáról szóló rendelet módosításra vonatkozó jelentést, amely lehetővé teszi, hogy az EU és a tagállamok hatékonyabban tudjanak reagálni a változó geopolitikai helyzetre és annak következményeire. A módosításokra azért volt szükség, mert a járványhelyzet óta számos más esemény és leginkább az ukrajnai háború új kihívások elé állított minket. A háború és annak a gazdaságra és az emberek életére gyakorolt hatása, továbbá a sürgős intézkedések szükségessége indokolta, hogy a Helyreállítási és Rezilienciaépítési Eszközbe helyet kapjon egy RepowerEU-ról szóló fejezetet és ezen keresztül bekerüljön a nemzeti tervekbe.Az elmúlt hónapok egyértelművé tették, hogy az európai gazdasági reziliencia meghatározó tényezőjének számító uniós energiabiztonság és energiafüggetlenség elengedhetetlen a Covid19-válságot követő sikeres helyreállítás szempontjából. Egyetértek azzal, hogy a fenntartható helyreállítás, az Unió rezilienciájának kiépítése, az energiabiztonság, a fosszilis tüzelőanyagoktól való függőség csökkentése, valamint annak a méltányos és inkluzív átállásban játszott szerepe szorosan kapcsolódnak egymáshoz.Ezért a Helyreállítási és Rezilienciaépítési Eszköz egy jó eszköz a kezünkben, ugyanakkor a javaslat elfogadása során sok kollégámmal együtt figyeltem arra, hogy a tervekben helyet biztosítsunk az alacsony szén-dioxid kibocsátású energiaforrások fellendítésének, és ne feledjük, hogy például az atomenergia fontos szerepet játszik az energiafüggetlenség biztosításában, és kiemelt helyet foglal el számos tagállam – köztük Románia – energetikai tervezésében.
Protection of livestock farming and large carnivores in Europe (RC-B9-0503/2022, B9-0503/2022, B9-0504/2022, B9-0509/2022, B9-0514/2022, B9-0518/2022, B9-0519/2022, B9-0520/2022)
Támogattam a Parlament az állattenyésztés és a nagyragadozók védelméről szóló állásfoglalását, többek között azért is, mert a medve fajállományának fejlődését illetően számos meglátásom került a dokumentumba.A nagyragadozók támadásai Európa-szerte egyre gyakoribbak. A védelmüket szolgáló biológiai sokféleséggel kapcsolatos hatékony uniós politikák következtében sok helyütt megvalósult a fajok helyreállítása. A helyzet kihívások elé állítja a gazdákat, állattenyésztőket, és az ott élőket. Erdélyben nem kell bemutatni, hányszor került sor ember és medve közötti közeli találkozásra, amelyek közül néhány sajnos tragikusan végződött, emberáldozatot követelt.Az állásfoglalásban össze kellett egyeztetni az állatvédők a mezőgazdászok, állattenyésztők, pásztorok, hegyvidék lakóinak sokszor egymással ellentétes érveit. Ez egy jelentős lépés afelé, hogy a Bizottság és a tagállamok beláthassák, változtatni kell a jelenlegi helyzeten, mind a tagállami intézkedéseket, az élőhelyvédelmi (habitat) irányelv alkalmazását, és ami nagyon fontos, a kár- és konfliktusmegelőzés és annak kezelésének megfelelő és hosszú távú finanszírozását illetően. A nagyragadozók mindig is hozzátartoztak az európai tájhoz, az állásfoglalás célja, hogy ez így is maradjon, viszont biztosítani kell a konstruktív együttélést ember és állat között. A nagyragadozók populációinak bővülése esetén az élőhelyvédelmi irányelvvel összhangban, tudományos bizonyítékokra alapozva proaktívan kell kidolgozni és végrehajtani a mérséklési stratégiákat. Az állásfoglalás európai szinten hívja fel a problémára a figyelmet, és javasol megoldásokat.
Convention on Cybercrime on enhanced co-operation and disclosure of electronic evidence: Second Additional Protocol (A9-0002/2023 - Juan Fernando López Aguilar)
With my vote I supported the ratification of the Second Additional Protocol of the Council of Europe’s Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. My opinion is that we need to modernise the provisions of the Convention through this new Protocol in order to boost cooperation in fighting cybercrime and to allow authorities to directly cooperate with private service providers. Thus, state signatories will be able to help each other out in emergency situations and share electronic evidence among themselves.
The creation of a European Capital of Local Trade (B9-0003/2023)
A kis- és középvállalkozások, a családi vállalkozások, az európai gazdaság gerincét képezik. Ez adta az ötletet egy a helyi kereskedelem és kiskereskedelem európai fővárosának létrehozását javasló petíció benyújtásához. A Petíciós Bizottság megtárgyalta a 0699/2021. számú petíciót és egy állásfoglalással felhívja fel a figyelmet az elképzelésre.Az állásfoglalás kéri a Bizottságot a helyi kereskedelem és kiskereskedelem európai fővárosának létrehozására irányuló javaslat kidolgozására, és egy külön program előterjesztésére, beleértve olyan ösztönzőket a helyi stratégiák kidolgozásához, amelyek képesek hatást gyakorolni a kiskereskedők munkájára. A javaslat a helyi városok és régiók sokszínűségére épít, amibe beletartozik a nyelv, a kultúra, szokások, nélkülük a kiskereskedelem és ipar elképzelhetetlen lenne.Harminc éves az egységes piac, számos előnye van a hátárok nélküli kereskedelemnek. Ebből a szempontból is fontos a helyi kereskedelem középpontba állítása, a helyi vállalkozások támogatása, versenyképességük és fenntarthatóságuk fokozása, segítése az új kihívások leküzdésében. Olyan megoldásokat kell uniós eszközökkel támogatni, amelyek megkönnyítik ezeknek a vállalkozásoknak a piacra jutását, erősítve a forgalmazási hálózatokat, előmozdítva a vállalkozói szellemet és új készségek elsajátítását.Támogattam az állásfoglalást, amelynek elindítói spanyol kollégáim voltak, ugyanakkor a megvalósításban minden ország, régió Erdély is részt vesz majd és az uniós keret kidolgozásának előnyeit a javára fordíthatja.
30th Anniversary of the Single Market (B9-0004/2023)
Támogattam az egységes belsőpiac 30. évfordulójára szóló állásfoglalást, amely szerint, döntő pillanatban vagyunk az egységes piac megerősítése és fejlesztése szempontjából. A belső piac, amelynek alappillére a négy szabadság, az áruk, szolgáltatások, tőke és személyek szabad mozgása, az európai együttműködés alapja. Ez a határok nélküli belső piac ma a világ legnagyobb belső piaca és 56 millió munkahelyet biztosít.Az egységes piac előnyeit mindannyian tapasztaljuk, elég csak a fogyasztóvédelmi normákra gondolni, amelyek biztosítják, hogy bárhol is tartózkodjunk az EU-ban, tudjuk, a termékeknek, amelyeket vásárolunk, használunk, azonos szintű, szigorú követelményeknek kell megfelelniük mielőtt a piacra kerülhetnének. 30 év alatt számos újításra került sor, gondoljunk a többnyelvű termékleírásokra. A jövőben szükséges az egységes piac külső dimenziójának további megerősítése. A kor igényeinek megfelelően tovább kell folytatni az innováció és környezetvédelem, és a fogyatékkal élő személyek jogainak biztosításához szükséges jogszabályi keretek fejlesztését és gyakorlatban való átültetésének elősegítését.A digitalizáció adta kihívásokra is válaszokat kell találni, hogy azok az európai kkv-k fenntarthatóságára pozitív hatással legyenek, itt említeném az ún. geoblocking kérdését (területi alapon történő tartalomkorlátozás), amelyre sürgető választ kell találni, meghallgatva az európai emberek kérését, hogy az online térben is mindenki azonos lehetőségekkel határok nélkül férhessen hozzá az online tartalmakhoz, saját nyelvén vagy olyan nyelven, amelyen szeretne.
Human rights and democracy in the world and the European Union’s policy on the matter - annual report 2022 (A9-0298/2022 - Isabel Wiseler-Lima)
A Parlament évente értékeli az emberi jogok helyzetét, európai szemmel. Sajnos az utóbbi években nem az objektivitást tartja szem előtt, amikor az emberi jogok betartatását kéri számon harmadik országoktól, hanem ideológiák köré fonja véleményét.A 2022-ről szóló szövegjavaslat olyan dolgokat szeretne előírni például a vallási közösségek számára, amelyek az egyházi autonómiát sértik. Nem lehet egyetérteni azzal a kijelentéssel, miszerint sokszor visszaélnek a vallással és annak segítségével szítanak intoleranciát az LMBTQI-személyek a szexuális és reproduktív egészséghez való jogok aláásása érdekében. Úgy gondolom, hogy nem az a megfelelő módja annak, hogy az egymás iránti toleranciát és elfogadást próbáljunk globális szinten erősíteni.Elfogadhatatlan, hogy a jelentésben a vallás szabad gyakorlása szembe került az egyetemes emberi jogok politikai célú értelmezésével. A kisebbségi jogok unión belüli érvényesítésében vállalt feladatiam révén csak üdvözölni tudom, hogy a jelentés kiáll a nemzeti, etnikai és nyelvi kisebbségek jogaiért, valamint arra bátorítja az Uniót, teremtsen nagyobb összhangot belső és külső politikái között az emberi jogok védelmének a területén.Véleményem szerint az EU emberi jogi különleges képviselőjének munkája mellett az EU-n belül is fontos lenne, hogy megfelelő intézmény, személy foglalkozna például a nemzeti, etnikai és nyelvi kisebbségek jogaival. Az EU-nak egy őszintébb, átgondolt megközelítést kellene használnia az emberi jogok védelme kapcsán.
Transparency and targeting of political advertising (A9-0009/2023 - Sandro Gozi)
Fontosnak tartom a választásokra vonatkozó reklámtevékenységek átláthatóságának biztosítását, illetve a választások tisztaságának garantálását és az ezek megőrzésére érdekében tett lépéseket. Ugyanakkor figyelembe kell venni a szabályozások kialakításánál, hogy a politikai hirdetésekre vonatkozó szabályok megalkotása nem járhat az egyén tájékoztatáshoz való jogának korlátozásával.A hirdetéseket szabályozó elképzelések központjában a belső piaci megközelítésnek kell maradnia, azért is, mert a politikaireklám-szolgáltatások állandóan fejlődnek. Különösen érvényes ez az online szolgáltatásokra és a gyakran határokon átnyúló hatásaikra. A technológiai változások következtében számos új médium és új hirdetési, reklámozási módszer jelent meg. Az EU szintjén olyan szabályokat kell alkotni, amelyek uniós szinten szűrhetik ki az új, online térben megjelenő szabálytalanságokat, ugyanakkor nem jelentenek indokolatlan beavatkozást és túlzott bürokráciát a helyi, regionális és nemzeti választásokkal kapcsolatos politikai reklámtevékenységekbe.A plenáris ülés elé szavazásra került javaslat inkább korlátokat gördít ahelyett, hogy megfelelő jogszabályi keretet javasolna a politikai hirdetések szabályosságának biztosításához. Ezért, bár elismerem a közös szabályok szükségességét, amelyeknek elsősorban az európai parlamenti és a nemzeti választásokra kell összpontosítaniuk, a javaslat végszavazásánál tartózkodtam.
Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence: EU accession (A9-0021/2023 - Łukasz Kohut, Arba Kokalari)
A nők és lányok elleni erőszak megelőzésére és felszámolására tett erőfeszítéseket teljes mértékben támogatom, viszont az erről szóló ún. isztambuli egyezményhez való uniós csatlakozásról szóló parlamenti állásfoglalás számos részében túlmegy az említett célokon, ezért tartózkodtam a végszavazásnál.Olyan területeken próbál teret nyerni magának az állásfoglalás, amely egyértelműen tagállami hatáskörbe tartozik. Az országok rendelkeznek a nők elleni erőszak megelőzésére és leküzdésére vonatkozó normákkal, a nemzetközi egyezmény pedig egy átfogó jogi keretet biztosít, az ahhoz való csatlakozás viszont az országok szuverén joga. A Bizottság javaslata, hogy az EU csatlakozzon az isztambuli egyezményhez, ugyanakkor vannak olyan tagállamok, amelyek kifogásokkal éltek az egyezménnyel szemben elsősorban hatásköri, alkotmányossági és ideológiai kérdések miatt, ezt tiszteletben kell tartani.A parlamenti állásfoglalás, mint ahogyan már több alkalommal a hasonló kérdéskörökben, arra tesz kísérletet, hogy egy bizonyos szemléletmódot erőltessen rá az uniós tagállamokra és közvetetten a társadalmaikra, a nemek közötti egyenlőség és a nők elleni erőszak elleni fellépés mögé bújva.
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (A9-0184/2023 - Lara Wolters)
. – Nem támogattam a jelentést a vállalatokra vonatkozó kötelező magatartási kódexről, mert az csak növelné a bürokráciát és figyelmen kívül hagyja a világpiaci gazdasági trendeket. Újabb korlátozásokkal terhelné meg a vállalkozásokat, közvetetten beleértve a KKV-kat, gyengítve ezzel világpiaci versenyképességüket. Még egy új szabálycsomaggal terheljük a vállalkozói szférát, amely többek között arról szól, hogy olyan tettekért is felelősséget kell majd vállalniuk a vállalatoknak, amelyekre nincs, nem lehet befolyásuk.Beszélnünk kell a vállalatok felelősségrevonhatóságáról, tennünk kell az emberi jogok tiszteletben tartásáért és a környezetvédelemért, az EU ebben már ma is élen jár, de közben olyan vállalkozói környezetet kell teremtenünk, amely erősíti az európai vállalatok versenyképességét, hogy ne kényszerüljenek feladni tevékenységüket vagy áthelyezni azt harmadik országba.
Breaches of the Rule of law and fundamental rights in Hungary and frozen EU funds (B9-0257/2023)
. – Elutasítottam a jelentést, mivel annak tartalmával nem értek egyet. A Parlamentnek, ha bele kíván szólni az uniós jogállamiság és alapvető jogok helyzetének vizsgálatába, akkor azt úgy kell tennie, hogy az ne csak egy tagállamra vonatkozzon, hanem azonos kritériumokat használjon mind az összes tagállamot illetően. Ilyen lehetne például a számos tagállamban felmerülő kisebbségi jogsértések elemzése, a kisebbségi nyelvhasználattal vagy oktatással kapcsolatos korlátozások.A jelentés megkérdőjelezi a 2024 második felében esedékes magyar uniós elnökséget. A Tanács elnökségére vonatkozó döntés nem tartozik az EP hatáskörébe, ezért azzal kapcsolatos intézkedéseseket sem helyezhet kilátásba a parlament. A jelentés viszont nem tesz említést arról a diszkriminatív helyzetről, hogy az EB az Erasmus+ forrásmegvonása miatt több tízezer magyarországi diák veszítheti el a külföldön tanulás lehetőségét, illetve kutatók az európai projektekben való részvételt.
Segregation and discrimination of Roma children in education (B9-0394/2023)
A fiatalok oktatása alapvető közfeladat és egyben tagállami kötelezettség. Ez különösképpen igaz a roma közösség esetében, hiszen az oktatás, a tudás biztosíthat társadalmi felemelkedést, a kisebbségi közösség számára fejlődést.Üdvözlöm, hogy képviselőtársaim egy csoportja komolyan foglalkozik ezzel a kérdéssel és elkészítette ezt a parlamenti jelentést. Sokéves tapasztalattal rendelkezve a kisebbségeket érintő témákban, megjegyzem, hogy a roma gyermekek oktatása nem mai és nem egy egyszerűen megoldható ügy. 2011-ben indította el (magyar kezdeményezésre) az EU az első ún. romastartégiát, azóta annak megreformált újabb időszakra szóló elfogadása is megtörtént nemrég, a forradalmian nagy változások viszont váratnak magukra. Ezért is tartom egyben jónak a jelentést, másfelől pedig túlzónak az egyes tagállamoknak szóló kritikát.A roma gyermekek oktatása olyan összetett kérdés, amelyet nem lehet csak a szegregáció felszámolásával megoldani. A jó példák népszerűsítésre és átvételére van szükség, ehhez kell nyújtania az EU-nak megfelelő támogatást.Az EU-nak kivétel nélkül minden őshonos kisebbségre oda kell figyelnie a megkülönböztetés elleni küzdelem terén, mert csak ezúton biztosítható a polgárok egyenlősége. Ezért is lenne indokolt, ahogy a jelentés kéri, foglalkozni a roma vagy más őshonos kisebbséghez tartozó egyéneket ért diszkriminációval a demokrácia és jogállamiság védelmének keretében.
Standardised dimensions for carry-on luggage (B9-0391/2023)
Aki utazott már repülővel, tudja, hogy a kézipoggyászok kezelése sokszor fennakadást, vitákat és további, az utazással járó kellemetlenségeket okozhat. A légitársaságok szabályozása a kézipoggyászok méretére vonatkozóan egymástól eltérő. Erre a helyzetre mutattak rá petíciósok és a Petíciós Bizottság javaslata alapján az EP határozatot fogadott el, amelyet én is támogattam.Már maga a ténymegállapítás is arra utal, hogy a kézipoggyászok helyzetét rendezni kell, hiszen a közlekedéspolitika uniós hatáskör, a légitársaságok mindenütt eltérő szabályokat és korlátozásokat alkalmaznak a fedélzetre felvihető kézipoggyászok mérete és súlya tekintetében. A légitársaságok ilyen fajta szabályozása és gyakorlata a kézipoggyászokra vonatkozóan visszaélésekhez és tisztességtelen gyakorlathoz vezet, nem beszélve az utasoknak okozott nehézségekről.Az állásfoglalás elfogadása jól időzített, most van folyamatban a légi járatok működtetésére vonatkozó közös szabályokról szóló 1008/2008/EK rendelet felülvizsgálata.Egyetértek azzal a megállapítással, hogy a kézipoggyász méretére, súlyára és típusára vonatkozó követelmények uniós harmonizációjára van szükség, amely az EU-ban működő minden légitársaságra érvényes lenne, ez a lépés hozzájárulna az árak és az árképzés átláthatóságához és a fogyasztók, vagyis az utasok jogainak jobb védelméhez.
European protein strategy (A9-0281/2023 - Emma Wiesner)
A jelentés alapvető felvetése, egy uniós fehérjestratégia kialakítása fontos elgondolás és ezért támogatom is, mivel szükség van a növényi és állati eredetű fehérjék fenntartható európai előállítására.Magát a jelentést viszont azért nem szavaztam meg, mert abban helyet kapott a rovaralapú fehérjék emberi táplálkozásra és takarmányozásra való felhasználása. Véleményem szerint nem megfelelő az emberi fogyasztásra szánt rovarokkal foglalkozni egy új uniós stratégiában, amíg az európai élelmiszertermelés modellje az állati és növényi alapú fehérjékre épül, továbbá az élelmiszer-termékeink készítése és fogyasztása szorosan kapcsolódik a helyi hagyományokhoz és szokásokhoz.E mellett, a rovarok élelmiszerként való fogyasztását gazdasági szempontból is nehéz igazolni akkor, amikor gazdáink, állattenyésztőink nehéz helyzetben vannak, és sok esetben az EU-ba érkező húsimporttal kell a versenyt felvenniük.
Generational renewal in the EU farms of the future (A9-0283/2023 - Isabel Carvalhais)
Fontos állásfoglalást fogadott el a parlament, amely a gazdaságokban való generációs megújulásról szól. Egyetértek azzal, hogy ez a fajta megújulás elengedhetetlen a vidék társadalmi, gazdasági és környezeti fenntarthatóságához, a hagyományos családi gazdálkodási modellek megőrzéséhez és továbbviteléhez, és nem utolsó sorban az élelmezésbiztonság szavatolásához, ezért is támogattam a jelentést.Az új KAP elfogadásakor is külön foglalkoztunk a fiatal gazdákkal, ez a mostani állásfoglalás erre a szükséges támogatásra erősít rá. Az EU-nak meg kell adnia minden támogatást annak érdekében, hogy azok a fiatalok, fiatal felnőttek, akik mezőgazdászként, ill. állattenyésztőként kívánnak tevékenykedni, azok ezt tudják megtenni, ezért alakítottuk ki a célzott támogatásokat.A nemzeti hatóságokra hárul az a munka, hogy elérhetővé tegyék az indulási és beruházási támogatásokat, valamint figyeljenek oda a képzési lehetőségek biztosítására. Arra kell törekednünk, hogy a vidéki területeknek még inkább képesek legyenek megfelelő életkörülményeket, ezen belül megélhetést, biztosítani a fiatal mezőgazdasági termelők számára. A gazdálkodás egyben életmód is, amely szorosan kapcsolódik a természethez, és elemi része a vidéki közösséghez való tartozás, mindez a társadalom egésze számára előnyös, de vonzereje egyelőre nem mindenütt azonos és nem részesül kellő elismerésben. Erdélyben számos jó példa található, ezeket üdvözlőm és támogatom, hogy közösségünk gazdái és fiatal gazdái tovább gyarapodhassanak, leljék örömüket munkájukban.
Sustainable use of plant protection products (A9-0339/2023 - Sarah Wiener)
A Parlament többségével egyetemben nemet mondtam a növényvédő szerek szélsőséges tilalmára. A parlament teljes egészében elutasította a nem átgondolt módon való kiiktatásukat.Néppárti és RMDSZ-es képviselőként nem támogattam azoknak az intézkedéseknek az életbe léptetését, amelyek csökkentik az uniós élelmiszertermelést, veszélyeztetik a biztonságos élelmiszerellátást és nem utolsósorban akadályozzák a gazdákat munkájukban.Az elutasítással ma elértük, hogy a növényvédő szerek csökkentéséről úgy tudunk majd a gazdákkal közösen beszélni, hogy mindenki számára elfogadható és élhető megoldást találjunk. Természetesen, a mi célunk is a növényvédő szerek használatának fokozatos és arányos csökkentése a termőföldeken, de olyan módon, hogy az ne veszélyeztesse az európai élelmiszertermelést és élelmiszerellátást. Különösen fontos ez ma, amikor számos helyen a gazdák, a mezőgazdasági szektor a globális hatások miatt gondokkal küzd. Megakadályoztunk egy rossz döntést, amelynek következményei beláthatatlanok lettek volna és lehetséges hogy újabb gazdákat bátortalanítottak volna el a földművelés és állattenyésztés szép, de nehéz hivatásától.Ahogy más kérdésben, ebben sem lehet egy kalap alá venni pl. a hollandiai és a közép-európai növényvédőszer mennyiségeket. Nálunk akár 10-szer is kevesebb növényvédő szert használnak a gazdák. Tudni kell hogyan, és miből kell a csökkentést elérni.Az uniós szabályozásnak figyelembe kell vennie e kérdésben is a helyi specifikumokat, csak egy ilyen jövőbeli javaslatot tartok elfogadhatónak.
Proposals of the European Parliament for the amendment of the Treaties (A9-0337/2023 - Guy Verhofstadt, Sven Simon, Gabriele Bischoff, Daniel Freund, Helmut Scholz)
A plénum elé került szerződésmódosítási javaslatokról szóló jelentést nem tudtam szavazatommal támogatni. Az elképzelések többsége indokolatlanul és meggondolatlanul több hatáskört ruházna az EU-ra, és kevesebbet a tagállamokra és régiókra. Ezek olyan centralista törekvések, amellyel az emberek többsége nem ért egyet, sőt nem is foglalkozik az ilyen jellegű kérdésekkel, mert ebben a sokszínű Európában az ilyen Brüsszelbe központosító elképzeléseknek nincs létjogosultsága. Az RMDSZ képviselőjeként úgy látom, hogy a döntéshozatal központosítása az ellenkező hatást érnek el és Európa szétfejlődéséhez vezetne.A tagállamok hathatós együttműködése egy fontos kérdésben sem kerülendő meg, főként nem alapulhat az Unión olyan Szerződéseken, amelyeket nem minden tagállam fogad el, ratifikál.Ráadásul az elképzelések összességében ellentétesek sok tagállam érdekeivel, ezért úgy vélem, az alkotmányozási folyamat elindítása nagyon kevéssé valószínű.A kisebbségvédelem terén javaslatomra a jelentés tartalmaz előrelépést, az anyanyelvhasználatra és az anyanyelvi oktatásra vonatkozó jogok megosztott hatáskörbe kerülnének, ez biztosítaná, hogy a nemzetközi és európai standardokat uniós szinten is számon lehetne kérni.
Deliberations of the Committee on Petitions in 2022 (A9-0333/2023 - Alex Agius Saliba)
A Petíciós Bizottság utolsó éves jelentését fogadtuk el ebben a mandátumban, amely összefoglalja a Parlamenthez petíciók formájában beérkező állampolgári felvetéseket, panaszokat. Támogattam a jelentést, képet ad arról milyen témák foglalkoztatták leginkább az embereket az elmúlt időszakban és azokra milyen válaszokat fogalmazott meg a bizottság.Erdélyi, illetve kisebbségi szempontból kiemelendő két része a jelentésnek. Az egyik, amely rámutat arra, hogy a nemzeti kisebbségek jogaival kapcsolatos petíciók továbbra is a Petíciós Bizottság napirendjén maradtak, különösen az anyanyelvi oktatáshoz való joggal és a nyelvhasználattal kapcsolatos megkülönböztető gyakorlatok terén.Mindez azt jelenti, hogy foglalkozni kell a témával uniós szinten. Az EU kulturális és nyelvi sokszínűségéről szóló, 2022. április 20-án tartott nyilvános meghallgatást én javasoltam, ennek során szakértőkkel vizsgáltuk a kisebbségi nyelvek használatát érintő különböző kérdéseket, valamint az EU kulturális és nyelvi sokszínűsége megőrzésének és előmozdításának lehetőségeit. A meghallgatás alapján a PETI egy tanulmányt készített a témában. A jelentés kimondja, hogy szükséges, hogy az EU támogassa a regionális és kisebbségi nyelvek tanítását és használatát.Az éves beszámoló továbbá elismeri a barnamedve- és farkaspopulációkról szóló petíciók nagy számát, és megállapítja, hogy valamennyi érintett hatóság együttműködésére van szükség ahhoz, hogy hatékony megoldásokat találjanak a nagyragadozók védelmére és kezelésére.
30 years of Copenhagen criteria - giving further impetus to EU enlargement policy (RC-B9-0500/2023, B9-0500/2023, B9-0501/2023, B9-0502/2023, B9-0504/2023, B9-0505/2023, B9-0506/2023)
Az 1993-ban Koppenhágában elfogadott uniós tagsági kritériumok mérföldkőnek számítottak, mind az EU, mind pedig azon országok számára, amelyek a közösségi tagságra aspiráltak. Az ún. koppenhágai kritériumok átfogó feltételrendszert állítottak fel a csatlakozni kívánó államok számára többek között a demokráciára, a jogállamiságra, az emberi jogokra, a piacgazdaságra és az uniós vívmányok hatékony végrehajtására való képességre vonatkozóan.A kritériumoknak köszönhetően valósulhattak meg például a közép-kelet-európai reformok a kisebbségvédelem terén, mivel azok egyértelműen magukba foglalják a kisebbségi jogok tiszteletben tartását. Ma is az egyik legerősebb hivatkozási alap az uniós jogrendben. Sajnálatos a kisebbségvédelem terén az EU nem alkalmazza a tagállamokkal szemben ezt a követelményt és 30 év óta kevés változás történt a területen.A kisebbségvédelem megfelelő szintű biztosítása, amely az őshonos, nemzeti kisebbségekről szól, fontos tényezője a társadalmi béke, stabilitás megalapozásának, ez volt a cél a kilencvenes években is, amelyről mára megfeledkezett az EU, pedig ugyanakkora szükség lenne rá.A plenáris elé benyújtott állásfoglalási indítvány bár általánosan magában foglalja többek között a kisebbségek védelmének érvényesítését, számos olyan elemet tartalmaz, amelyek nem a koppenhágai kritériumok körébe tartoznak, ezért a végszavazásnál tartózkodtam.
Implementation of the 2018 Geo-blocking Regulation in the digital single market (A9-0335/2023 - Beata Mazurek)
Az Európai Parlament elfogadott jelentésében többek között olyan megoldásokat kér a Bizottságtól, amelyek lehetővé teszik a nemzeti és nyelvi kisebbségekhez tartozó személyek, valamint a határmenti régiókban élők számára a jogszerű hozzáférést az anyanyelvű tartalmakhoz.A Minority SafePack Európai Polgári Kezdeményezés egyik javaslata szintén a kisebbségi nyelvű audiovizuális tartalmakhoz való jobb hozzáférés biztosításáról szól, ennek az elképzelésnek a támogatásaként is értelmezhető a többségi parlamenti álláspont.Megemlíti továbbá, hogy az audiovizuális tartalmakkal kapcsolatban a Bizottság párbeszédet folytatott az érdekelt felekkel a minőségi tartalmak Unión belüli terjesztésének előmozdítása érdekében. A fórumon a FUEN kisebbségi ernyőszervezet is részt vett. Az EP azt kéri, hogy a párbeszéd eredményeiről és következtetéseiről szóló jelentést nyújtsa be a Bizottság a Parlamentnek.A jelentést kitér arra, hogy a sportesemények online közvetítési szolgáltatásokon keresztüli jobb hozzáférését javítani kell, mivel ma ez az egyik olyan terület, ahol a legszigorúbban érvényesülnek a korlátozások, véleményem szerint indokolatlanul.Jó hír, hogy az ún. geo-blocking jelentést ebben a formában fogadtuk el, amelynek célja, hogy a felhasználók egyszerűbben, korlátozások nélkül tudjanak hozzáférni a különböző digitális tartalmakhoz és szolgáltatásokhoz. Támogattam az állásfoglalást, az eddig is következetesen képviselt és a kisebbségi nyelvhasználat bővítését célzó lépésekkel együtt.
Implementation of the Erasmus+ programme 2021-2027 (A9-0413/2023 - Milan Zver)
Elismerem az Erasmus + program fontosságát az uniós oktatás és kutatás terén. A program uniós sikertörténet, ezért annak végrehajtásáról beszámoló jelentést megszavaztam. Azzal viszont nem értek egyet, hogy a Bizottság álproblémákat kreálva tartja vissza a programban való részvételi lehetőségtől a magyar diákok, oktatók és kutatók nagy részét. A jelenlegi helyzetet megerősítő javaslat ellen szavaztam.Az Erasmus + programban való részvétel lehetősége minden tagállam oktatási intézményeit és diákjait megkülönböztetés nélkül megilleti. A magyar fél korábban eleget tett az uniós kéréseknek és végrehajtotta a kért jogszabályi változtatásokat ezért is érthetetlen számomra, miért tagadja meg a Bizottság csaknem 180.000 magyar diáktól az Erasmuson keresztüli európai tapasztalatcserét és tanulást, amely csak pozitívan hathat a fiatalok világfelfogására, szemléletmódjának alakulására.Jobban át kellene gondolniuk mind a kollégáknak, mind a Bizottságnak, akik ezt a szükségtelen helyzetet kívánják fenntartani, hogy vajon milyen haszna lesz ennek a fiatal nemzedék szempontjából és hogy nem inkább az ellenkezőjét váltja-e ki az EU azzal, hogy fiatalok tízezreitől tagadja meg az európai egyetemi tapasztalatcserét és együttműködésben való részvételt.
Implementation of the Treaty provisions on EU citizenship (A9-0436/2023 - Maite Pagazaurtundúa)
I voted in favour of the report on the implementation of the Treaty provisions on national parliaments. Its aim is to assess the use of the current mechanisms for the participation of national parliaments in the European political process, as well as to determine possible improvements either within the current Treaty provisions or in the event of their revision. National parliaments should be important political actors strengthening the democratic foundation of the EU. Their active participation in EU affairs is instrumental in ensuring democratic accountability and legitimacy of the EU institutional system. However, the ability of national parliaments to act in EU affairs could still be improved. They could and should play a more active role in EU affairs. This role should go beyond checking respect for the subsidiarity principle: national parliaments should be more closely involved in the substance of EU policies and legislation, and should have the opportunity to intervene throughout the decision-making process.I therefore supported the provisions from the report calling for the extension of the Early Warning System from the current 8 weeks to 12 weeks; improved possibility of national parliaments to scrutinise and hold their national governments accountable and greater cooperation between national parliaments and the European Parliament.
Nature restoration (A9-0220/2023 - César Luena)
A gazdákra új terheket rovó, a természet helyreállításáról szóló jogszabályjavaslatot, szűk többséggel fogadta el a Parlament. Az RMDSZ képviselőjeként ellene szavaztam, ahogyan a Néppárt egésze is.Az EU-s intézmények között megszületett ideiglenes megállapodás alakította ugyan az eredeti szöveget, de az továbbra is előírja a mezőgazdasági területek egy részének a parlagosítását. Az előírt normákhoz az EU nem biztosít pénzügyi támogatást, a kompenzáció kérdése a tagállamokra vár. A szabályok csupán a lápok és mocsarak visszaállítása esetében enyhültek.Az európai mezőgazdaság nem mérhető egyenlő mércével: az erdélyi mezőgazdasági földterületek, erdők, legelők a jó hagyományoknak köszönhetően lényegesen jobb állapotban vannak, mint az intenzív gazdálkodásnak kitett nyugat-európai területek. A mezőgazdaság szerepe létfontosságú az élelmiszer- és élelmezésbiztonság terén, elutasítottam, hogy a gazdákat tényleges támogatás helyett tervekkel sújtsák.Ellenszavazatommal nemet mondtam a túlszabályozásra és a dogmatikus zöld politikára.
Protection of the environment through criminal law (A9-0087/2023 - Antonius Manders)
A környezeti bűnözés a rendelkezésekre álló adatok szerint a negyedik leggyakoribb bűncselekmény a világon és a szervezett bűnözés egyik fő bevételi forrása. Ezért indokolt volt európai jogszabály elfogadása a környezeti bűncselekmény meghatározására. A témával néppárti felelőseként két véleményező bizottságban foglalkoztam. Az egyeztetések során fő célom az volt, hogy megőrizzük a javaslat valódi célját, hogy az új irányelv legyen segítségére a tagállamoknak a határon átnyúló környezet elleni bűncselekmények megelőzésében, kivizsgálásában és az elkövetők megbüntetésében. Az illegális fakitermelés és kereskedelem összetett kérdésére is ráirányítottam a figyelmet, amely ellen szintén hatékony lehet a közös európai fellépés.Az unió eszközei és hatóságai hatékonyan tudják támogatni a tagállamok együttműködését, ha a környezeti bűncselekmény több tagállamot is érint. Az új jogszabály remélhetőleg az erőfeszítések jobb koordinálását segíti és visszaszorítja a bűncselekményeket.Támogattam az intézményközi megállapodás eredményét, amely a környezet védelmében erősíti a határon átnyúló együttműködést.
Driving licences (A9-0445/2023 - Karima Delli)
A jogosítványokról szóló új európai szabályok célja, hogy megnyitja az utat a digitális európai vezetői engedélyek előtt, és elő akarja segíteni a biztonságosabb közúti közlekedést, megelőzve a baleseteket.Számos javaslattal egyetértek és támogatom. Ilyen a digitális jogosítvány, az elveszített okmány megkönnyített cseréje, a fiatalok lehetősége, hogy 17 éves kortól személygépkocsit vezethetnek, hasonlóképpen a teherautó esetében 18. évtől. A traktor-jogosítványok kölcsönös elismerése sajnos nem lett egyértelműen az elfogadott szöveg része.A zöld jelentéstevő a gyakorlatban kivitelezhetetlen javaslatokkal, mint pl. az egységes európai büntetőpontokkal, vagy az oktatókra vonatkozó egységes szabályok bevezetésével túllőtt a célon. A hasznos elképzelést végrehajthatatlan szabályokká kívánta formálni, ezért a jelentés kritikus pontjai ellen szavaztam és így tettem a végszavazásnál is. A képviselők többségével együtt úgy véltem, hogy vannak olyan kérdések, és ilyen az orvosi alkalmassági vizsgálat a jogosítvány kiadásakor vagy meghosszabbításakor, amelyeket a tagállamok saját hatáskörben hatékonyabban szabályoznak, nincs szükség uniós döntésre. A parlamenti szövegből viszont sikerült kitörölni a legtöbb indokolatlan, túlszabályozásra irányuló javaslatot.
Type-approval of motor vehicles and engines with respect to their emissions and battery durability (Euro 7) (A9-0298/2023 - Alexandr Vondra)
Az Európai Parlament megszavazta a gépjárművek károsanyag-kibocsátását szabályozó ún. „Euro 7” rendeletet. Üdvözlöm, hogy az elfogadott intézményközi megállapodással sikerült biztosítanunk, hogy az új normákat meghatározó szabályok ne növeljék az autógyártás költségeit.Az EPP képviselőcsoporttal egyetemben én is azt szeretném, ha mindenki tisztább személygépkocsikat és teherautókat vezethetne, de egyben realistáknak is kell maradnunk. A mai gazdasági környezetben olyan szabályokat kell biztosítanunk, amelyek sem a gyártókat, sem a fogyasztókat nem terhelik túl. A zöldítés nem jelentheti az autók drágulását, amely egyértelműen kizárná az európaiak jelentős részét az új autók vásárlásának lehetőségéből.A néppárti képviselőcsoportban mi mindig is egy reálisabb megközelítést sürgetettünk, olyan szabályokkal, amelyeket valóban be lehet tartani. Ezek a szabályok jól bevált vizsgálati eljárásokat tartalmaznak, miközben szigorítják a kipufogógáz-határértékek ambícióit. Ezzel javítjuk a levegőminőséget, ugyanakkor teret adunk az iparnak, hogy fellélegezhessen. Így biztosítjuk a versenyképességet és a munkahelyeket az EU-ban.
Temporary trade-liberalisation measures supplementing trade concessions applicable to Ukrainian products under the EU/Euratom/Ukraine Association Agreement (A9-0077/2024 - Sandra Kalniete)
Sikerült gátat szabni az európai uniós tagállamok piacát elárasztó ukrajnai mezőgazdasági termékeknek. Az Európai Parlament által elfogadott határozat értelmében a gabona, a baromfi, a tojás, a cukor és a méz piacán, amennyiben torzulást okoz az ukrajnai termékek jelenléte, vagyis túlságosan is megnő a behozatali mennyiség és nagyon csökken az ár, az Európai Bizottságnak be kell avatkoznia és le kell állítania az ukrajnai behozatalt. Az eredeti bizottsági javaslathoz képest elfogadott parlamenti módosítás a referencia-éveket is kiegészítette a háború előtti időszakkal, amelyhez képest egyértelműbb az összehasonlítása a behozott áruk mennyiségének.A parlamenti álláspont szerint helyénvaló automatikus biztosítékot bevezetni a búzára, az árpára, a zabra, a kukoricára, a tojásra, a baromfira és a cukor- és méztermékekre vonatkozóan, amelyet akkor aktiválnak, ha az e rendelet alapján behozott mennyiségek meghaladják a 2021-ben, 2022-ben és 2023-ban behozott mennyiségek átlagát. Támogattam a megállapodást ebben a formájában és bízom benne, hogy az intézményközi tárgyalások során ez a most elfogadott parlamenti álláspont, amely a racionalitást és gazdáinkkal való szolidaritást is figyelembe veszi, lesz az alapja a végleges megállapodásnak.
Written questions (47)
Protecting human life and compatibility with the strictly protected status of the Romanian bear population
Applying the principle of the free movement of capital
Inheritance and restitution in the light of free movement
Free movement of persons and travel restrictions
Taking account of the general principles of EU law with regard to the free movement of capital
Discrimination against the Hungarian minority in Romania
Mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)
True cross-border access to online content in the EU
Options for EU action against hate crime
Double standards in dealing with different cases of discrimination
The militarised educational and training system in Tibet
Using the ECIPES programme to allocate funding directly in the interests of the citizens of Moldova
Unprecedented actions taken against Hungarians in Ukraine
Exploring the potential of EU funding for supporting coexistence measures
Managing excessive amounts of plastic waste following the introduction of new EU rules on shipments of plastic waste
Clarifications regarding discrimination between European citizens seeking employment in the UK
European Citizens’ Initiative as a tool for citizens’ participation in the EU decision-making process
Request for clarification to Answer No E-004016/2020 regarding application of general principles of EU law
Practical problems concerning the free movement of capital
Compatibility of Member State legislation with EU law
Promotion of human rights through the EU’s external action programmes – the case of Istanbul’s Greek Orthodox minority
Breach of free movement of capital
Union review of time limit for lodging applications
Discriminatory decision by the French Constitutional Council against speakers of regional and minority languages
Examination under EU law of the principle of collective guilt
Mutual recognition of parenthood
Cumulative impact assessment of the combined effects of the Fit for 55 package
Examining the proposed amendment to the Slovak Citizenship Act from the perspective of EU law
EU support for the promotion of multilingual education with special regard to regional and minority languages
Land confiscations in Slovakia under the Beneš decrees – activities of the Slovak Land Fund
Pollution of the river Sajó – ecological disaster in southern Slovakia
Infringement of the free movement of capital and of the right to property enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter
Improving and enforcing the EU Air Passengers Rights Regulation
Failures by Member States in dealing with pollution of the River Slaná
Alleged violation of the equal treatment principle in Slovakia by mandatory programme subtitling in Slovak
Availability of raw materials and geopolitical aspects of the Green Deal
Respect for fundamental rights in the application of EU law
Exclusion of Catalan, Basque and Galician from the Erasmus+ Online Language Support platform
The EU’s role in preventing and combating discrimination against ethnic minorities and protecting the fundamental rights of minorities in Member States and neighbouring countries
EU actions to promote linguistic diversity in the Erasmus+ programme
Emigration of physicians from Central European Member States
Enforcing entitlements arising from EU law
Access to high-quality preschool education for children from the Turkish-minority community in Western Thrace (Greece)
Launch of infringement procedures – additional question to answer provided for question E-002127/2023
Making UNRWA funds conditional on the content of Palestinian schoolbooks
Double-shift schooling in Western Thrace
Protection of minority languages by the EU trade mark regulation
Individual motions (1)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on reversing the European demographic trend
Amendments (1252)
Amendment 8 #
2024/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Subject to an assessment by the Commission carried out in the context of the regular monitoring of the impact of this Regulation and launched either following a duly substantiated request from a Member State or on the Commission’s own initiative, it is necessary to provide for the possibility to take any necessary measures for imports of any products falling under the scope of this Regulation which are adversely affecting the Union market or the market of one or several Member States for like or directly competing products. There is a particularly precarious situation in the markets for cereals, oilseeds, poultry, eggs, and sugar and honey and that may harm Union agricultural producers if imports from Ukraine were to increase. It is appropriate to introduce an automatic safeguard for cereals, oilseeds, eggs, poultry, and sugar and honey products that is activated if quantities imported pursuant to this Regulation exceed the arithmetic mean of quantities in 2021, 2022 and 2023.
Amendment 18 #
2024/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1– subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1– subparagraph 1
1. If a product covered by Article 1(1) or any other product originating in Ukraine is imported under conditions which adversely affect the Union market or the market of one or several Member States for like or directly competing products, the Commission may impose any measure which is necessary by means of an implementing act. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 5(3).
Amendment 24 #
2024/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Subject to an assessment by the Commission carried out in the context of the regular monitoring of the impact of this Regulation and launched either following a duly substantiated request from a Member State or on the Commission’s own initiative, it is necessary to provide for the possibility to take any necessary measures for imports of any products falling under the scope of this Regulation which are adversely affecting the Union market or the market of one or several Member States for like or directly competing products. There is a particularly precarious situation in the markets for cereals, oilseeds, poultry, eggs, and sugar and honey that may harm Union agricultural producers if imports from Ukraine were to increase. It is appropriate to introduce an automatic safeguard for cereals, oilseeds, eggs, poultry, and sugar and honey products that is activated if quantities imported pursuant to this Regulation exceed the arithmetic mean of quantities in 2021, 2022 and 2023.
Amendment 26 #
2024/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
7. If, during the period 6 June to 31 December 2024, cumulative import volumes of either common wheat, wheat flours, and pellets; barley, barley flour and pellets; oats; maize, maize flour and pellets; barley groats and meal; cereal grains otherwise worked; sunflower seeds, oil and meals; rapeseed seeds, oil and meal; honey; eggs, poultry or sugar since 1 January 2024 reach the respective arithmetic mean of import volumes recorded in 2021, 2022 and 2023, the Commission shall, within 210 days and after informing the Committee on Safeguards established by Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/478:
Amendment 31 #
2024/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) reintroduce for that product the corresponding tariff-rate quota suspended by Article 1(1), point b, until 31 December 2024 or in the case of sunflower seeds, oil and meals; rapeseed seeds, oil and meal; introduce a new tariff-rate quota based on the respective arithmetic mean of import volumes recorded in 2021, 2022 and 2023, until 31 December 2024; and
Amendment 33 #
2024/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) introduce from 1 January 2025 either a tariff-rate quota equal to five twelfths of that arithmetic mean or the corresponding tariff-rate quota suspended by Article 1(1), point b, whichever is highlower.
Amendment 39 #
2024/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
If, during the period 1 January to 5 June 2025, cumulative import volumes of either common wheat, flours, and pellets; barley, flour and pellets; oats; maize, flour and pellets; barley groats and meal; cereal grains otherwise worked; sunflower seeds, oil and meals; rapeseed seeds, oil and meal; honey; eggs, poultry or sugar for the period since 1 January 2025 reach five twelfths of the respective arithmetic mean of import volumes recorded 2021, 2022 and 2023, the Commission shall, within 210 days and after informing the Committee on Safeguards, reintroduce for that product the corresponding tariff-rate quota suspended by Article 1(1), point b or in the case of sunflower seeds, oil and meals; rapeseed seeds, oil and meal; introduce a new tariff-rate quota based on the respective arithmetic mean of import volumes recorded in 2021, 2022 and 2023.
Amendment 45 #
2024/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 3
For the purposes of this paragraph, the terms eggs, poultry and sugar refer to all products covered by the tariff-rate quotas in the Appendix to Annex I-A of the Association Agreement for, respectivelcommon wheat, flours, and pellet ; barley, flour and pellets; oats; maize, flour and pellets; barley groats and meal; cereal grains otherwise worked; sunflower seeds, oil and meals; rapeseed seeds, oil and meal; honey; eggs, poultry and sugar refer to all products covered by the tariff-rate quotas in the Appendix to Annex I-A of the Association Agreement for, respectively, common wheat, wheat flours, and pellets; barley, barley flour and pellets; oats ; maize, maize flour and pellets; barley groats and meal; cereal grains otherwise worked; sunflower seeds, oil and meals; rapeseed seeds, oil and meal; honey, eggs and albumins, poultry meat and poultry meat preparations, and sugars, and the arithmetic mean shall be calculated by dividing the sum of import volumes in 2021, 2022 and 2023 by twohree.
Amendment 46 #
2024/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
If a product covered by Article 1(1) or any other product originating in Ukraine is imported under conditions which adversely affect the Union market or the market of one or several Member States for like or directly competing products, the Commission may impose any measure which is necessary by means of an implementing act. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 5(3).
Amendment 48 #
2024/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 8 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. If a product covered by Article 1(1) originating in Ukraine is imported in the EU or transit by the EU, the destination for all consignments of that product should be determined prior to entry into the EU by Ukrainian authorities. Furthermore, Ukrainian authorities should provide to the European Commission the necessary documentation certifying that those consignments reached their destination.
Amendment 60 #
2024/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
If, during the period 6 June to 31 December 2024, cumulative import volumes of either eggs, poultry orcommon wheat, wheat flours, and pellets ; barley, barley flour and pellets ; oats ; maize, maize flour and pellets ; barley groats and meal; cereal grains otherwise worked ; sunflower seeds, oil and meals; rapeseed seeds, oil and meal; honey; eggs, poultry, sugar since 1 January 2024 reach the respective arithmetic mean of import volumes recorded in 2022 and1, 2022, 2023, the Commission shall, within 210 days and after informing the Committee on Safeguards established by Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/478:
Amendment 77 #
2024/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) reintroduce for that product the corresponding tariff-rate quota suspended by Article 1(1), point b, until 31 December 2024 or in the case of sunflower seeds, oil and meals; rapeseed seeds, oil and meal; introduce a new tariff-rate quota based on the respective arithmetic mean of import volumes recorded in 2021, 2022 and 2023, until 31 December 2024; and
Amendment 83 #
2024/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) introduce from 1 January 2025 either a tariff-rate quota equal to five twelfths of that arithmetic mean or the corresponding tariff-rate quota suspended by Article 1(1), point b, whichever is highlower.
Amendment 89 #
2024/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
If, during the period 1 January to 5 June 2025, cumulative import volumes of either eggs, poultry orcommon wheat, flours, and pellets ; barley, flour and pellets ; oats ; maize, flour and pellets ; barley groats and meal; cereal grains otherwise worked ; sunflower seeds, oil and meals; rapeseed seeds, oil and meal; honey; eggs, poultry, sugar for the period since 1 January 2025 reach five twelfths of the respective arithmetic mean of import volumes recorded 2021, 2022 and 2023, the Commission shall, within 210 days and after informing the Committee on Safeguards, reintroduce for that product the corresponding tariff-rate quota suspended by Article 1(1) or in the case of sunflower seeds, oil and meals; rapeseed seeds, oil and meal; introduce a new tariff-rate quota based on the respective arithmetic mean of import volumes recorded in 2021, 2022 and 2023, point b.
Amendment 104 #
2024/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 3
For the purposes of this paragraph, the terms eggs, poultry andcommon wheat, flours, and pellets ; barley, flour and pellets ; oats ; maize, flour and pellets ; barley groats and meal; cereal grains otherwise worked ; sunflower seeds, oil and meals; rapeseed seeds, oil and meal; honey; eggs, poultry, sugar, refer to all products covered by the tariff-rate quotas in the Appendix to Annex I-A of the Association Agreement for, respectively, common wheat, wheat flours, and pellets ; barley, barley flour and pellets ; oats ; maize, maize flour and pellets ; barley groats and meal; cereal grains otherwise worked ; sunflower seeds, oil and meals; rapeseed seeds, oil and meal; honey, eggs and albumins, poultry meat and poultry meat preparations, and sugars, and the arithmetic mean shall be calculated by dividing the sum of import volumes in 2021, 2022 and 2023 by twohree.
Amendment 123 #
2024/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 8 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. If a product covered by Article 1(1) originating in Ukraine is imported in the EU or transit by the EU, the destination for all consignments of that product should be determined prior to entry into the EU by Ukrainian authorities. Furthermore, Ukrainian authorities should provide to the European Commission the necessary documentation certifying that those consignments reached their destination.
Amendment 91 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
B a. whereas the criteria all EU candidate countries must fulfil in order to accede to the Union, as established by established by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993 are: the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, a functioning market economy and the ability to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the EU and the ability to take on the obligations of membership, including the capacity to effectively implement the rules, standards and policies that make up the body of EU law (the ‘ acquis ’), and adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union;
Amendment 102 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas accession to the EU must always be a merit-based procedure whereby each applicant is assessed on their own merit in fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria, in particular those of ensuring full respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law; whereastheir entirety; whereas while positive outcomes should be sought as quickly as possible, while avoidingthere should be no fast-tracking or counterproductive fixed deadlines that go against the core logic of the accession process of only admitting a candidate country join the EU when it is ready to do so;
Amendment 107 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
C a. whereas the Council of Europe has historically been a key partner in the EU’s enlargement process due to its support provided to candidate and potential candidate countries in carrying out reforms and helping them meet the EU accession criteria on the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities and monitoring progress in these areas;
Amendment 163 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas under the current institutional framework, the EU already faces considerable challenges in crisis management and strategic decision- making; whereas it is clear that the EU institutions and decision-making mechanisms were not designed for a Union that could be composed of up to 37 Member States; whereas before the next enlargement takes place, significant pre- enlargement reforms are needed to guarantee that the EU is able to absorb new members and to promote their successful integratbefore the next enlargement takes place, significant pre- enlargement reforms should be considered with the view to guarantee the efficient functioning of the enlarged Union; whereas this could impliesy significant changes in the EU’s institutional framework, including to decision-making procedures, and the possible introduction of differentiated integration solutions; whereas in order to achieve this, the EU should take full advantage of the flexibility afforded by the Treaty of Lisbon and consider the possibility of treaty change, including via adaptations introduced by the accession treaties;
Amendment 188 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the Union’s credibility and ability to act in a timely and effective manner depends on efficient decision- making, and even more so in an enlarged EU of 30 or more Member States; whereas efficient decision-making leading to timely and coordinated internal and external action is vital for safeguarding the EU’s interests and its global geopolitical leadership; whereas reform of the EU’s governance structures, with simplified decision-making procedures, must be discussed and adoptconsidered in parallel with the ongoing accession negotiations;
Amendment 206 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas enlargement is also a major challenge for EU’s financial sustainability, in particular regarding cohesion and agriculture policies; whereas the current and the next multiannual financial frameworks should be strengthened considerably to enable EU enlargement without jeopardizing the support needed in existing Member States; whereas this financial groundwork must be in place before enlargement takes place;
Amendment 291 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines that accession to the EU must always be a merit-based procedure and that each applicant must be assessed on their own merit in fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria and inin their entirety, including ensuring full respect for human rights, democracy and, the rule of law and rights of minorities; stresses that while positive outcomes should be sought as quickly as possible, there shouldcan be no fast- track or fixed deadlines for membership; underscores that there can be no short- cuts on fundamental values; points out that alignment with the common foreign and security policy, which would affect the integrity of the accession process; stresses that maintaining a merit-based approach is important in order to ensure equal treatment among candidate countries, to maintain public trust isn also a way of showing full adherence to the EU’s fundamental principles and an important indicator for sustainable futurend support for the enlargement process in the EU and, ultimately, to ensure readiness of candidate countries to take on their obligations deriving from membership;
Amendment 302 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. underscores that there can be no short-cuts on fundamental values; points out that alignment with the common foreign and security policy is also a way of showing full adherence to the EU’s fundamental principles and an important indicator for sustainable future membership;
Amendment 312 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls for a robust monitoring mechanismthorough screening for the reforms and progress made by the candidate countries in all the negotiating chapters; urges, in particular, the setting up of a specific and effective monitoring mechanism for protecting fundamental values and the financial interests of the Union in the context of accession procedures; reiterates in this regard its calls to include candidate countries in the EU rule of law mechanism and its annual reporting exercise, automatically activating pre- accession cooperation and verification mechanisms;
Amendment 317 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Reiterates its position1a that cooperation between the EU and the Council of Europe in the area of supporting candidate and potential candidate countries in carrying out reforms and helping them meet the EU accession criteria on the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities should be further strengthened in order to become more formal, structured and systematic; points out the importance of the Venice Commission in the provision of assistance in the reform of judicial, governance and electoral processes in the candidate and potential candidate countries; stresses that the EU should ensure without fail that accession candidate countries comply with all its recommendations on their path towards membership; _________________ 1a EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION on the institutional relations between the EU and the Council of Europe (2022/2137(INI)), article 48
Amendment 376 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Points out that European institutional reforms mustcould include simplified decision-making procedures, moving away from unanimity and replacing it with qualified majority voting provisions in areas such as the protection of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, sanctions and relevant foreign policy decisions;
Amendment 389 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls for the mechanism to protect the rule of law and the EU’s fundamental principles and values, and the monitoring capacity to ensure compliance, with all the Copenhagen criteria, even after accession to be strengthened ahead of the next enlargement;
Amendment 401 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Believes that differentiated integration is part of the solution for an efficient and deepened enlarged EU; underlines, however, that respect for the Union’s values as set out in Article 2 TEU should not be subject to any derogations or opt-outs; considers also that a broad area of European common ground must always be ensured, covering areas such as the Customs Union, the single market and its four freedoms, the core social acquis, and agricultural, competition and trade policies; notes that beyond this common ground, Member States willing to move European integration forward should be allowed to do so; underlines that under such a system of differentiated integration, while all Member States would take part in decisions about issues in the area of common ground, only Member States willing to participate in areas of deepened integration would take part in the decisions concerned; notes that differentiated integration also implies differentiated financial arrangements and raise concerns about the transparency and accountability of the different layers of decision-making;
Amendment 423 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that institutional pre- enlargement reforms must also address the implications of enlargement on the composition of Parliament; recalls that the European Parliament is already one of the largest parliaments in the world and underlines that in any case it must remain at a workable scale; points out, however, that a reasonable increase in the size of Parliament cannot be ruled out in order to ensure sufficient democratic representativeness; insists on a new system for seat allocation based on a permanent mathematical formula;, which, while it must ensure appropriate domacratic representativeness it should remain at a workable scale; Reiterates its position1a that seat allocation in the European parliament should be considered together with the voting system in the Council; insists on a new system for seat allocation based on a permanent mathematical formula; _________________ 1a EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION on the composition of the European Parliament 2021/2229(INL) – 2023/0900(NLE)) - article 2; European Parliament resolution of 7 February 2018 on the composition of the European Parliament (2017/2054(INL) – 2017/0900(NLE),) Article 3.
Amendment 449 #
2023/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses that enlargement is a major financial challenge for the EU, in particular regarding cohesion and agriculture policies; points out that thise challenge of supporting the needs of existing member States while extending to new member countries cannot be met without a larger EU budget and sufficient own resources; notes that this adds to growing demands on EU funding in the fields of financial stability, health, energy, decarbonisation, digital, research and defence and security; underlines that such financial reforms must be discussed in parallel with the ongoing accession negotiations and adopted before enlargement takes place; defends its position that the current and future multiannual financial frameworks should be strengthened considerably to enable EU enlargement, and that this financial groundwork must be in place before enlargement takes place;
Amendment 8 #
2023/2104(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas representation of the interests of citizens from the Member States concerns both indirect representation in the Council of the European Union and direct representation in the European Parliament; whereas the voting system in the Council already takes into account population in the calculation for qualified majority voting; whereas this needs to be considered when deciding on the allocation of seats in the European Parliament;
Amendment 9 #
2023/2104(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas it essential that big and smaller Member States can effectively contribute to the decisions of the European Union;
Amendment 10 #
2023/2104(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas Article 14(2) TEU states that the European Parliament shall be composed of representatives of the Union’s citizens; whereas according to this paragraph the seats of the Parliament are to be distributed among Member States with a minimum and maximum number of seats per Member State; whereas Article 14 does not refer to any alternative distribution of seats to that among Member States;
Amendment 12 #
2023/2104(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas in order to ensure comparability of population figures necessary to distribute seats, the same reference population data and period should be used;
Amendment 13 #
2023/2104(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the basis forsince the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 1260/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, the calculation of the number of seats per mMember sStates is to be has been based on Eurostat data on these member states’ « usual resident population » in accordance with a method established by means of Regulation (EU) No 1260/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council ; whereas the calculation includein the regulation; whereas the calculation also includes third country citizens, stateless persons as well as mobile EU citizens;
Amendment 41 #
2023/2104(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that Treaty requirements together with political realities have led to ad hoc negotiated agreements on the composition of the European Parliament every mandate; observes that the reason for the politicisaally sensitive nature of seat distribution is the aim of every Member State to minimise seat losses and maximise seat gains in absolute or relative terms and to ensure their citizens adequate representation in the Parliament also in view of QMV calculations in the Council; emphasises that in the last two decisions concerning the allocacomposition of seats,the European Parliament seats were allocated that became available after the United Kingdom left the EU; highlights that, in the long-term, this strategy is not sustainable, given the Treaty limitation of a maximum of 751 seats and the potentially distortive effects of a political solution, rendering an agreement on an equitable allocation in the future more difficult;
Amendment 50 #
2023/2104(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that in choosing the most suitable formula, priority needs to be given to objective and evidence-based criteria; further believes that changes to the relevant Treaty provisions can be consideredfair criteria but also to political viability ensuring adequate representation for Member States of all sizes; is of the opinion that in order for a formula to be politically acceptable in any given time period it should also be as close as possible to the existing seat distribution; points out that this is currently the case with the so-called « power compromise » previously considered but not adopted by the Parliament;
Amendment 55 #
2023/2104(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. believes that changes to the relevant Treaty provisions can be considered;
Amendment 61 #
2023/2104(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines that any method chosen should be transparent; continues. therefore. to support using Eurostat data as the official source of population figures for the calculations, which is publicly available; fully supports that the same population figures are used as basis for the calculations on the EP composition and the qualified majority in Council;
Amendment 65 #
2023/2104(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Points out that the reference population data to be used for the purposes of distribution of seats in the European Parliament is not established in secondary EU legislation but that for consistency reasons, historically the same reference data was chosen to be used as for calculating the qualified majority voting in the Council, which is enshrined in Regulation (EU) No 1260/2013;
Amendment 66 #
2023/2104(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Points out that Regulation (EU) No 1260/2013 also includes third country residents - whom in line with article 14 (2) TEU are not represented in the European Parliament - but also EU mobile citizens - who habitually are counted in the member state of residence as citizens and included on electoral rolls for the European Parliament elections; considers that for the purposes of calculating the number of seats per member State and in order to ensure consistency with the Treaties and avoid double counting of mobile citizens, the EU should rely on the number of citizens of a given country;
Amendment 67 #
2023/2104(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8c. Points out that in the recent past reference Eurostat data has been used both 2 and 3 years prior to the elections; considers that there should be consistency in choosing the reference period; considers that in view of allowing Member States sufficient time to prepare for elections, the reference date should be the 1st of January 2 years prior to the year of elections;
Amendment 68 #
2023/2104(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Points out that the method chosen should be understandable, avoiding ain order to represent member States of all sizes in a way that is adequate and fair is a complex task; considers therefore that complexity of a formula is not a disadvantage; stresses that transparency of a calculation method should in no case be equated with the quality of being easily explainable to people with various levels of complexity that citizens cannot understandgrasp of mathematical concepts; considers rather that transparency means that one single rule applies to the distribution of all seats, which citizens can check;
Amendment 88 #
2023/2104(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Recalls that the Treaties do not refer to any alternative distribution of seats than that among Member States; stresses therefore that any distribution based on other considerations, such as making an allocation for so-called transnational lists would go against the letter and the spirit of the Treaties;
Amendment 98 #
2023/2104(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Notes that in terms of mathematical formulas studied, when comparing the "Cambridge compromise" with the "Power compromise" it could be said that the latter better compensates small and medium sized countries for the voting system in the Council and in terms of the curve is smoother across the entire range, in particular at the upper end; points out also that a distribution based on the power compromise is particularly close to the one that Parliament adopted for the 2024- 2029 legislature;
Amendment 119 #
2023/2104(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Believes that the seat allocation system willcould make it easier for the European Parliament to swiftly adopt its proposal to the European Council concerning the composition of the European Parliament; resolves to make this seat allocation system the basis of its proposal to the European Council; points out that Parliament’s consent is required on the European Council decision on the composition of the European Parliament; further resolves not to give its consent to the European Council decision, if that decision deviates from the allocation resulting from the application of allocation system proposed by Parliament;
Amendment 120 #
2023/2104(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Considers it democratically legitimate for the next European Parliament legislature to decide on the use of a particular formula based on the considerations from this resolution;
Amendment 121 #
2023/2104(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
Paragraph 19 b (new)
19b. Commits itself to discuss its proposals for a seat distribution formula with the Council, the EU institution responsible with the adoption of the decision on the European Parliament's composition;
Amendment 123 #
2023/2104(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Instructs its President to forward this legislative resolution and the proposal annexed hereto to the European Council and the Commission, and to the parliaments and governments of the Member States.
Amendment 126 #
Amendment 1 #
2023/2085(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. whereas around 50 million people belong to a national minority or a minority language community in the EU; whereas the Commission has taken no legislative steps in response to the European Citizen’s Initiative “Minority SafePack - one million signatures for diversity in Europe”, despite the fact that it was supported by a large majority of MEPs;
Amendment 2 #
2023/2085(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1 a. whereas the right of freedom of movement and its exercise is central to EU citizenship; whereas the creation of Schengen area is one of the greatest achievements of the European integration process and greatly enhances the freedom of movement within the EU; whereas the Council, in its conclusions of 9 June 2011 (9166/3/11 and 9167/3/11) confirmed the successful conclusion of the evaluation process and the technical readiness of Bulgaria and Romania to accede to the Schengen area;
Amendment 3 #
2023/2085(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 b (new)
Paragraph -1 b (new)
-1 b. whereas EU citizenship is an important tool for fostering a sense of belonging and shared values among Europeans;
Amendment 4 #
2023/2085(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 c (new)
Paragraph -1 c (new)
-1 c. whereas visa reciprocity is a principle of the EU common visa policy and an objective which the Union should pursue in a proactive manner in its relations with third countries;
Amendment 9 #
2023/2085(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that EU citizenship is closely linked to and dependent on the citizenship of a Member State, which is an exclusive competence of every Member State; firmly believespoints out that there can be no other way to obtain EU citizenship than by obtaining the citizenship of a Member State, in accordance with its national requirements established in line with constitutional principles, traditions and values;
Amendment 28 #
2023/2085(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Member States to maximise participaton of all its citizens, including socially vulnerable groups by strengthening their electoral rights trough awareness-raising campaigns, encourage their participation in public debates and thereby determine their future and fundamental rights that lie in the heart of EU; implement appropriate arrangements tailored to their national voting procedures to facilitate voting by citizens with disabilities, such as the possibility to choose polling stations and the use of assistive technologies, formats and techniques; calls on the Member States, furthermore, to allow for persons with disabilities, at their request, to receive assistance in voting from a person of their choice and to endeavour to provide for the possibility of postal voting, and possibly advance physical voting, proxy voting and electronic and online voting;
Amendment 31 #
2023/2085(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Calls on the Member States to adopt measures to keep their electoral process free from extremism, spread of desinformation and foreign interference;
Amendment 32 #
2023/2085(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Emphasises that national minorities and linguistic minority communities represent a special contribution to European diversity and culture; recalls that preserving and promoting cultural and linguistic diversity within and between Member States is a fundamental value and at the same time a major task for the European Union;
Amendment 33 #
2023/2085(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Calls on the Council and the European Council to take necessary action to ensure that countries that fulfil the technical criteria to become members of the Schengen area, thereby allowing all EU citizens to enjoy freedom of movement and enhancing the sense of European identity;
Amendment 34 #
2023/2085(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4 c. Considers that in order to better realise the potential of EU citizenship, the EU should take steps to guarantee the protection of the founding values of the EU and of the rights of minorities; reiterates the need to combat discrimination and hate speech against them and reiterates its call for a comprehensive EU protection system incorporating existing international law instruments and following proven best practices in the EU;
Amendment 35 #
2023/2085(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 d (new)
Paragraph 4 d (new)
4 d. Calls on the European Commission to actively seek reciprocal visa agreements with third countries and concerned Member States to ensure equal treatment and uphold the principle of visa reciprocity, promoting the mobility and rights of all EU citizens;
Amendment 11 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 14 a (new)
Citation 14 a (new)
– having regard to the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (FCNM),
Amendment 16 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)
Citation 17 a (new)
– having regard to the cooperation between the European Union and the OSCE with respect to democratization, institution-building and human rights and to the annual OSCE Hate Crimes Report in which Participating States have committed themselves to pass legislation that provides for penalties that take into account the gravity of hate crime, to take action to address under-reporting, and to introduce or further develop capacity- building activities for law enforcement, prosecution and judicial officials to prevent, investigate and prosecute hate crimes,
Amendment 17 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 18
Citation 18
– having regard to the UN Human Rights Treaties and the UN instruments on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRDP) and the recommendations expressed within the framework of the annual UN Forum on Minority Issues,
Amendment 18 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 20 a (new)
Citation 20 a (new)
– having regard to its resolution of 13 November 2018 on minimum standards for minorities in the EU1a, _________________ 1a OJ C 363, 28.10.2020, p. 13.
Amendment 76 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. Whereas Articles 6 and 9 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM) include prominent references in respect of the relationship between freedom of expression and hate speech;
Amendment 83 #
2023/2068(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
Ha. Whereas legal measures to counter hate speech should be accompanied by preventive measures of fostering including via the media, improved inter- ethnic and intercultural understanding and tolerance through the development of dialogical relationships between communities, whereas the media are capable of contributing to the promotion of tolerance and intercultural understanding, as well as to the elimination of negative stereotyping and negative portrayal of minorities, whereas the Advisory Committee on the FCNM has elaborated a comprehensive strategy for tackling intolerance, hatred and other various contributory causes of hate speech;
Amendment 47 #
2023/2047(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Points out that petitions related to the rights of national minorities remained on the agenda of the Committee on Petitions, especially in the areas of discriminatory practices concerning their right to education in their mother tongue and the use of languages; points to the public hearing on cultural and linguistic diversity in the EU organised by the Committee on Petitions on 20 April 2022, which considered the problems of citizens belonging to a linguistic or autochthonous minority, when it comes to the use of minority language both in public and private sphere and discussed possibilities how to better safeguard and promote cultural and linguistic diversity in Europe;
Amendment 51 #
2023/2047(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Deplores recent discriminatory practices against EU citizens, particularly against children in education, who belong to a national or linguistic minority; reminds the Commission and the Member States that more should be done in order to upheld cultural and linguistic diversity in Europe and considers it necessary to strengthen the EU's support for teaching and use of regional and minority languages;
Amendment 59 #
2023/2047(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Points out the high number of petitions received and examined by the PETI Committee on the management and protection of large carnivores, such as the brown bear and wolf; particular attention should be paid to the important problems of co-existence between humans and large carnivores, including via comprehensive data collection and review of the legal framework; urges the Commission and the Member States to ensure a balanced coexistence in the regions, where the concentration of large carnivores became a real danger for livestock and also for humans;
Amendment 65 #
2023/2047(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Stresses that the ECI is an important instrument for active citizenship and public participation; welcomes the discussion in several meetings of some unsuccessful ECIs as petitions, which gave citizens the opportunity to present their ideas and hold a constructive debate, as well as facilitating the participation of EU citizens in the democratic process of the Union; takes note of the significant number of new ECIs registered by the Commission in 2022, which shows that citizens are seizing the opportunity to use participatory instruments to have a say in policy and law-making processes; calls on the Commission to better engage with citizens and givegive due consideration to the parliamentary resolutions adopted on the ECIs and better engage with citizens, especially with ensuring an adequate follow-up to successful ECIs;
Amendment 152 #
2023/2028(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take action against the alarming increase in antisemitism in the Union; is of the opinion that the will to accommodate other religious minorities in some cases has created an unjustifiable acceptance of antisemitism;
Amendment 154 #
2023/2028(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Amendment 5 #
2023/2019(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
C a. whereas citizens living in border regions and linguistic minorities are often prevented from accessing audiovisual content in their native languages due to geo-blocking, which hinders their access to and enjoyment of cultural content; whereas the ‘Minority SafePack’ European Citizens’ Initiative proposed an amendment with the effect of ensuring freedom of service and freedom of reception of audiovisual content in those regions where the minorities live;
Amendment 8 #
2023/2019(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
C b. whereas the European Parliament in its resolution of 13 November 2018 on minimum standards for minorities in the EU has called the Commission and Member States to take into account national and ethnic minorities when licensing media services and already encouraged the Commission to create the legal and regulatory conditions to ensure freedom of service, passage and reception of audiovisual content in regions where minorities live;
Amendment 18 #
2023/2019(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Amendment 20 #
2023/2019(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas the European Parliament in its resolution of 17 February 2022 on tackling non-tariff and non-tax barriers in the single market recalled that despite the Geo-blocking Regulation certain obstacles persist, particularly in the provision of audiovisual services and content, and that this manifests itself in reduced consumer confidence in cross- border online shopping within the Digital Single Market;
Amendment 33 #
2023/2019(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas Parliament called for these issues to be addressed in its resolution of 13 November 2018 on minimum standards for minorities in the EU has called the Commission and Member States to take into account national and ethnic minorities when licensing media services and already encouraged the Commission to create the legal and regulatory conditions to ensure freedom of service, passage and reception of audiovisual content in regions where minorities in the EUlive; whereas the ‘Minority SafePack’ European Citizens’ Initiative proposed an amendment with the effect of ensuring freedom of service and freedom of reception of audiovisual content in those regions where the minorities live and called for these issues to be addressed through the development of a unitary European copyright that will lead to the abolition of licensing barriers within the Union;
Amendment 42 #
2023/2019(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the Commission organised within the framework of the Media Audiovisual Action Plan a stakeholder dialogue to find solutions for these issues, but no significant agreements were reached and the proposals put forward would not adequately address the geo-blocking of digital media content for minorities in the EU;
Amendment 50 #
2023/2019(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas piracy in order to access content can be put in relation with the persistent barriers to accessing to digital media content, such as price, fragmentation, geo- blocking and the unavailability of dubbing or subtitles force citizens to resort to piracy in order to access content;
Amendment 70 #
2023/2019(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that, in order to improve cross-border access to and availability of audiovisual content in the EU for linguistic minorities, audiovisual content licences are geographically extended to the nationally defined territory of the recognized linguistic minority of the neighbouring country, in which the same language is spoken, without calling into question the territoriality principle in general;
Amendment 100 #
2023/2019(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Calls on the Commission to rapidly create the legal and regulatory conditions to ensure freedom of service, dissemination and reception of digital media content in regions where minorities live, so that they can watch and listen to content in their mother tongue, without geo-blocking of this content if it is broadcast or provided from another country;
Amendment 101 #
2023/2019(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15 b. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that, in order to improve cross-border access to and availability of audiovisual content in the EU for linguistic minorities, audiovisual content licences are geographically extended to the nationally defined territory of the recognized linguistic minority of the neighbouring country, in which the same language is spoken, without calling into question the territoriality principle in general;
Amendment 11 #
2023/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas several Member States still restrict voting rights for peopledo not fully implement appropriate arrangements tailored to their national voting procedures to facilitate voting by citizens with disabilities, thus preventing the meaningful participation and representation of these citizens in democratic processes;
Amendment 34 #
2023/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Regrets that the lead candidate system for the election of the President of the European Commission was not implemented at the last European elections; regrets further a lack of progress on this issue since 2019; acknowledges that this led to disappointment among many voters; believes that a clear and credible link between the choice of voters and the election of the Commission President is needed and therefore proposes to reverse the roles of the European Council and the European Parliament in the nomination and confirmation of the President of the Commission to more accurately reflect the results of European elections; calls on the European political parties, national political parties and national governments to work together to ensure this outcome at the next elections;
Amendment 56 #
2023/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 60 #
2023/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 12 #
2022/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
G a. whereas Parliament aims to contribute to the upcoming Commission review in order to further improve the ECI as a unique cross-border tool for participatory democracy;
Amendment 17 #
2022/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
I a. whereas, while the revised ECI Regulation has brought substantial improvements to the ECI instrument, there are remaining weaknesses in terms of its low political impact and visibility, its deliberativeness, its financial and digital dimension and the level of awareness among citizens;
Amendment 22 #
2022/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
Recital J a (new)
J a. whereas only a small minority of EU citizens are aware of the existence of the ECI tool and have actively participated in it;
Amendment 24 #
2022/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Points out that the ECI is the only tool for participatory democracy at EU level that can potentially lead to a proposal for a legal act of the Union; considers it essential to involve citizens, in particular young people, in the democratic life of the Union; believes that the ECI can strengthen the democratic dimension of the EU by promoting active citizenship; recalls, therefore, that the use of the ECI instrument must be enhanced by all available means;
Amendment 31 #
2022/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the online collection of statements of support is fundamental for the success of ECIs; acknowledges the advantages offered by the central online collection system in terms of budget and timing and welcomes the improvements made by the Commission to its central online collection system, including the possibility of customising its features and providing statistics to citizens; also recognises, however, the benefits of individual online collection systems that give more freedom to organisers in the way they manage their campaign; is concerned, however, therefore that phasing out individual online collection systems might have a negative effect on the possibility for organisers to use online collection systems tailored to their needs;
Amendment 41 #
2022/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Notes the difficulty to collect signatures in some Member States due to the types of data signatories must provide;
Amendment 56 #
2022/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Underlines the need to continue to raise awareness of this participatory instrument, in particular by promoting it on social media and including it in civic education curriculums, in order to reach as many citizens as possible, especially young people; welcomes in this sense the educational module for high schools promoted by the Commission;
Amendment 71 #
2022/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Calls on the Commission to adopt clear and straightforward procedures and provide detailed answers and possible solutions when initiatives are declared partly or fully inadmissible, thus enabling organisers to amend and present them again;
Amendment 80 #
2022/2206(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11 a. Calls on the Commission to engage with Member States to further simplify and harmonise the system of national standards laid down for the collection of data;
Amendment 1 #
2022/2188(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls the importance of effective, close and mutually beneficial law enforcement and judicial cooperation between the EU and the UK in view of their geographical proximity and shared challenges; recalls that the application of Part Three of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement1 (TCA) on law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters is contingent on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and the commitment to high-level protection of personal data; _________________ 1 Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part (OJ L 149, 30.4.2021, p. 10).
Amendment 14 #
2022/2188(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. StresseReminds that Part Three of the TCA allows for extended data flows between the EU and the UK, such as the exchange of DNA data, passenger name record data and criminal record information; underlines, therefore, that it is of the utmost importance that the UK ensures adequate data protection standards, so as not to put EU standards at risk when sharing data with the UK;
Amendment 17 #
2022/2188(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines the risks in the liberalenient onward transfer of personal data to non-EU countries that do not provide for an adequate level of protection; recalls that a primary data recipient may only transfer personal data onwards if the recipient is also subject to rules affording an adequate level of protection; stresses, therefore, that the UK must ensure that its data transfers to non-EU countries are based on regulations, appropriate safeguards and derogations;
Amendment 21 #
2022/2188(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Condemns the UK’s general and broad exemption from the data protection principles and data subject rights for the processing of personal data, set out in its Data Protection Act, for immigration purposes; believes that the exemption in cases in which giving effect to data subjects’ rights would jeopardise effective immigration control or in the investigation or detection of activities that would undermine the maintenance of effective immigration control does not comply with the principle of legal certainty and therefore, is not sufficient to prevent arbitrary decision-making; calls on the European Commission to closely scrutinize the persisting problems relating to the judicial review process impacting the immigration exemption;
Amendment 26 #
2022/2188(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Expresses its concern over the proposed UK Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, which would allow for automated decision-making; stresses that this bill wcould deprive individuals of their right, protected in the EU under the EU General Data Protection Regulation2 and internationally under the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing (including profiling) that has either a legal or similarly significant effect on them; _________________ 2 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).
Amendment 29 #
2022/2188(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. DeploreStrongly regrets the provisions in the new UK Data Protection and Digital Information Bill that weaken the obligations for data controllers and processors, including the new provisions that only require a senior responsible individual to be appointed when carrying out processing, which is likely to result in a high risk to individuals; deplores, equally,Equally regrets the provisions removing the requirement to designate a non-UK based representative for data controllers and processors that is subject to UK data protection rules, and those eliminating the obligation to consult with the UK data protection supervisory authority prior to processing when the controller’s assessment indicates that the processing is likely to result in a high risk;
Amendment 37 #
2022/2188(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Urges the UK to fulfil the data protection requirements for the processing of passenger name record data, in line with Article 552 of the TCA; deplores the long transition period of three years, which is delaying the implementation of the requirement to delete passengers’ personal data after their departure from the country;
Amendment 41 #
2022/2188(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Points out that, with regard to the necessary revision of the adequacy decision for the transfer of personal data to the UK in two years, it is of the utmost importance that guaranteeing the rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights be non-negotiable and that Parliament closely monitors any non- compliance; calls on the European Commission to closely scrutinize the impact the DPDI2 has on the data protection rights of EU citizens.
Amendment 45 #
2022/2188(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Strongly regrets the substantial increase in the number of EU citizens who were denied entry into the United Kingdom and subsequently returned after the end of the end of the transition period; deplores the fact that certain EU nationals seeking to enter the country were subject to higher levels of scrutiny by Border Force, without sufficient justification as substantiated in the 2022 report by the United Kingdom's Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration; stresses that such practices go against the principles of reciprocity and non-discrimination set out in the TCA and calls on the Commission to closely monitor such developemnts;
Amendment 49 #
2022/2188(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11b. Welcomes the agreement on the so-called Windsor Framework meant to remedy the tensions that have arisen in Northern Ireland stemming from the implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol;
Amendment 51 #
2022/2188(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 c (new)
Paragraph 11 c (new)
11c. Strongly regrets the UK’s discriminatory treatment of citizens of five EU Member States in 2021 in terms of long-term work visa fees and the subsequent removal of work-related visa fee reductions for all EU citizens as of February 2022; calls on the Commission to continue to raise this issue through the Partnership Council;
Amendment 54 #
2022/2188(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Amendment 57 #
2022/2188(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13b. Recalls the importance of cross- border connectivity by air, by road and by sea; notes the need for coordinated approach to irregular migration to maintain highest levels of security but not hinder with the provision of goods and services; is concerned by the provisions of Clandestine Entrant Civil Penalties Scheme and the amendment of Carriers’ Liability Regulations from 13 February 2023; regrets the disproportionate fine system for EU hauliers, truck drivers and companies especially in cases where the migrant interceptions are unknown; calls on both parties to find balanced solution in future deliberations;
Amendment 1 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 a (new)
Citation 3 a (new)
— having regard to the Council of Europe Warsaw Summit Action Plan CM(2005)80 final 17 May 2005 and its Appendix 1 - Guidelines on the Relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union,
Amendment 2 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)
Citation 4 a (new)
— having regard to the Agreement between the European Community and the Council of Europe on cooperation between the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe of 18 June 2008,
Amendment 4 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 b (new)
Citation 4 b (new)
— having regard to the Statement of Intent for the Cooperation between the Council of Europe and the European Commission in the EU Enlargement Region and the Eastern Partnership and Southern Mediterranean Countries (EU Neighbourhood Region) of 1 April 2014,
Amendment 5 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 a (new)
Citation 5 a (new)
— having regard to the Decision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe CM/Del/Dec(2022)132/4 on Co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Union adopted at its 132nd Session,
Amendment 8 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 b (new)
Citation 5 b (new)
— having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 10 May 2010 on the institutional aspects of accession by the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,
Amendment 16 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 10 a (new)
Citation 10 a (new)
— having regard to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages of 25 June 1992 and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities of 10 November 1994,
Amendment 22 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
C a. whereas although the EU and the CoE form distinct and very different legal systems, already the 2005 “Guidelines on the Relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union” 1ahave underlined that the “common objective of a Europe without new dividing lines can best be served by making appropriate use of the norms and standards, as well as the experience and expertise developed in the Council of Europe over half a century” and established that “legal cooperation“ between the organisations “should continue and be further developed” with guideline number 5 stating that the EU “shall strive to transpose those aspects of Council of Europe Conventions within its competence into European Union Law”; _________________ 1a Guidelines on the Relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union, appended to the Council of Europe Warsaw Summit Action Plan CM(2005)80 final 17 May 2005
Amendment 24 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
C b. whereas the 2007 Memorandum of Understanding between the two organisations states that “the European Union regards the Council of Europe as the Europe-wide reference source for human rights” and that “the Council of Europe will remain the benchmark for human rights, the rule of law and democracy in Europe”;
Amendment 25 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
E a. whereas in its Resolution 2430 (2022) Beyond the Lisbon Treaty: strengthening the strategic partnership between the Council of Europe and the European Union the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe called for a renewed impetus towards strengthening the strategic partnership between the Council of Europe and the European Union;
Amendment 26 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)
Recital E b (new)
E b. whereas in its Decision CM/Del/Dec(2022)132/4 on Co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Union, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe also called for co-operation with the European Union to be stepped up still further in view of the many challenges currently facing Europe;
Amendment 27 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E c (new)
Recital E c (new)
E c. whereas in June 2022 the Secretary General of the Council of Europe set up a High-level Reflection Group in order to issue recommendations relating to the Council of Europe’s role in responding to new challenges facing Europe and the world; whereas the Reflection Group has issued its recommendations on October 2022, recommending among others the strengthening of political dialogue between the Council of Europe and the European Union and that consideration is given to updating and reinforcing the 2007 MoU;
Amendment 28 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E d (new)
Recital E d (new)
E d. whereas the Committee of Ministers agreed to hold a 4th Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe Member States in Reykjavik, Iceland on 16 and 17 May 2023 associating representatives of the EU, where the issue of co-operation with the European Union is also expected to feature as part of the agenda;
Amendment 29 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E e (new)
Recital E e (new)
E e. whereas the EU remains the biggest donor of the Council of Europe technical co-operation activities, covering the EU Enlargement Region, countries of the Eastern Partnership, EU Member States, the Southern Mediterranean and Central Asia, as well thematic areas; whereas in 2021, the global volume of the Council of Europe-EU Joint Programme co-operation reached €207.4 million; whereas joint co-operation programmes in the rule of law sector accounted for 54.7% of the cumulative budgetary envelope in 2021;
Amendment 30 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E f (new)
Recital E f (new)
E f. whereas the financial volume of the joint programmes implemented in the Council of Europe Member States which are Member States of the EU continued to steadily increase in recent years due to the structured joint cooperation and technical support frameworks put in place under the Structural Reform Support Programme and the Technical Support Instrument of the EU since 2019;
Amendment 31 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E g (new)
Recital E g (new)
E g. whereas the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB) is the oldest European multilateral development bank with an exclusively social mandate; whereas of the CEB’s 41 members, 26 are EU members and 8 are official or potential candidates for accession to the EU; whereas, beyond other international financial institutions and several United nations specialized agencies, the CEB regularly cooperates with the EU on common initiatives such as the Western Balkans Investment Framework, the Neighbourhood Investment Facility, Eastern Europe Energy Efficiency and Environmental Partnership;
Amendment 32 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
F a. whereas the lack of accession of the EU to important CoE conventions in the area of human rights, including the Convention on preventing and combating violence against women prevents the EU to be represented in their supervisory bodies;
Amendment 37 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
H a. whereas the Council of Europe has acquired extensive experience and expertise in intergovernmental cooperation and assistance activities in the field of human rights, having established several human rights monitoring and control mechanisms, various respected human rights monitoring committees such as the European Committee of Social Rights, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities as well as the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights;
Amendment 39 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H b (new)
Recital H b (new)
H b. whereas the action of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission) is based on the three main principles of the European constitutional heritage: democracy, human rights and the rule of law; whereas the Venice Commission was established in 1990 in order to respond to the pressing need to assist central and Eastern European countries in adopting new constitutions after the fall of the Berlin wall; whereas the Venice Commission has played an outsize role in the democratisation of post-communist states wishing to join the EU; whereas the opinions of the Commission enjoy great authority and are followed in the majority of cases; whereas the EU strongly encouraged states which wanted to join the EU as well as current members to comply with its opinions;
Amendment 41 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H c (new)
Recital H c (new)
H c. whereas the Agreement between the European Community and the Council of Europe on cooperation between the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe of 2008 established a general cooperation framework with the aim to develop joint projects in areas of mutual concern, engaging in dialogue with stakeholders to improve respect for fundamental rights in Europe, coordinating communication activities to increase awareness on fundamental rights, informing each other about the results of each organisation’s activities and exchanging data and consulting each other at operational level;
Amendment 42 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H e (new)
Recital H e (new)
H e. whereas the annual reports on the cooperation between the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe show the breadth and depth of the cooperation ranging from consultations on specific projects and activities, regular data and information exchanges, participation in CoE Parliamentary Assembly hearings, participation in project inception meetings, joint projects and activities, the Agency’s observer status in several CoE monitoring and intergovernmental committees, participation in respective civil society structures to mutual references to each other’s work;
Amendment 43 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J b (new)
Recital J b (new)
J b. whereas the establishment of a joint European Union Fundamental Rights Information System (EFRIS) brings together in one online space the human rights information from the Council of Europe, the United Nations and the EU, including, since 2022, the data, analysis and findings generated under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM);
Amendment 44 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
Recital J a (new)
J a. whereas the impact of the Council of Europe reaches beyond the European continent, as many of its conventions are open for global signature and several of its mechanisms extend around the world;
Amendment 45 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J c (new)
Recital J c (new)
J c. whereas the Statement of Intent for the Cooperation between the Council of Europe and the European Commission in the EU Enlargement Region and the Eastern Partnership and Southern Mediterranean Countries of 2014 established a strategic framework to help promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law in the EU Enlargement and Neighbourhood Regions based on the Council of Europe's binding international conventions, monitoring bodies and assistance programmes;
Amendment 53 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Observes that the cooperation between the two international organisations has been increasing over the years while leaving still open potential for more “inter-organisational cooperation” where the EU, in line with the 2005 Guidelines on the Relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union, strives to transpose those aspects of Council of Europe Conventions and other instruments into European Union Law where the Union holds respective competences;
Amendment 59 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Highlights that as the EU has gradually transformed into a political union, the areas where the activities of the two organisations overlap and complement each-other has increased; considers therefore that given the frequent overlapping of competences it is important to avoid duplications of work or diverging standards; considers it important in this regard to set up appropriate consultation channels between the European Union and the Council of Europe which would allow the coordination of normative work in an incipient phase, especially in the areas of the current or a future MoU;
Amendment 64 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2
Subheading 2
The EU’s accession to the ECHR and other forms of cooperation on fundamental rights
Amendment 68 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Reaffirms its strong commitment to the EU’s accession to the ECHR as expressed in the resolution of 19 May 2010 on the institutional aspects of the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; calls on the negotiating parties to invest every effort into resolving the outstanding issues and addressing all of the CJEU’s concerns expressed in its opinion 2/2013 of 18 December 2014 with a view to concluding negotiations successfully;
Amendment 70 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. SUnderlines that the accession constitutes not only a priority objective for both organisations, but also a treaty obligation for the EU; stresses that the EU’s accession to the ECHR would have numerous benefits, including strengthened coherence between EU law and the CoE conventions system, harmonisation in human rights legislation and case law between the EU and the CoE and the protection of EU citizens against the actions of the Union’s institutions and bodies;
Amendment 74 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Recalls the pertinence of the promising cooperation between the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and CoE - as exemplified in the 2022 cooperation report between the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe - in the pursuit of common objectives and strategic priorities related to promoting and protecting human rights, including the need to avoid duplication and ensure complementarity between the work of FRA and the CoE;
Amendment 75 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4 c. Is of the opinion that it is useful both for the Council of Europe and the FRA to further expand their relationship such as by expanding the Council of Europe conventions covered by EFRIS and by inviting FRA to contribute to the work of the Venice Commission;
Amendment 76 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4 c. Calls on the Commission to work closely with the Council of Europe in the area of artificial intelligence and new digital technologies, including their appropriate use by law enforcement and their impact on human rights, the rule of law and democracy;
Amendment 77 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 d (new)
Paragraph 4 d (new)
4 d. Highlights the particular importance of close cooperation with the Council of Europe in the fight against child sexual exploitation and sexual abuse; stresses the importance of the the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (the Lanzarote Convention) as the first international treaty that addresses child sexual abuse that occurs within the home or family and which is is open to accession by any state in the world, thereby increasing the effectiveness of the fight against this crime at international level; calls on te EU to finalise accession to the Convention as swiftly as possible;
Amendment 78 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 e (new)
Paragraph 4 e (new)
4 e. Calls on the Commission to enhance cooperation and complementarity on all human-rights related areas where the Council of Europe developes substantial activity, such as anti-discrimination, fight against traficking in human beings, migration, justice and equality;
Amendment 81 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Advocates the EU’s broadest possible alignment with the CoE convention system through the finalisation of its accession to other CoE treaties, such as the Istanbul Convention and the Convention against Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment; calls on the Commission to look into what steps are needed for the European Union to accede to the European Social Charter and to propose a timeframe for achieving that objective; is convinced that the EU’s accession to these conventions will increase its legitimacy in the area of fundamental rights and promote synergies and facilitate cooperation between the two organisations;
Amendment 91 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Welcomes the reflection process on the side of the Committee of Ministers and of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the further strengthening of concertation, co- ordination, political dialogue and technical co-operation with the European Union, putting an emphasis on issues relating to democratic security and the rule of law;
Amendment 92 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Expects that based on this process, as well as on the work of the High-level Reflection Group of the Council of Europe, the 4th Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe member States in Reykjavik, Iceland on 16 and 17 May 2023 will also present clear conclusions on the future cooperation and relationship between the CoE and the EU;
Amendment 94 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Amendment 95 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 d (new)
Paragraph 6 d (new)
6 d. Acknowledges the reliance of the EU on the know-how of the Venice Commission to help improve constitutional standards, electoral law, and judicial, governance and other reform processes both in the EU as well as in the EU external action and calls for regular exchanges between the European Commission and the Venice Commission;
Amendment 105 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Acknowledges the important role which the FCNM has played in the European integration process; recalls that the recognition of the need to protect minorities through this dedicated instrument arose from the the tragedy of internal armed conflicts and wars ravaging Europe in the 1990s; points out that the same preoccupation led to the adoption in 1993 of the Copenhagen criteria on respect for the rights of minorities in the context of the EU’s enlargement policy; recalls that during the process of evaluating candidate countries’ progress towards accession on the basis of the Copenhagen criteria, the Commission’s systematic monitoring of minority protection in candidate countries has relied to a great extent on the standards developed by the CoE; recalls that the EU considers candidate countries’ implementation of the FCNM an important element in the accession criteria for minority protection;
Amendment 112 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Underlines that a reinforced cooperation in the area of minority rights would be equally beneficial for the CoE, as the political weight of the Union behind the instrument would likely result in increased compliance with standards and recommendations and deeper embeddedness of minority rights in EU Member States and CoE State Parties; points out that stronger cooperation in this area would also allow for better targeted EU funding, including in the context of enlargement or post-conflict reconstruction, supporting the implementation of minority related recommendations, amongst others though the implementation of joint projects (such as such as Promoting Human Rights and Minority Protection in SEE, Promotion of Diversity and Equality in the Western Balkans and Equality education for all);
Amendment 113 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12 b. Calls for a strategic and well- coordinated collaboration between the EU and CoE to tackle the widespread and severe exclusion, discrimination and poverty issues Roma face in Europe and for increased synergies between activities carried out under the Council of Europe Strategic Action Plan for Roma and Traveller Inclusion (2020-2025) and the 2020-2030 EU Roma Strategic Framework;
Amendment 114 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 c (new)
Paragraph 12 c (new)
12 c. Stressing the importance of education in the cementing of a culture of respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law in our societies welcomes the important work of the Council of Europe through its Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture; calls on the EU to increase its engagement with the CoE in this area;
Amendment 115 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 6
Subheading 6
Cooperation in the area of education and, culture and linguistic diversity
Amendment 117 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13 a. Recalls that, along with respect for cultural and religious diversity, respect for linguistic diversity is a fundamental value of the EU as laid down in Article 22 of the Charter and article 3 TEU, that the EU is tasked to support Member States in the teaching and dissemination of their languages (art. 165(2) TFEU), and that it has an obligation to respect, safeguard and enhance cultural and linguistic diversity (article 167(1) TFEU); stresses that the bodies of the Council of Europe could be extremely instrumental in this pursuit;
Amendment 121 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14 a. Reiterates1a its call on the the Commission and the EEAS to strengthen cooperation with the Council of Europe, including with regard to the Cultural Routes, with a view to promoting the fundamental values of cultural diversity, intercultural dialogue and the sustainable territorial development of lesser-known destinations, while preserving, protecting and rehabilitating the cultural and natural heritage of these sites; _________________ 1a European Parliament resolution of 14 December 2022 on the implementation of the New European Agenda for Culture and the EU Strategy for International Cultural Relations (2022/2047(INI))
Amendment 125 #
Amendment 127 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Stresses the importance of strengthening coherence and complementarity in EU external human rights action, through increased coordination among the EU, the CoE and the Organisation for Security and Co- operation in Europe (OSCE);
Amendment 128 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15 b. Calls for a more structured and formalized use of CoE benchmarks and monitoring activities in the context of its enlargement and neighbourhood policies and to continue cooperation with CoE in the provision of support for countries in carrying out essential democratic reforms on a more strategic level;
Amendment 129 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 c (new)
Paragraph 15 c (new)
Amendment 130 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 d (new)
Paragraph 15 d (new)
15 d. Calls on the EU and the EIB to enhance formalized cooperation with the Council of important areas of cooperation the offering of immediate and long-term assistance to the displaced persons of and refugees fleeing Ukraine and support for the implementation of National Roma Integration Strategies;
Amendment 131 #
Amendment 132 #
2022/2137(INI)
15 e. Highlights the continued role the Council of Europe plays in the EU integration process by helping EU candidate countries meet the EU accession criteria on stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
Amendment 133 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 f (new)
Paragraph 15 f (new)
15 f. Points out the importance the Venice Commission in the provision of assistance in the reform of judicial, governance and electoral processes in the candidate and potential candidate countries; stresses that the EU should ensure without fail that accession candidate countries comply with all its recommendations on their path towards membership;
Amendment 135 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Welcomes the call1a of the CoE Parliamentary Assembly for: a). the organisation of regular meetings between the respective Presidents, Secretaries General, Chairpersons of committees and between the Presidential Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly and the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament; b). the organisation of joint meetings and joint events at the level of committees and/or European Parliament delegations for relations with non-EU member States; c). the mutual invitation of rapporteurs to provide input in each other’s work; d) the strengthening of dialogue and co- ordination with the Assembly in areas which have emerged as prominent challenges for European societies; _________________ 1a the Resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 2430 (2022) entitled Beyond the Lisbon Treaty: strengthening the strategic partnership between the Council of Europe and the European Union
Amendment 138 #
2022/2137(INI)
17. Concludes that, in view of the rising importance of the parliamentary democracy provided for by the Lisbon Treaty, the parliamentary cooperation between the EU and the CoE could be deepened, building on the existing ‘Agreement for strengthened cooperation between Parliament and the PACE’ and, based on rules 224 and 225 of its Rules of procedure proposes the establishment of an interparliamentary delegation for an enhanced cooperation, to improve law making in the common fields of activity, to raise awareness and to provide an exchange on each other’s activities and functioning, to contribute to a more systematic dissemination of information and a more structured and regular dialogue;
Amendment 140 #
2022/2137(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Calls on the European Commission to initiate a revision of the 2007 Memorandum of Undersatnding in order to take account the new competencies the EU gained with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, as well as to formalise the strategic partnership of cooperation that has consolidated between the two institutions, in particular in the area of rule of law, democracy, fundamental rights, including the rights of minorities; expresses its position that this strategic document should also be operationalised and complemented by the adoption of additional agreements for joint action on specific issues between various EU and CoE bodies;
Amendment 17 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Calls for the introduction of a provision for the Union’s ratification of the Council of Europe's Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities1a; _________________ 1a COFOE Conclusions 48.
Amendment 18 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Subheading 2
Subheading 2
Democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights protectionthe protection of fundamental rights, including those of persons belonging to minorities
Amendment 21 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Calls for the introduction of a legal basis to adopt legislation on the rights of people belonging to minorities2a; _________________ 2a COFOE Conclusions 48.
Amendment 26 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Highlights that while Article 2 TEU explicitly includes the rights of persons belonging to minorities amongst the constitutional principles of the Union, the rest of the Treaty is silent on how it intends to protect and promote this value and fails to endow the Union with the appropriate legislative competences to do so; points out that the Treaties do not explicitly refer to the respect for the languages and cultures of the Union’s national and linguistic minorities either, leaving this issue up to potential political goodwill; considers that this is especially striking in the light of the fact that minority protection is an explicit value of the Union, which violation is liable to a sanctioning procedure according to Article 7 TEU; considers therefore that Article 3 TEU should be amended in order to include a reference to actions to protect persons belonging to minorities (paragraph 2) and to actions to protect the cultures and languages of the traditional national and linguistic minorities living in the Member States (paragraph 4);
Amendment 29 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Highlights the existing asymmetry between the TFEU and Charter of Fundamental Rights (article 11) which, in addition to the grounds currently listed in Articles 10 and 19 TFEU, lists discrimination based on language and on membership of a national minority; points out that at present, linguistic discrimination and discrimination on the basis of membership of a national minority are forbidden via the Charter, but, inconsistently the Union has no explicit competence to actively combat these forms of discrimination via Article 19 TFEU; considers it therefore necessary to amend Article 10 TFEU in order to include references to language and membership of a national minority as areas of combatting discrimination; in the same vein, considers it necessary to amend Article 19 TFEU in order to include references to language and membership of a national minority as areas of combatting discrimination and to insert a reference that the Union shall take appropriate action to ensure that the rights of persons belonging to national and linguistic minorities are respected in line with the principles and instruments of the United Nations and the Council of Europe; highlights in addition that experience so far with Article 19 TFEU has shown that the unanimity requirement effectively blocked the use of the treaty provision and considers therefore that unanimity should be replaced by qualified majority voting;
Amendment 30 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3 c. Highlights that approximately 10% of the Union's population belong to traditional national and linguistic minorities in Europe, and that their languages and cultures arguably need more protection than those of the majority populations from the Member States; considers it therefore necessary to amend Article 165 TFEU by including in paragraph 2 a reference to the promotion of the teaching of and teaching in the languages of the Member States’ traditional national and linguistic minorities and in paragraph 3 a reference to language diversity as an area of cooperation with third countries and international organisations; similarly, considers that Article 167 TFEU should be amended by including in its paragraph 2 a reference to the protection and promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity, including the protection and promotion of the languages and cultures of the traditional national and linguistic minorities living in the Member States;
Amendment 31 #
2022/2051(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3 d. Considers it necessary to amend Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to include a reference in the sense that the Union recognises and respects the rights of persons belonging to national, religious and linguistic minorities;
Amendment 1 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3
Citation 3
— having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular Articles 7 and 8 and 47 thereof,
Amendment 3 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)
Citation 7 a (new)
Amendment 6 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 b (new)
Citation 7 b (new)
— having regard the study of the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs "Ensuring the rights of EU citizens against politically motivated Red Notices" of 20221a, _________________ 1a https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank /en/document/IPOL_STU(2022)708135
Amendment 11 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas present-day terrorism as well as serious and organised crime are becoming increasingly dynamic, complex, globalised, mobile and mainly transnational phenomena, which require a robust response and more effective, coordinated EU cooperation with international law enforcement authorities and bodies such as the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol); whereas the 2020 EU Security Union sStrategy calls on the Member States to step up cooperto step up multilateral cooperation and coordination between the EU and Interpol, as this is essential to enhancing cooperation and information exchange;
Amendment 18 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas effective international cooperation is a main component of effective law enforcement and judicial cooperation, especially if it involves require the processing and sharing of personal data; whereas bilaterinternational agreements with key partners play an important role in obtaining information and evidence from beyond the EU;
Amendment 19 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas Interpol is one of thethe world’s largest inter-governmentnational criminal police organisations and has an important role to play all over the world; whereas the Commission, on behalf of the EU, isInterpol is based on inter-governmental cooperation; whereas the Commission, on behalf of the EU, entered into negotiations on an international agreement seeking reinforced cooperation with Interpol, including access to Interpol’s databases and the strengthening of operational and strategic cooperation: in December 2021 and it expects to conclude them by the end of 2022; whereas it is paramount to ensure that measuresthe final agreement puts in place measures to guarantee the integrity and correctness of datarespect of the principles relating to the processing of personal data set out in EU law in practice;
Amendment 26 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the EU and Interpol already have long-standing cooperation in a range of law enforcement-related areas through the operational implementation of the EU policy cycle - /EMPACT (European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats) and by supporting the activities of Member States in cooperation with EU agencies, such as the EU Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol), the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), the EU Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL), the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), and the EU Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA), on the basis of agreements or working arrangements; whereas on 5 November 2001, Europol and Interpol signed an operational agreement followed by a memorandum of understanding allowing the transfer of personal data through their respective liaison officers; whereas on 27 May 2009, Frontex signed a working agreement with Interpol establishing a framework for cooperation with the objective of facilitating the prevention, detection and combating of cross-border crime and improving border security to combat illegal immigration, people smuggling and trafficking in human beings;
Amendment 28 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas individual EU Member States in their capacity as Interpol member countries can directly access Interpol’s 19 databases, which include potentially valuable information, are directly accessible by EU Member States as member countries of Interpol, while EU agencies such on individuals, stolen property, weapons and threats such as firearms; whereas Frontex, the EU Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) currently do not have any access to these databases in line with their mandates – either directly or on a ‘hit/no hit’ basis – due to the lack of an agreement with Interpol, which is required for this purpose under Interpol’s rules on the processing of data;
Amendment 33 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas current cooperation between the EU and Interpol should be stepped up and extended to new areas; whereas procedures should be improved, accelerated and streamlined to address a series of indispensable operational needs in order to facilitate swift access to information related to counter-terrorism including Interpol notices containing information on terrorists in order to increase cooperation to counter shared threats such as terrorism, organised crime, cybercrime, child sexual abuse and trafficking in human beingis already close in the area of counterterrorism; whereas it should be stepped up and extended to new areas to address indispensable operational needs and to implement existing Union legal acts;
Amendment 35 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
F a. whereas procedures governing the access to data by Europol should be improved, accelerated and streamlined to address a series of indispensable operational needs, notably swift access to information held by Interpol in relation to counter-terrorism in order to increase cooperation to counter shared threats such as terrorism, organised crime, cybercrime, child sexual abuse and trafficking in human beings;
Amendment 40 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the new agreement should establish a modern and coherent framework for the EU’s agencies’ cooperationcooperation of EU agencies with Interpol, taking into account the latest developments in combating terrorism and cross-border, transnational, serious and organised crime; whereas the agreement should respond to current operational needs, as well as to the EU’s latestnd comply with the applicable Union data protection rlegime andal framework and relevant jurisprudence by the European Court of Justice (ECJ); whereas the agreement will provide the legal basis for the exchange of operational information, including personal data, and access to relevant Interpol databases by Union agencies in line with their mandates;
Amendment 44 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas interoperability has been a priority since at least, May 2019, when thethe adoption of the Union legal framework for interoperability between EU information systems in the area of justice and home affairs was adoptedin May 2019 led to exploratory talks between the EU and Interpol on the need to enter into a cooperation agreement; whereas an advanced and shared data infrastructure is currently in place in the EU for police and judicial cooperation, asylum and migration, as well as borders and visa; whereas this advanced and shared data infrastructure, and the IT systems and EU databases that constitute it, allows for very limited and highly regulated information sharing with third countries or international organisations;
Amendment 49 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas, according to the negotiation mandate, the new agreement should regulategovern cooperation between Interpol and Europol, the EPPO, Eurojust and Frontex and provide direct access by these Union agencies and Member States for the performance of their tasks to two of Interpol’s databases - the Stolen and Lost Travel Document (SLTD) and Travel Document Associated With Notices (TDAWN) databases via the European Search Portal (ESP), in compliance with EU data protection requirements and with fundamental rights;
Amendment 54 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas international organisations continue to report abuses by some states of Interpol’s notice system in order to persecute national human rights defenders, civil society activists and journalists in violation of international standards on human rights; whereas according to reports by international actorof the Commission and civil society organisations, Interpol has significantly reformed and strengthened its red notices review processes, as well as its support systems for national central bureaus in member countries, reformed the setup and functioning of the Commission for the Control of Files, (CCF), which enforcinges its complaints mechanism, appointed a data protection officer and implemented a learning and knowledge- sharing programme;
Amendment 62 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas Russia still remains a member of Interpol and whereas cooperation with the European Union and Interpol members is based on trust; whereas trust between parties relies on the swift tackling of misuse of Interpol notices by countries seeking to use Interpol systems for political ends; whereas, in this context, Interpol’s systems must respect human rights and the rule of law, and uphold its commitments onArticle 3 of the Interpol Constitution, which strictly prohibits Interpol to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, religious, racial or military abusecharacter;
Amendment 66 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)
Recital L a (new)
L a. Whereas in recent years authoritarian regimes were successful in abusing the system of Red Notices, persecuting individuals also outside of their jurisdictions and subjecting them to real, practical, and invasive restrictions of their lives and fundamental rights; whereas Russia, a country that is responsible for circulating most politically motivated red notices, including against EU citizens - such as the Lithuanian judges, prosecutors and investigators looking into the events in Vilnius on the 13th of January 1991 - still remains a member of Interpol; whereas beside Russia other countries have also used the system of red notices to politically target their citizens;
Amendment 72 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that European values and fundamental rights must be the basis of European security policiesUnion policy in the area of law enforcement cooperation, ensuring respect for the principles of necessity, proportionality and legality and safeguarding accountability and judicial redress, while enabling effective protection of individuals, particularly the most vulnerable; recalls, further, that these principles should be at the core of the development of digitalisation in the area of justice and security and the development of the interoperability framework for the many systems in justice and security, including borders;
Amendment 79 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recommends that the Commission follow the Council’s approach and duly take into account the difference between differentiation between the areas of law enforcement, judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and police cooperation, on the one hand, and border management on the other handthe area of border security;
Amendment 85 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recommends that the Commission provide during the negotiations on controlled access to Interpol’s databases by EU Member States and EU agencies the necessary safeguards and guarantees to ensure full compliance with the horizontal EU data protection legal framework and, with the specific safeguards and data protection requirements stipulated by the legal bases of the Union agencies and the EU information systems, and with fundamental rights; stresses that the agreement should at least provide the safeguards already provided by the Europol RegulationRegulation (EU) 2016/794;
Amendment 92 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. RecommendExpects special vigilance during the negotiations due to the sensitivity of the data concerned and to the number of third countriesy members of Interpol, which are not party to an equivalent agreementinternational agreement pursuant to Article 218 TFEU allowing for the exchange of operational personal data with the EU, or whose authorities to which personal data is intended to be transferred are not covered by a Commission adequacy decision;
Amendment 99 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recommends the adoption of the safeguards and guarantees needed to authorise the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) Central Unit established within Frontex and EU Member States to access Interpol’s SLTD and TDAWN databases via the ESP, as well as of the safeguards and guarantees needed to efficiently implement the revised Visa Information System Regulation thatRegulation (EU)2008/767 authorisesing EU Member States to access Interpol’s SLTD and TDAWN databases via the ESP when examining applications for visas or residence permits, in full compliance with EU data protection requirements and with fundamental rights;
Amendment 106 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recommends thatCalls on the Commission to ensure that the level of personal data protection and the protection of individuals’ fundamental rights and freedoms currently guaranteed under EU primary and secondary law is maintained in exchanges of personal data with Interpol; the Commission’sguaranteed by the agreement with Interpol is essentially equivalent to that under EU primary and secondary law; stresses that the negotiation strategys should not lead to a weakening of the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, and in particular of their rights to data protection and to privacy;
Amendment 108 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. RecommendStresses that the Commissionagreement should guarantee that the transfer of personal data is adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary for and proportionate to the purpose for which it has been transferredis transferred; highlights further that it should provide for the possibility to indicate any restriction on access or use, including a restriction on further transfers, or erasure at the time of transfer;
Amendment 114 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recommends that the Commission guarantee that the processing of data is limited to what is necessConsiders it necessary to require that the purposes for which data may be transferred should be clearly in individual cases for the purposes ofspelt out in the agreement and that any further data processing incompatible with the initial purpose ishould be prohibited; considers that the agreement has to clearly indicate that decisions based solely on the automated processing of personal information without human involvement are not allowed;
Amendment 117 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 124 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Recommends that the Commission guarantee that data iInterpol does not retained data for longer than is necessary for the purpose for which it was transferred; in this context, expects the agreement has to provide rules on storage, including on storage limitation, on review, correctification and deletion of personal data;
Amendment 128 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Recommends thatCalls on the Commission to ensure the rights to administrative and judicial redress for any person whose data are processed under this agreement and that it guarantees effective remedies;
Amendment 131 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses that law-enforcement cooperation and information sharing are important tools to combat crime and terrorism and pursue justice, but they need to be targeted and used with commonsubject to appropriate safeguards and checks; underscores that they should address fundamental rights challenges in particular by enhancing data quality, mitigating bias, detecting errors and avoiding any form of discrimination in the decision-making process;
Amendment 138 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Recommends that in view of the rules governing access to data and information sharing in the different EU systems and databases, the terms of the future cooperation agreement with Interpol should provide the safeguards and guarantees needed to give controlled access to Interpol’s databases via the ESP by Member States and relevant EU agencies as required to carry out their tasks, in line with their access rights and EU or national law covering such access and in full compliance with EU data protection requirements and fundamental rights;
Amendment 146 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Recalls that according to the EU’s current legislative framework, the transfer of data from the EU to third countries and international organisations is allowed only if the recipients of this information are able to guarantee an adequate level of personal data protection; recommends in this context to that inof the absence of an adequacy decision on Interpol,Union; underlines in this context that the agreement should constitute the legal basis allowing the transfer of personal data to Interpol, provided that it is legally binding and enforceable against all parties to the agreement and that it includes appropriate data protection safeguards;
Amendment 147 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. Stresses that the transfer of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade-union membership, genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, and data concerning a person's health and sex life or sexual orientation, should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances and where such transfer is necessary and proportionate in the individual case for preventing or combating criminal offences that fall within the scope of the Agreement; emphasises that the Agreement must provide appropriate safeguards be provided to address the specific risks of processing special categories of data, especially for minors and victims of offences;
Amendment 151 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Recommends limiting the application of derogations for onward transfers to the cases already allowed for EU agencies and bodies concerned when transferring personal dataof personal data to the cases provided for in Chapter V of Regulation (EU)2018/1725;
Amendment 162 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Stresses, with a view to future cooperation, that despite recent reforms, transparency remains a challenge both at the individual and the organisational level in Interpol, as does a lack of available statistical information on the operation of its notices systems; encouragescalls, therefore, on the Commission, therefore, to take actions to ensure that Interpoo seek a commitment from Interpol that it will further develops the legal framework andnecessary structures and rules as well as substantive tools allowing consistent and transparent processing of requests, reviews, challenges, corrections and deletions;
Amendment 173 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23 a. Expects the Council to deliver on its commitment to “continue to support Interpol in the promotion of the existing INTERPOL standards and procedures for data quality and compliance and [to] invite Interpol on a regular basis to inform the Council at working group level”1a _________________ 1a Council declaration on Interpol’s red notices - CSL doc 6217/22
Amendment 175 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 b (new)
Paragraph 23 b (new)
23 b. Calls on the Commission to use the negotiations with Interpol to request the organisation to produce, update and make available procedural and substantive tools on the legal handling of Red Notices, ensuring consistent and transparent processing of requests, reviews, challenges, corrections and deletions;
Amendment 178 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 c (new)
Paragraph 23 c (new)
23 c. Calls on the Commission to include in the negotiations with Interpol the production of yearly statistical data on the processing of requests for Red Notices with data on country of request, criminal offence category, review outcome, reasons for denial, and the use of available sanctions against member countries, based on which Interpol should develop public risk profiles of Red Notice requesting countries in order to strengthen the effectiveness of the enforcement mechanisms of Interpol;
Amendment 180 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 d (new)
Paragraph 23 d (new)
23 d. Calls on the Commission to ensure that statistical data on EU Member States’ handling of requests for Red Notice arrests are collected for all Member States;
Amendment 181 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 e (new)
Paragraph 23 e (new)
Amendment 190 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24 a. Considers it important that the agreement provides for a monitoring mechanism and periodic assessments to evaluate its functioning in relation to the operational needs of the relevant Union agencies as well as its compliance with data protection and other fundamental rights;
Amendment 193 #
2022/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Recommends providing for the possibility of suspending or terminating the agreement in cases of breaches of its provisions, notably those on personal data by one of the parties, specifying that personal data falling within the scope of the agreement transferred prior to its suspension or termination may continue to be processed in accordance with the terms of the agreement;
Amendment 40 #
2022/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N a (new)
Recital N a (new)
N a. whereas the Committee on Petitions when adopting its meeting agenda, pays attention to petitions and topics with significant relevance for discussion at EU level and the need to maintain an equitable geographical coverage of topics according to the petitions received;
Amendment 80 #
2022/2024(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Emphasizes that the Committee on Petitions when adopting its meeting agenda, as well as its hearings and missions follows its guidelines and objective criteria such as the contribution of selected petitions to the current EU debate and their balanced geographical coverage according to the petitions received;
Amendment 124 #
2022/0426(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11 a (new)
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) In order to clarify a legal uncertainty in the definition of trafficking in human beings, this Directive adopts a broader concept of what it should be considered than under Directive 2011/36/EU and Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA, and therefore includes additional forms of exploitation. The contract, usually called surrogacy, through which a natural or legal person agrees with a woman that she will carry a child for the purpose of handing it upon birth, regardless of the name and terms and conditions of such contract, is considered human trafficking, both of the woman who carries or is to carry the child and of the child.
Amendment 127 #
2022/0426(COD)
(16a) In accordance with the European Parliament resolution of the 21st of January 2021 on the EU Strategy for Gender Equality (2019/2169(INI)), in its paragraph 32, which “acknowledges that sexual exploitation for surrogacy and reproductive purposes or purposes such as forced marriages, prostitution and pornography is unacceptable and a violation of human dignity and human rights”. In accordance with the European Parliament resolution of the 10th of February 2021 on the implementation of Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims (2020/2029(INI)), in its paragraph 28, that classifies surrogacy as a Traffic in Human Beings. In accordance with the European Parliament resolution of 5th of May 2022 on the impact of the war against Ukraine on women (2022/2633(RSP)), that “underlines the serious impact of surrogacy on women, their rights and their health, the negative consequences for gender equality and the challenges stemming from the cross- border implications of this practice, as has been the case for the women and children affected by the war against Ukraine; asks the EU and its Member States to investigate the dimensions of this industry, the socio-economic context and the situation of pregnant women, as well as the consequences for their physical and mental health and for the well-being of babies; calls for the introduction of binding measures to address surrogacy, protecting women’s and newborns’ rights”.
Amendment 131 #
2022/0426(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Directive 2011/36/EU
Article 2 – paragraph 3
Article 2 – paragraph 3
(1) in Article 2, paragraph 3, “or forced marriage, or illegal adoption”, "or the exploitation of a woman for reproductive purposes through surrogacy" is added at the end of the paragraph.
Amendment 62 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) This Regulation concerns the recognition in a Member State of the parenthood of a child as established in another Member State. It aims to protect the fundamental rights and other rights of children in matters concerning their parenthood in cross-border situations, including their right to an identity31 , to non-discrimination32 and to a private and family life33 , taking the best interests of the child as a primary consideration34 . This Regulation also aims to provide legal certainty and predictability and to reduce litigation costs and burden for families, national courts and other competent authorities in connection with proceedings for the recognition of parenthood in another Member State. To attain these aims, this Regulation should require Member States to recognise for all purposes the parenthood of a child as established in another Member State. _________________ 31 Article 8 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. 32 Article 2 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 33 Article 9 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 34 Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Amendment 64 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Under the Treaties, the competence to adopt substantive rules on family law, such as rules on the definition of family and rules on the establishment of the parenthood of a child, lies with the Member States. However, pursuant to Article 81(3) TFEU, the Union can adopt measures concerning family law with cross-border implications, in particular rules on international jurisdiction, on applicable law and on the recognition of parenthood. In accordance with Article 67(1) TFEU the relevant legislation shall respect fundamental rights and the different legal systems of the Member States.
Amendment 88 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950 (‘European Convention of Human Rights’) lays down the right to respect for private and family life, while Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the said Convention provides that the enjoyment of any right set forth by law must be secured without discrimination on any ground, including birth. The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has interpreted Article 8 of the Convention as requiring all States within its jurisdiction to recognise the legalrecognised, in the only case on which it had to rule, Paradiso and Campanelli v Italy (ECHR, 24 January 2017, n° 25358/12), the right of a Member State to not recognise a parenthood established abroad to the orderer of a surrogacy contract. Member States are not required to register the details of the birth certificate of a child born via surrogacy abroad in order to establish the parent- child legal relationship established abroad between a child borwith the orderer mother. The jurisprudence of the European Court of surrogacy and the biological intended parent, and to provide for a mechanism for the recognition in law of the parent- child relationship with the non-biological intended parent (for example through the adoption of the child)54 . _________________ 54 For example, Mennesson v. France (Application no 65192/11, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 26 June 2014) and Advisory Opinion P16-2018-001 (Request no. P16- 2018-001, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 10 April 2019)Human Rights, without prejudice to the need for States to identify ways to ensure the protection of the child interest in the legal recognition of the link with those who de facto exercise parental responsibility, has recognised to the States a margin of discretion in identifying the ways in which to formalise the relationship with the orderer of a surrogacy contract. This orientation does not prevent the solution of the non-registration of the foreign document that recognises the parenthood to both the members of the couple that resorted to surrogacy abroad. With regard to the solution of adoption, the European Court of Human Rights has underlined that it can be considered sufficient to guarantee the protection of the rights of minors to the extent that it is capable of constituting a link of real "filiation" between adopter and adopted, and on condition that the modalities provided for by domestic law guarantee the effectiveness and speediness of its implementation, in accordance with the best interest of the child.
Amendment 98 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) In conformity with the provisions of international conventions and Union law, this Regulation should ensure that children enjoy their rights and maintain their legal status in cross-border situations without discrimination. To that effect, and in the light of the case law of the Court of Justice, including on mutual trust between Member States, and of the European Court on Human Rights, this Regulation should cover the recognition in a Member State of the parenthood established in another Member State irrespective of how the child was conceived or born and irrespective of the child’s type of family, and, including domestic adoption. Therefore, subject to the application of the rules on applicable law of this Regulation, this Regulation should cover the recognition in a Member State of the parenthood established in another Member State of a child with same-sex parents. This Regulation should also cover the recognition in a Member State of the parenthood of a child adopted domestically in another Member State under the rules governing domestic adoption in that Member State.
Amendment 110 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) For the purposes of this Regulation, parenthood, also referred to as filiation, may be biologic, genetic, by adoption or by operation of law. Also for the purposes of this Regulation, parenthood should mean the parent-child relationship established in law, and should cover the legal status of being the child of a particular parent or parents. This Regulation should cover the parenthood established in a Member State of both minors and adults, including a deceased child and a child not yet born, whether to a single parent, a de facto couple, a married couple or a couple in a relationship which, under the law applicable to such relationship, has comparable effects, such as a registered partnership. This Regulation should apply regardless of the nationality of the child whose parenthood is to be established, and regardless of the nationality of the parents of the child. The term ‘parent’ in this Regulation should be understood, as applicable, as referring to the legal parent, the intended parent, the person who claims to be a parent or the person in respect of whom the child claims parenthoodwhich means the person to which a child has a legally established link of filiation, may it be biologic, genetic, by adoption or by operation of law.
Amendment 127 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) The requirements for the recording of parenthood in a register should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation. It should therefore be the law of the Member State in which the register is kept that should determine under what legal conditions and how the recording must be carried out, and which authorities are in charge of checking that all requirements are met and that the documentation presented or established is sufficient or contains the necessary information. In order to avoid duplication of documents, the national registration authorities should accept the documents drawn up in another Member State by the competent authorities whose circulation is provided for by this Regulation. In particular, the European Certificate of Parenthood issued under this Regulation should constitute a valid document for the recording of parenthood in a register of a Member State. As the procedure for the issuance of the European Certificate of Parenthood and its contents and effects should be uniform in all Member States as set out in this Regulation, and the European Certificate of Parenthood should be issued in conformity with the rules on jurisdiction and applicable law laid down in this Regulation, the authorities involved in the registration should not require that the European Certificate of Parenthood be first transposed into a national document on parenthood. This should not preclude the authorities involved in the registration from confirming the conditions necessary to establish the authenticity of the European Certificate of Parenthood or from asking the person applying for registration to provide such additional information as required under the law of the Member State in which the register is kept, provided that information is not already included in the European Certificate of Parenthood. The competent authority may indicate to the person applying for registration how the missing information can be provided. The effects of recording the parenthood in a register (for example, depending on the national law, whether registration establishes parenthood or only provides evidence of the parenthood already established) should also be excluded from the scope of this Regulation and be determined by the law of the Member State in which the register is kept.
Amendment 145 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
Recital 38
(38) This Regulation shouldall respect the different systems for dealing with parenthood matters in the Member States. As regards 'authentic instruments', Member States often empower authorities, such as notaries, administrative authorities or registrars to draw up authentic instruments establishing parenthood with binding legal effect in the Member State in which they have been drawn up or registered (‘authentic instruments with binding legal effect’), or to draw up authentic instruments which have no binding legal effect in the Member State in which they have been drawn up or registered but which have evidentiary effects in that Member State (‘authentic instruments with no binding legal effect’). The term 'empowerment' in this Regulation is to be interpreted autonomously in accordance with the definition of 'authentic instrument' used horizontally in Union instruments and in the light of the objectives of this Regulation.
Amendment 180 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 56
Recital 56
(56) Considerations of public interest should allow courts and other competent authorities establishing parenthood in the Member States to disregard, in exceptional circumstances, certain provisions of a foreign law where, in a given case, applying such provisions would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy (ordre public) of the Member State concerned. However, the courts or other competent authorities should not be able to apply the public policy exception in order to set aside the law of another State when doing so would be contrary to the Charter and, in particular, Article 21 thereof, which prohibits discrimination, while complying with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
Amendment 201 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 67
Recital 67
(67) The recognition in a Member State under this Regulation of a court decision establishing parenthood given in another Member State, or of an authentic instrument establishing parenthood with binding legal effect drawn up or registered in another Member State, shouldall not imply the recognition of the possible marriage or registered partnership of the parents of the child whose parenthood has been or is to be established.
Amendment 221 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 75
Recital 75
(75) Considerations of public interest should allow Member State courts or other competent authorities to refuse, in exceptional circumstances, to recognise or, as the case may be, accept a court decision or authentic instrument on the parenthood established in another Member State where, in a given case, such recognition or acceptance would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy (ordre public) of the Member State concerned. However, the courts or other competent authorities should not be able to refuse to recognise or, as the case may be, accept a court decision or an authentic instrument issued in another Member State when doing so would be contrary to the Charter and, in particular, Article 21 thereof, which prohibits discrimination, while complying with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
Amendment 259 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 90
Recital 90
(90) This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in the Charter. In particular, this Regulation seeks to promote the application of Article 7 on everyone’s right to respect for their private and family life, Article 9 on the right to marry and right to found a family, Article 21 prohibiting discrimination, and Article 24 on the protection of the rights of the child.
Amendment 275 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation shall not affect the rights that a child derives from Union law, in particular the rights that a child enjoys under Union law on free movement, including Directive 2004/38/EC. In particular, tThis Regulation shall not affect the limitations relating to the use ofpreclude the Member States from using public policy as a justification to refuse the recognition of parenthood where, under Union law on free movement, Member States are obliged to recognise a document establishing a parent-child relationship issued by the authorities of another Member State for the purposes of rights derived from Union law.
Amendment 276 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Nothing in this Regulation can be interpreted as obliging a Member State to accept the practice of surrogacy, or any of its legal consequences.
Amendment 285 #
2022/0402(CNS)
2a. (j) the recognition of parenthood of orderers in a surrogacy contract, of children born of surrogacy.
Amendment 328 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
1. The law applicable to the establishment of parenthood shall be the national law of the Statechild ofr the habitual residence of the person giving birth at the time of birth or, where the habitual residence of the person giving birth at the time of birth cannot be determined, the law oflaw of the State of which one of the parents is a citizen at the Stattime of birth of the child.
Amendment 330 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2
Article 17 – paragraph 2
Amendment 383 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 31 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 427 #
2022/0402(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 39 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. (f) if the recognition of parenthood induces the tolerance or acceptance of a contract, usually called surrogacy, through which a natural or legal person agrees with a woman that she will carry a child for the purpose of handing it upon birth, or any consequences of such a contract.
Amendment 589 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point p
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point p
(p) ‘online child sexual abuse’ means the online dissemination of child sexual abuse material and the solicitation of children, including the exposure of children to pornographic content online;
Amendment 592 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point q
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point q
(q) ‘child sexual abuse offences’ means offences as defined in Articles 3 to 7 of Directive 2011/93/EU, and, for the scope of this regulation, extends the offense referred to in Article 3, paragraph 2 of the same directive, to the witnessing of sexual activities online, even without having to participate;
Amendment 602 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point w a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point w a (new)
(wa) ‘hotline’ means an organisation providing a mechanism, other than the reporting channels provided by law enforcement agencies, for receiving anonymous complaints from the public about alleged child sexual abuse material and online child sexual exploitation, which meets the following criteria: (a) is officially recognised by its home Member State as expressed in the Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council; (b) has the mission of combatting child sexual abuse material in its articles of association; and (c) is part of a recognised and well-established international network;
Amendment 640 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b – indent 3
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b – indent 3
– functionalities enabling age verification and subsequent blocking of age-restricted websites and content;
Amendment 691 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point e – point iii a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point e – point iii a (new)
(iiia) the extent to which children have access to age-restricted content.
Amendment 806 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. Providers of interpersonal communications services that have identified, pursuant to the risk assessment conducted or updated in accordance with Article 3, a risk of use of their services for the purpose of the solicitation of children, shall take the necessary age verification and age assessment measures to reliably identify child users on their services, enabling them to take the mitigation measures and to put in place effective measures to block the access of children to websites that fall under an age- restriction applicable under national law.
Amendment 1156 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – point d a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – point d a (new)
(da) effective in setting up a reliable age-based filter that verifies the age of users and effectively prevents the access of child users to websites subject to online child sexual abuse, and child sexual abuse offenses.
Amendment 1326 #
Amendment 1328 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Providers of relevant information society services and hotlines shall not be liable for child sexual abuse offences solely because they carry out, in good faith, the necessary activities to comply with the requirements of this Regulation, in particular activities aimed at detecting, identifying, removing, disabling of access to, blocking or reporting online child sexual abuse in accordance with those requirements.
Amendment 1393 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 a (new)
Article 24 a (new)
Article24a Anonymous public reporting of online child sexual abuse 1. Member States shall ensure that the public has the possibility to anonymously report child sexual abuse material and child sexual exploitation activities to recognised non-governmental organisations specialised in combatting online child sexual abuse material. 2. Member States shall ensure that hotlines operating in their territory are authorised to view, assess and process anonymous reports of child sexual abuse material. 3. Member States shall grant hotlines the authority to issue content removal notices for confirmed instances of child sexual abuse material. 4. Member States shall authorise hotlines to voluntarily conduct pro-active searching for child sexual abuse material online.
Amendment 1422 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) are free from any undue external influence, whether direct or indirect, it being understood that (a) the receipt of any type of financial aid by the Coordinating Authority and (b) the membership of the Coordinating Authority in a recognised international network shall not prejudice its independent character;
Amendment 1425 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point e
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point e
(e) are not charged with tasks relating tohave demonstrated competence, skills and experience in the pareventiona orf combatting ofnline child sexual abuse, other than their tasks under this Regulation.
Amendment 1469 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 34 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Users shall have the possibility to lodge a complaint alleging an infringement of this Regulation against providers of information society services with recognised non-governmental organisations specialised in combatting online child sexual abuse material, including the hotlines.
Amendment 1521 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 2
Article 39 – paragraph 2
2. The EU Centre shall establish and maintain one or more reliable and secure information sharing systems supporting communications between Coordinating Authorities, the Commission, the EU Centre, hotlines, other relevant Union agencies and providers of relevant information society services.
Amendment 1523 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 3
Article 39 – paragraph 3
3. The Coordinating Authorities, the Commission, the EU Centre, hotlines, other relevant Union agencies and providers of relevant information society services shall use the information-sharing systems referred to in paragraph 2 for all relevant communications pursuant to this Regulation.
Amendment 1681 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 8 a (new)
Article 48 – paragraph 8 a (new)
Amendment 1756 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 1
Article 54 – paragraph 1
1. Where necessary for the performance of its tasks under this Regulation, the EU Centre mayshall cooperate with organisations and networks with information and expertise on matters related to the prevention and combating of online child sexual abuse, including civil society organisations and semi-public organisations and the INHOPE network.
Amendment 1760 #
2022/0155(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 2
Article 54 – paragraph 2
2. The EU Centre mayshall conclude memoranda of understandingstrategic and/or operational cooperation agreements with organisations referred to in paragraph 1, laying down the terms of cooperation.
Amendment 1 #
2021/2183(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Points out that European defence should no longer be a weak link in the EU integration process and that more political will and urgent concerted action is needed to strengthen Europe’s defence, its capacity to protect itself, its strategic autonomy and global influence;
Amendment 2 #
2021/2183(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1 a. Points out the rapidly evolving nature of the threats the EU faces, involving among others internal terrorism, cyber-attacks or hybrid warfare, as the one recently coming from Belarus aimed at intimidating and destabilising the EU;
Amendment 3 #
2021/2183(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 b (new)
Paragraph -1 b (new)
-1 b. Stresses that the unprecedented situation created by the United States’ Armed Forces’ withdrawal from Afghanistan also revealed the EU’s inability to activate forces on a short notice in order to protect its own citizens without US support due to lack of adequate foresight, weak military command and control as well as a shortfall in capabilities;
Amendment 8 #
2021/2183(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Stresses the need for more commitment to develop a Defence Union to strengthen the protection of the EU’s territory and welcomes the Strategic Compass, which should facilitate a functioning European Defence Union;
Amendment 12 #
2021/2183(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Welcomes the proposals of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen from her 2021 State of the Union speech to strengthen the European Defence Union by improving intelligence cooperation through a Joint Situational Awareness Centre and interoperability through investment in common European platforms and the development of a European Cyber Defence Policy;
Amendment 13 #
2021/2183(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Highlights that Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) is a special means of enhanced, rational and efficient cooperation, which has the capacity to foster greater convergence in Europe’s defence sector; stresses its usefulness in increasing defence investments, enhancing the joint development of capabilities and reducing the fragmentation of the European defence market;
Amendment 14 #
2021/2183(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2 c. Calls for the strengthening of the EU’s rapid response capabilities in order to make them attractive for Member States to use; stresses the need to improve the deployment of the EU Battlegroups in order to respond to emerging crises and conflicts around the world; believes there is a need to transform these groups into permanent multinational units; supports the idea of creating a ‘rapid entry force’; points out the suitability of PESCO to facilitate the integration of the EU’s crisis response capacities;
Amendment 15 #
2021/2183(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2 d. Reiterates its regret that, contrary to the Political Declaration, which envisaged an ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership in the field of foreign policy, security and defence, the EU-UK trade and Cooperation Agreement did not extend to matters falling under the CSDP; recalls that it would still be in both sides’ interest to maintain close and lasting cooperation in this field;
Amendment 17 #
2021/2183(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes the Union’s committed relationship with NATO, which remains fundamental to EU security policy; welcomes, in this regard, the ongoing preparation of the new EU-NATO Joint Declaration, which will be presented before the end of the year; stresses the importance to elaborate the Strategic Compass, which is the core of the new European Defence strategy to better operationalise the EU hard power, improving the existing tools;
Amendment 6 #
2021/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the Union’s committed relationship with NATO, which remains fundamental to EU security policy; welcomes, in this regard, the ongoing preparation of the new EU-NATO Joint Declaration, which will be presented before the end of the year; stresses the importance to elaborate the Strategic Compass, which is the core of the new European Defence strategy tobetter operationalise the EU hard power, improving the existing tools;
Amendment 11 #
2021/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls for increased efforts to fight foreign disinformation and information manipulation, which negatively influence the Union’s ability to implement effectively its internal and foreign policies; to this aim, calls for better and deeper coordination to identify and deter cyber- attacks that can jeopardise EU internal stability;
Amendment 14 #
2021/2182(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for the strengthening of parliamentary oversight of EU external action, including by continuing its regular consultations with the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission; calls for the swift conclusion of negotiations to replace the 2002 Interinstitutional Agreement on Parliament’s access to sensitive information of the Council in the field of security and defence policy; calls for implementing the coordination of Member State's security and information services;
Amendment 6 #
2021/2180(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Welcomes Commission’s Annual Rule of Law Report as a positive addition to the EU’s toolbox to promote improvements as well as to prevent and address rule of law issues in Member States, and recalls that the Commission’s report was a commitment made by President Von Der Leyen in her political guidelines for the 2019-2024 Commission, ahead of her election;
Amendment 12 #
2021/2180(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that public debate about the report is central to the annual rule of law cycle and therefore that the time of its publication is keyrelevant; regrets therefore the publication of the 2021 report just before parliamentary recess in mid-July; calls on the Commission to instate an annual EU Values Week each September, in which the report is presented to the European Parliament and national parliaments at the same time as the Justice Scoreboard, the Fundamental Rights Report, and the Media Pluralism Monitor;
Amendment 16 #
2021/2180(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that important elements of Parliament’s resolutions of 25 October 2016 and of 7 October 2020 on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are still missing, in particular the panel of independent experts,; calls therefore to widening the scope to include all values set out under Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and the interinstitutional agreement for an annual monitoring cycle; calls on the Council and Commission to engage in discussions on such interinstitutional agreement, in order to set up a single and coherent monitoring system for democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights in the EU;
Amendment 21 #
2021/2180(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Welcomes Commission’s involvement of civil society actors, both through the online public consultation and the country visits and interviews, however believes that more transparency from the Commission on the methodology and selection process of stakeholders invited to consultation meetings, as well as closer consultation and collaboration with civil society to design a more straight forward and more easily accessible process, is needed;
Amendment 32 #
2021/2180(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to conclude each country chapter with a ‘traffic light’n assessment of the fulfilment of the conditions of the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation (Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092);
Amendment 36 #
2021/2180(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes Commission proposals´s commitment to include country-specific recommendations as of 2022, as per Parliament’s resolution of 25 October 2016, which should be framed in the context of Member States’ obligations under EU law and international human rights law and standards, which would allow for tracking and evaluating progress and regression against an agreed, binding framework; calls on the Commission to monitor and report on their implementation;
Amendment 60 #
2021/2180(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. CUnderlines the importance of interinstitutional dialogue and cooperation on rule of law matters; calls on the Council to discuss the report in all transparency and engage in dialogue with the European Parliament; calls on the European Council, too, to discuss the findings of the report, as the values of Article 2 TEU are a matter to be addressed at the highest political level.
Amendment 50 #
2021/2167(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Encourages the Ombudsman to continue performing her work to ensure that citizens can fully exercise their democratic rights by, inter alia, directly participating in and following in detail the decision-making process within the EU institutions, as well as by having access to all the relevant information as also stipulated by the CJEU’s case law; welcomes the Ombudsman’s practical recommendations for the EU administration on the use of 24 official languages when communicating with the public; underlines in this respect the importance of ensuring communication in as many EU official languages as possible; reminds that the equality of languages should be better ensured by the EU institutions; regrets that still many parts of EU institutions’ websites, including information on EU programmes and calls are available only in some languages;
Amendment 82 #
2021/2167(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Commends the Ombudsman’s work to protect EU citizens’ right to access documents held by the EU institutions; considers it paramount to guarantee full transparency and full public access to the documents held by the EU institutions; believes that revision of Regulation (EC) No 1049/20012 must take place as a matter of priority; regrets the fact that EU legislation on access to documents is very much obsolete, thereby also hampering the Ombudsman’s activities on this matter; _________________ 2underlines that public access to documents is essential for public scrutiny of EU activity; points out, therefore, that transparency and the broadest possible access to documents held by the institutions must be the rule, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.; believes that the Fast-Track procedure for dealing with public access complaints established by the Ombudsman can improve and accelerate the handling of requests concerning access to documents;
Amendment 2 #
2021/2025(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. UEmphasizes the responsibility of the PETI committee in identifying and alerting to possible breaches of the rule of law; strongly believes that fundamental rights can be effectively guaranteed only if rule of law prevails; underlines the high number of petitions received from citizens concerned about the alleged breaches of the rule of law in their respective countries and with the consequences of such breaches on their lives, notably affecting legal certainty; stresses that full protection of Union citizens’ rights can be ensured throughout the Union only if all Member States comply with all the principles underlying the rule of law, as; is of the opinion, that deficiencies in one Member State could have an impact on other Member States and the Union as a whole;
Amendment 3 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 15
Citation 15
— having regard to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the European Social Charter, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Committee of Social Rights, the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM) and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML) and the conventions, recommendations, resolutions, opinions and reports of the Parliamentary Assembly, the Committee of Ministers, the Human Rights Commissioner, the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance, the Steering Committee on Anti- Discrimination, Diversity and Inclusion, the Venice Commission, the Advisory Committee on the FCNM, the Committee of Experts of the ECRML and other bodies of the Council of Europe,
Amendment 7 #
2021/2025(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that, despite repeated requests by Parliament and some Member States, the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report fails to encompass thesignificant areas of democracy and fundamental rights; calls on the Commission to ensure equal treatment of all the Union’s founding values in its next report; believes that the Commission must also involve independent expert, including the rights of national and linguistic minorities; stresses the need for improvement concerning the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as the expectations of Europeans go beyond the actual scope of the Charter; calls on the Commission to ensure equal treatment of all the Union’s founding values as enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union in its next report; believes that the Commission must consult as many stakeholders as possible, particularly legal practitioners and fundamental rights experts, from the Member States and European organisations in this annual exercise in order to guarantee full credibility, and also provide clear indications on follow-up actions for any shortcomings detected;
Amendment 14 #
2021/2025(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Reminds that, the main aim of the rule of law mechanism exercise should remain to encourage and support Member States to strengthen their rule of law culture, based on constructive dialogue, mutual trust, and sharing of best practices between the EU institutions and the Member States;
Amendment 17 #
2021/2025(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Criticises the failure ofReminds the Council to make progress by applying sanctions in the ongoing procedures under Article 7 of the TEU, confirmunderlying that the Union remains structurally badly equipped to counteris one of the places in the world with the highest rule of law violationstandards; highlights that, in any case, a full and effective use of all tools available at Union level, such as infringement procedures, the procedures enshrined in the Common Provisions Regulation and Conditionality Regulation1 , the Rule of Law Framework and Article 7 of the TEU, must be made to address breaches of the rule of law; underlines citizens’ high expectations expressed in petitions asking for a proper and rapid Union level response to put an end to such violations; _________________ 1 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget.
Amendment 19 #
2021/2025(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Calls on the Commission to develop a comprehensive rule of law methodology, which sets transparent and clear rules for assessment and ensures equal treatment of all Member States; reminds the Commission at its role as guardian of the Treaties to ensure the respect of EU law in an objective manner, while taking into account the concerns of all Europeans;
Amendment 24 #
2021/2025(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Regrets that the report fails to fully address all Union values set out in Article 2 of the TEU, such as democracy and fundamental rights, including the rights of minorities; reiterates the need to have a single monitoring system for democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, as proposed by Parliament1 ; calls on the Council and the Commission to engage in discussions to set up such a mechanism via an interinstitutional agreement; _________________ 1European Parliament resolution of 7 October 2020 on the establishment of an EU Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights (texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0251).
Amendment 31 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
C a. whereas respect for the rights of minorities is a part of the political criteria an accession-candidate country must fulfil at the time of accession; whereas while the Union has an important role in ensuring respect for the rights of national and linguistic minorities in candidate- countries, it so far hasn't yet adopted any benchmarks for its Member States in this area, thus making possible that Member States backtrack on their commitments; whereas the 2020 report, too, misses to cover the rights of national and linguistic minorities;
Amendment 32 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
C b. whereas the European Parliament has already called on the European Commission to adopt a common framework of Union minimum standards for the protection of rights of persons belonging to minorities, which are strongly embedded in a legal framework guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights throughout the Union1a; _________________ 1aEuropean Parliament Resolution of 13 November 2018 on minimum standards for minorities in the EU (OJ C 363, 28.10.2020, p. 13)
Amendment 36 #
2021/2025(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Points out that the role of the rule of law monitoring mechanism in Member States should be to secure high rule of law standards based on objective standards and an approach based on impartiality and mutual respect and to remedy identified deficiencies based on a close dialogue and support provided by the Commission;
Amendment 41 #
2021/2025(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that the Court of Justice of the European Union recently rulconfirmed2 that civil society organisations must be able to operate without unjustified interference by the state, acknowledging that the right to freedom of association constitutes one of the essential bases of a democratic and pluralist society; is seriously concerned that some NGOs active in the area of migration and LGBTI+ rights are subject to smear campaigns, and face severmay face restriction of the civic space where they can operate. _________________ 2Judgment of 18 June 2020, Commission v Hungary, C-78/18, EU:C:2020:476, paragraphs 112 and 113.
Amendment 55 #
2021/2025(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Highlights that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a deleterious impact on fundamental rights as well as on constitutional checks and balancesforced national authorities to take previously unforeseen but necessary restrictions on the fundamental rights of citizens for the public good; insists that any measures restricting the rights and freedoms of EU citizens should be limited to what is necessary, transparent, proportional and temporary; calls on the Commission to further analyse measures taken in response to the COVID- 19 pandemic in its 2021 report.
Amendment 122 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Decries the fact that the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings before the Court of Justice of the EU has been declared unlawful in Member Snot applicable; tatkes subject to Article 7 of the TEU; is appalled by the growing resistance of some Member States to comply with CJEU rulings on the grounds of sovereignty or unconstitutionality; believes that these developments pose a systemicnote that some courts in some Member States have reservations to CJEU rulings; reminds that the competence conflict between EU law and constitutional reservations was never solved in the threat to the Union; considers, therefore,ies; is of the view that forthcoming annual reports should consider those challenges to the Union’s legal architecture and principles as serious violations in the assessment;
Amendment 209 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Calls on the Commission to include in its next reports detailed analyses and recommendations on the situation of the rights of autochthonous national and linguistic minorities, including through the involvement of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights; stresses that this is an area where it should establish strong links and synergies with the Council of Europe, and in particular with its Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages;
Amendment 303 #
2021/2025(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
Amendment 24 #
2021/2019(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital R a (new)
Recital R a (new)
Ra. whereas the Committee on Petitions as associated committee together with the committees responsible for the subject-matter (Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) and the Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) organised a public hearing on the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) entitled ‘Minority Safepack – one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ on 15 October 2020; whereas due to the pandemic, the hearing was held in hybrid format, ECI organisers could take part at the meeting remotely, while the public could follow the meeting via webstreaming;
Amendment 80 #
2021/2019(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Points out the importance of the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), as a unique tool of European participative democracy for the Committee on Petitions; underlines that the public hearing is a key opportunity for the organisers to publicly present their initiative to the EU institutions and experts enabling the Commission and the Parliament to obtain a thorough understanding of the desired ECI outcomes;
Amendment 51 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The Union continues to be concerned with the rise in environmental criminal offences and their effects, which undermine the effectiveness of Union environmental legislation. These offences are moreover increasingly extending beyond the borders of the Member States in which the offences are committed. Such offences pose a threat to the environment and therefore call for an appropriate and effective response. The improvement of cross-border cooperation that works in a more systematic manner between competent national and European authorities would help to better implement European environmental criminal law.
Amendment 118 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) Furthermore, judicial and administrative authorities in the Member States should have at their disposal a range of criminal sanctions and other measures to address different types of criminal behaviour in a tailored and effective manner. The approximation of sanction levels across the EU should promote more effective fight against environmental crimes.
Amendment 129 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Other persons may also possess valuable information concerning potential environmental criminal offences. They may be members of the community affected or members of society at large taking an active part in protecting the environment. Such persons who report environmental crimes as well as persons who cooperate with the enforcement of such offences should be provided the necessary support and assistance in the context of criminal proceedings, so that they are not disadvantaged for their cooperation but supported and assisted. Reporting of potential environmental criminal offences with cross-border effect should be facilitated via an online platform. These persons should also be protected from being harassed or unduly prosecuted for reporting such offences or their cooperation in the criminal proceedings.
Amendment 138 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) To ensure an effective, integrated and coherent enforcement system that includes administrative, civil and criminal law measures, Member States should organise internal cooperation and communication between all actors along the administrative and criminal enforcement chains and between punitive and remedial sanctioning actors. Following the applicable rules, Member States should also cooperate through EU agencies, in particular Eurojust and Europol, as well as with EU bodies, including the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), in their respective areas of competence. The cooperation and coordination at EU level, involving mainly Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) should be strengthened to support investigations and prosecutions. In this regard, the Commission should assess the possibility of extending the jurisdiction of the European Public Prosecutor's Office to environmental crimes.
Amendment 149 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The Union continues to be concerned with the rise in environmental criminal offences and their effects, which undermine the effectiveness of Union environmental legislation. These offences are moreover increasingly extending beyond the borders of the Member States in which the offences are committed. Such offences pose a threat to the environment and therefore call for an appropriate and effective response. The improvement of cross-border cooperation that works in a more systematic manner between competent national and European authorities would help to better implement European environmental criminal law.
Amendment 152 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) To effectively tackle the criminal offences referred to in this Directive, it is necessary that competent authorities in the Member States collect and keep up-to-date accurate, consistent and comparable data on the scale of and trends in environmental offences and the efforts to combat them and their results. These data should be used for preparing statistics to serve the operational and strategic planning of enforcement activities as well as for providing information to citizens. Member States should collect and report to the Commission and competent EU bodies and agencies relevant statistical data on environmental offences. The Commission should regularly assess and publish the results based on the data transmitted by the Member States.
Amendment 188 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) Furthermore, judicial and administrative authorities in the Member States should have at their disposal a range of criminal sanctions and other measures to address different types of criminal behaviour in a tailored and effective manner. The approximation of sanction levels across the EU should promote more effective fight against environmental crimes.
Amendment 197 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Other persons may also possess valuable information concerning potential environmental criminal offences. They may be members of the community affected or members of society at large taking an active part in protecting the environment. Such persons who report environmental crimes as well as persons who cooperate with the enforcement of such offences should be provided the necessary support and assistance in the context of criminal proceedings, so that they are not disadvantaged for their cooperation but supported and assisted. Reporting of potential environmental criminal offences with cross-border effect should be facilitated via an online platform. These persons should also be protected from being harassed or unduly prosecuted for reporting such offences or their cooperation in the criminal proceedings.
Amendment 205 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point n a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point n a (new)
(n a) any conduct leading to wildfire, which causes or likely to cause death or serious injury to any person or substantial damage to the environment;
Amendment 207 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) To ensure an effective, integrated and coherent enforcement system that includes administrative, civil and criminal law measures, Member States should organise internal cooperation and communication between all actors along the administrative and criminal enforcement chains and between punitive and remedial sanctioning actors. Following the applicable rules, Member States should also cooperate through EU agencies, in particular Eurojust and Europol, as well as with EU bodies, including the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), in their respective areas of competence. The cooperation and coordination at EU level, involving mainly Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) should be strengthened to support investigations and prosecutions. In this regard, the Commission should assess the possibility of extending the jurisdiction of the European Public Prosecutor's Office to environmental crimes.
Amendment 209 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point n b (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point n b (new)
(n b) illegal harvest and transportation of timber;
Amendment 211 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) To effectively tackle the criminal offences referred to in this Directive, it is necessary that competent authorities in the Member States collect and keep up-to-date accurate, consistent and comparable data on the scale of and trends in environmental offences and the efforts to combat them and their results. These data should be used for preparing statistics to serve the operational and strategic planning of enforcement activities as well as for providing information to citizens. Member States should collect and report to the Commission and competent EU bodies and agencies relevant statistical data on environmental offences. The Commission should regularly assess and publish the results based on the data transmitted by the Member States.
Amendment 256 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point a
(a) obligation to reinstate the environmentor finance the remediation of the environment in accordance with the polluter pays principle and within a given time period;
Amendment 259 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point n a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point n a (new)
(n a) any conduct leading to wildfire, which causes or likely to cause death or serious injury to any person or substantial damage to the environment;
Amendment 262 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point g a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point g a (new)
(g a) additional sanctions or measures in point c) - f), when appropriate, shall be introduced with an EU-wide effect.
Amendment 262 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point n b (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point n b (new)
(n b) illegal harvest and transportation of timber.
Amendment 272 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point k
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point k
(k) publication of the judicial decision relating to the conviction or any sanctions or measures applied and EU-wide publication of the judicial decision with cross-border relevance.
Amendment 293 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 5 – point d a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 5 – point d a (new)
(d a) the polluter pays principle
Amendment 310 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point a
(a) obligation to reinstate the environmentor finance the remediation of the environment in accordance with the polluter pays principle and within a given time period;
Amendment 320 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point g a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point g a (new)
(g a) additional sanctions or measures in point c) - f), when appropriate, shall be introduced with an EU-wide effect.
Amendment 334 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. The Commission with the cooperation of Europol and the Member States shall establish an EU-wide green line for easy and secure reporting of criminal offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 of this Directive available in all official EU languages.
Amendment 337 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – title
Article 14 – title
Rights for the public concerned to access information and participate in proceedings
Amendment 342 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that, in accordance with their national legal system, members of the public concerned have appropriate rights to access information and participate in proceedings concerning offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4, for instance as a civil party.
Amendment 343 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point k
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point k
(k) publication of the judicial decision relating to the conviction or any sanctions or measures applied and EU-wide publication of the judicial decision with cross-border relevance.
Amendment 352 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Without prejudice to judicial independence and differences in the organisation of the judiciary across the Union, Member States shall request those responsible for the training of judges, prosecutors, police, judicial staff and competent authorities’ staff involved in criminal proceedings and investigations to provide at regular intervals specialised training and exchange of best practices at EU level with respect to the objectives of this Directive and appropriate to the functions of the involved staff and authorities.
Amendment 359 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 a (new)
Article 19 a (new)
Article 19 a Cooperation at European level Member States, the Commission and the EU agencies, bodies and offices (Eurojust, Europol, European Public Prosecutor's Office, OLAF) shall, within their respective mandates and competences, establish and maintain close cooperation with each other in the prevention and the fight against environmental criminal offences.
Amendment 422 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. The Commission with the cooperation of Europol and the Member States shall establish an EU-wide green line for easy and secure reporting of criminal offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 of this Directive available in all official EU languages.
Amendment 424 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – title
Article 14 – title
Rights for the public concerned to access information and participate in proceedings
Amendment 427 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that, in accordance with their national legal system, members of the public concerned have appropriate rights to access information and participate in proceedings concerning offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4, for instance as a civil party.
Amendment 437 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Without prejudice to judicial independence and differences in the organisation of the judiciary across the Union, Member States shall request those responsible for the training of judges, prosecutors, police, judicial staff and competent authorities’ staff involved in criminal proceedings and investigations to provide at regular intervals specialised training and exchange of best practices at EU level with respect to the objectives of this Directive and appropriate to the functions of the involved staff and authorities.
Amendment 451 #
2021/0422(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 a (new)
Article 19 a (new)
Article 19 a Cooperation at European level Member States, the Commission and the EU agencies, bodies and offices (Eurojust, Europol, EuropeanPublic Prosecutor's Office, OLAF) shall, within their respective mandates and competences, establish and maintain close cooperation with each other in the prevention and the fight against environmental criminal offences.
Amendment 4 #
2021/0399(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council9 provides for harmonised rules for the protection and the free movement of personal data processed for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against, and the prevention of threats to public security. That Directive requires Member States to process personal data in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data. The Directive requires the Commission to review relevant other acts of Union law in order to assess the need to align them with that Directive and to make, where necessary, the proposals to amend those acts to ensure a consistent approach to the protection of personal data falling within the scope of that Directive. _________________ 9 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89).
Amendment 6 #
2021/0399(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
Amendment 46 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) To combat terrorism effectively, efficient exchange of information for investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences between competent authorities and Union agencies is crucial. It is essential to have the most complete and updated information possible and to systematically share that information using a common structure. The persistence of the terrorist threat and the complexity of the phenomenon raise the need for an ever greater exchange of information.
Amendment 49 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) As terrorist organisations are increasingly involved in other forms of serious and organised crimes, such as trafficking in human beings, drug trafficking or money laundering, it is also necessary to cross- check judicial proceedings against such serious crimes.
Amendment 62 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) FThe exchange of reliable identification data is crucial for the identification of cross-links between terrorism investigations and judicial proceedings against suspects of terrorist offences, reliable identification data is crucial. D. The use of biometric data is therefore vital due to the uncertainties regarding alphanumerical data especially for third country nationals, it should be possible to exchange biometric data. Due to the sensitive nature of biometric data and the impact processing of biometric data has onthe use of fake and double identities by suspects as well as the fact that such data often are the only link to the suspects in the investigative phase. Member states should the respect fore private and family life and the protection of personal data, as enshrined in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, a strict necessity test should be appliedovide such information in cases where the national judicial authorities have access to it. Due to the sensitive nature of biometric data, a strict purpose limitation should be put in place with regard to such data by the competent authorities and Eurojust in each case.
Amendment 67 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) As information about existing cross-links to other judicial proceedings is most useful at an early stage of the investigation, it is necessary that the competent authorities provide information to Eurojust as soon as judicial authorities are involvedthe case is referred to a judicial authority, in accordance with national law. If the competent national authorities are already aware of cross-links, they should inform Eurojust accordingly.
Amendment 73 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) Given the sensitive nature of judicial proceedings against suspects of terrorist offences, it is not always possible for the competent national authorities to share the information on terrorist offences at the earliest stage. Such derogations from the obligation to provide information should remain an exceptiononly be applied in strictly exceptional situations.
Amendment 76 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16 a (new)
Recital 16 a (new)
(16 a) In order to serve its purposes under Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 and other applicable Union law, the case management system should be linked to other relevant Union IT systems, such as the Schengen Information System (SIS), ECRIS-TCN and the JIT Collaboration Platform, in accordance with Union law. Access to the information in such systems should be provided based on the rules set out in provisions on the respective IT systems.
Amendment 84 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) Terrorist activities very often affect two or more Member States. Terrorism already had a strong transnational component in the past. However, with the use and availability of electronic communication, transnational collaboration between terrorist offenders has increased significantly. Therefore, terrorist offences should be considered per se transnational in their nature, if the specific circumstances of the case do not clearly indicate a purely national character.
Amendment 90 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) Investigations and prosecutions in terrorism cases are often impeded by the lack of information exchange between national investigation and prosecution authorities. In order to be ablet is therefore necessary to extend the time limits for storing data in the European Judicial Counter-Terrorism Register. In addition, the possibility to cross -check new terrorist investigations also with previous investigations ancould establish potential links, it is necessary to store the data on any previous investigations, not only on convictions and to extend the time limits for storing data in the European Judicial Counter-Terrorism Register and entail the need for cooperation. Such cross- checking might reveal that a person suspected or prosecuted in an ongoing case in a Member State was suspected or prosecuted in a concluded case in another Member State. It might also establish links between ongoing investigations or prosecutions which could have been hidden otherwise. This is the case even where previous investigations ended in an acquittal or in a final decision not to prosecute. It is therefore necessary to store the data on any previous investigations, not only on convictions. However, it is necessary to ensure that such data is processed for prosecution purposes only. The information may not be used for anything else but identifying links with ongoing investigations and prosecutions and for the support of those investigations and prosecutions.
Amendment 102 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Regulation (EU) 2018/1727
Article 21a – paragraph 1
Article 21a – paragraph 1
1. The competent national authorities shall inform their national members of any ongoing or concluded criminal investigations supervised by judicial authorities, prosecutions, court proceedings and court decisions on terrorist offences as soon as judicial authorities are involvedthe case is referred to the judicial authorities, in accordance with national law. That obligation shall apply to all criminal investigations related to terrorist offences regardless of whether there is a known link to another Member State or a third country, unless the criminal investigation, due to its specific circumstances, clearly affects only one Member State.
Amendment 104 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Regulation (EU) 2018/1727
Article 21a – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 21a – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Paragraph 1 shall not apply where: a) the sharing of information would jeopardise a current investigation or the safety of an individual;or b) the sharing of information would be contrary to essential security interests of the Member State concerned.
Amendment 105 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Regulation (EU) 2018/1727
Article 21a – paragraph 2
Article 21a – paragraph 2
2. Terrorist offences for the purpose of this Article are offences referred to in Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council*. The obligation referred to in paragraph 1 shall apply to all terrorist offences regardless whether there is a known link to another Member State or third country, unless the case, due to its specific circumstances, clearly affects only one Member State.
Amendment 108 #
2021/0393(COD)
3. The information transmitted in accordance with paragraph 1 shall include the operational personal data and non- personal data listed in Annex III the competent national authorities have access to. In case of personal data referred to in Annex III, point d, however, that data shall only be transmitted if the transmission is necessary to reliably identify a person referred to in Article 27(5).
Amendment 111 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Regulation (EU) 2018/1727
Article 21a – paragraph 5
Article 21a – paragraph 5
Amendment 113 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Regulation (EU) 2018/1727
Article 22a – paragraph 1
Article 22a – paragraph 1
1. The communication between the competent national authorities and Eurojust under this Regulation shall be carried out through the decentralised IT system as defined in Regulation (EU) [.../…] of the European Parliament and of the Council* [Regulation on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation]. The case management system referred to in Article 23 of this Regulation shall be connected to the decentralised IT system.
Amendment 118 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Regulation (EU) 2018/1727
Article 22a – paragraph 3
Article 22a – paragraph 3
3. The competent national authorities shall transmit the information in accordance with Articles 21 and 21a to Eurojust in a semi-automated manner from national registers and in a structured way determined by Eurojustthe Commission, in consultation with Eurojust, by means of an implementing act, pursuant to Articles 22b and 22c.
Amendment 119 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Regulation (EU) 2018/1727
Article 22a – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 22a – paragraph 3 a (new)
Amendment 124 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Regulation (EU) 2018/1727
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
The national members may, however, temporarily store and analyse personal data for the purpose of determining whether such data are relevant to Eurojust’s tasks and can be included in the operational datacase management system. That data may be held for up to three months.
Amendment 130 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Regulation (EU) 2018/1727
Article 24 – paragraph 3
Article 24 – paragraph 3
3. The national member shall also indicate, in general or specific terms, any restrictions on the further handling, access and transfer of the information if a cross- link referred to in Article 23(2), point (c), has been identified.
Amendment 139 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b
Regulation (EU) 2018/1727
Article 27 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Article 27 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Furthermore, Eurojust may continue to process the operational personal data referrlated to ian point (a) of the first subparagraph also after the proceedings have been concluded under the national lawacquitted person in order to identify cross-links between proceedings concluded by an acquittal, ofn the Member State concerned, even in case of an acquittal. Where the proceedings did not result in a conviction, processing of personal data may only take place in order to identify links with othone hand, and other ongoing or future investigations or prosecutions, on the other hand. That also applies to operational per songoing or concluded investigations and prosecutions as referred to in Article 23(2), point (c).;al data related to a person who has been the subject of a final decision of non-prosecution.
Amendment 143 #
2021/0393(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a
Regulation (EU) 2018/1727
Article 29 – paragraph 1a – point b
Article 29 – paragraph 1a – point b
(b) 56 years after the date on which the judicial decision of the last of the Member States concerned by the investigation or prosecution became final, 34 years in case of an acquittal. or a final decision of non- prosecution;
Amendment 73 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) The Union aquis provides for two legal frameworks to set up JITs with the participation of at least two Member States: Council Framework Decision 2002/465/JHA19 and Article 13 of the Convention established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union20 . The Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on mutual assistance and cooperation between customs administrations20a (Naples II Convention) also provides for the setup of Joint Special Investigation Teams with the goal of preventing, detecting and prosecuting infringements of Union and national customs provisions. JITs set up under the Naples II Convention should also be covered by this Regulation, provided that these JITs concern criminal investigations carried out by or under the direction of a judicial authority. Third countries can be involved in JITs as parties where there is a legal basis for such involvement, such as Article 20 of the Second Additional Protocol of the 1959 Council of Europe Convention21 and Article 5 of the Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance between the European Union and the United States of America22 . _________________ 19 Council Framework Decision 2002/465/JHA of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation teams (OJ L 162, 20.6.2002, p. 1). 20 OJ C 197, 12.7.2000, p. 3. 20a OJ C 24, 23.1.1998, p. 2. 21 CET No 182 22 OJ L 181, 19.7.2003, p. 34.
Amendment 77 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The existing legal frameworks at Union level do not set out how the entities participating in JITs exchange information and communicate. Those entities reach an agreement on such exchange and communication on the basis of the needs and available means. However, there is a lack of dedicated secure and effective channel to which all participants could have recourse and through which they could promptly exchange large volumes of information and evidence or allow for secure and effective communication. Furthermore, there is no system that would support daily management of JITs, including the traceability of evidence exchanged among the participants as well as planning and coordination of JIT operations.
Amendment 86 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) From a technical perspective, the JITs collaboration platform should be accessible via a secure connection over the internet and should be composed of a centralised information system, accessible through a web portal, communication software for mobile and desktop devices, and a connection between the centralised information system and relevant IT tools, supporting the functioning of JITs and managed by the JITs Network Secretariat.
Amendment 92 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) When designing the JITs collaboration platform, eu-LISA should ensure technical interoperability with SIENA so that data could be easily exchanged between law enforcement authorities and JITs.
Amendment 93 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Since the establishment of the Network of National Experts on Joint Investigation Teams (the ‘JITs Network’) in accordance with Council Document 11037/0524 , the JITs Network Secretariat supports the work of the JITs Network by organising annual meetings, trainings, collecting and analysing the JIT evaluation reports and managing the Eurojust’s JIT funding programme. Since 2011, the JITs Network Secretariat is hosted by Eurojust as a separate unit. To allow the JITs Network Secretariat to support users in the practical application of the JITs collaboration platform, as well as to provide technical and administrative support to JIT space administrators, Eurojust should be provided with appropriate staff allocated to the JITadditional budget and staff commensurate with the new tasks of the JITs Network Secretariat. _________________ 24 Council of the European Union, Outcome of Proceedings of Article Art 36 Committee on 7 and 8 July 2005, Item 7 of the Agenda: Joint Investigation Teams - Proposal for designation of national experts, 11037/05.
Amendment 95 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) Given the currently existing IT tools supporting operations of JITs, which are hosted at Eurojust and managed by the JIT Secretariat, it is necessary to connect the JITs collaboration platform with those IT tools, in order to facilitate the management of JITs. To that end, Eurojust should ensure the necessary technical adaptation of its systems in order to establish such connection. Eurojust should be provided with the appropriate funding and staffing to meet its responsibilities in that regard as well.
Amendment 96 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) Where appropriateIn accordance with the JIT Agreement, it should be possible for JIT space administrators to grant access to a JIT collaboration space to third countries which are parties to a JIT agreement or to international judicial authorities participating in a JIT. Any transfer of personal data to third countries or international organisations in the context of a JIT agreement is subject to compliance with the provisions set out in Chapter V of Directive (EU) 2016/680. Exchanges of operational data with third countries should be limited to those required to fulfil the purposes of the JIT agreement.
Amendment 104 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) The Commission should determine the date of the start of operations of the JITs collaboration platform once the relevant implementing acts necessary for the technical development of the JITs collaboration platform have been adopted and eu-LISA has carried out a comprehensive test of the JITs collaboration platform, in cooperation with the Member States. Upon the adoption of this Regulation and of the implementing acts necessary for the technical development of the JITs collaboration platform, eu- LISA should immediately start its activities regarding the design and implementation of the platform with a view to render the project operational as soon as possible, but not later than 1 January 2025. The Commission should ensure that eu-LISA is granted the necessary budget and staff to carry out its duties set out in this Regulation, including through creation of a separate budget line for this project.
Amendment 107 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) establishes an IT platform (the ‘JITs collaboration platform’), to be used on a voluntary basis, to facilitate the cooperation of competent authorities participating in Joint Investigation Teams (‘JITs’) set up on the basis of Article 13 of the Convention established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union, on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union or on Framework Decision 2002/465/JHA and in cases where specialised customs JITs are created for the purposes of criminal proceedings carried out by or under the direction of a judicial authority on the basis of Article 24 of the Naples II Convention;
Amendment 109 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation applies to the processing of information, including personal data, within the context of a JIT. That includes the exchange and storage of operational information and evidence as well as non-operational information. This Regulation applies to the operational and post-operational phases of a JIT, starting from the moment the relevant JIT agreement is signed by its members.
Amendment 110 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. This Regulation applies to the operational and post-operational phases of a JIT, starting from the moment the relevant JIT agreement is signed by its members until the JIT evaluation has been completed.
Amendment 112 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3
(3) ‘competent authorities’ means the authorities competent to set up a JIT as referred to in Article 1 of Framework Decision 2002/465/JHA and Article 13 of the Convention established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union or Article 24 of the Naples II Convention in cases where criminal proceedings are carried out by or under the direction of a judicial authority, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office when acting pursuant to its competences as provided for by Articles 22, 23 and 25 of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, as well as the competent authorities of a third country where they are party of a JIT agreement on the basis of an additional legal basis;
Amendment 124 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) a communication software, which allows for secure local storage of communication data;
Amendment 140 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 7
Article 7 – paragraph 7
7. eu-LISA shall ensure the provision of training on the practtechnical use of the JITs collaboration platform to the JITs Network Secretariat.
Amendment 142 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 7 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. eu-LISA shall set up a dedicated support service to address reported incidents in a timely manner.
Amendment 143 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 7 b (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 7 b (new)
7 b. eu-LISA shall continuously carry out improvements necessary for the good functioning of the JITs collaboration platform based on input it receives from the JITs Network Secretariat either directly or through its annual report referred to in Article 9a, point (e).
Amendment 148 #
2021/0391(COD)
Article 9 a Responsibilities of the JITs Network Secretariat 1. The JITs Network Secretariat shall support the functioning of the JITs collaboration platform by: (a) providing, at the request of the JIT space administrator or administrators, administrative, legal and technical support in the context of the setup and access rights management of individual JIT collaboration spaces, pursuant to Article 12; (b) providing day-to-day guidance, functional support, and assistance to practitioners on the use of the JITs collaboration platform and its functionalities; (c) designing training-and outreach modules for national authorities aiming to promote and facilitate the use of the JITs collaboration platform; (d) enhancing a culture of cooperation within the Union in relation to international cooperation in criminal matters by raising awareness and promoting the use of the JITs collaboration platform among practitioners, and by collecting their feedback on its practical use; (e) keeping, after the start of operations of the JITs collaboration platform, eu-LISA informed of additional technical requirements of the system by drafting an annual report on the potential improvements of the platform based on the feedback it receives from users.
Amendment 149 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. The Programme Management Board shall meet at least once every three months, and more often as necessary. It shall ensure the adequate management of the design and development phase of the JITs collaboration platform. The Programme Management Board shall submit written reports regularly to the Management Board of eu-LISA, and where possible every month, on the progress of the project. The Programme Management Board shall have no decision-making power nor any mandate to represent the members of the eu-LISA Management Board, which will remain responsible for the implementation of the project within the required deadline and within the limits of the allocated budget.
Amendment 153 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Following the design and implementation phase of the JITs collaboration platform, the Advisory Group shall support the eu-LISA Management Board with technical expert advice relating to the evolution and further development of the existing systems.
Amendment 157 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. In cases where a JIT agreement is to be set up under Article 24 of the Naples II Convention, the JIT collaboration space shall be created only after the JITs Network Secretariat has satisfied itself that the investigation concerns criminal proceedings carried out by or under the direction of a judicial authority on the basis of Article 24 of the Naples II Convention. In such cases the access rights of the JITs collaboration platform users to the JIT collaboration space shall also be approved by the JITs Network Secretariat.
Amendment 194 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3
Article 22 – paragraph 3
3. In the event of substantial delays in the development process, eu-LISA shall inform the European Parliament and the Council as soon as possible of the reasons for the delays and of, their impact in terms of timeframes and finances and the steps it intends to take to remedy the situation.
Amendment 197 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 7
Article 22 – paragraph 7
7. FourTwo years after the start of operations of the JITs collaboration platform and every four years thereafter, the Commission shall conduct an overall evaluation of the JITs collaboration platform. The Commission shall transmit the overall evaluation report to the European Parliament and the Council.
Amendment 198 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 8
Article 22 – paragraph 8
8. The Member States’ competent authorities, Eurojust, Europol, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, OLAF and other competent Union bodies, offices and agencies shall provide eu-LISA and the Commission with the information on their use of the JITs collaboration platform necessary to draft the reports referred to in paragraphs 4 and 7. That information shall not jeopardise working methods or include information that reveals sources, names of staff members or investigations.
Amendment 200 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the relevant implementing acts referred to in Article 6 have been adopted;
Amendment 203 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 24 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Where delays are reported in accordance with Article 22(3), which may potentially jeopardize to meet the deadline for the start of operations provided for in paragraph 1, the Commission, jointly with eu-LISA, shall put in place a contingency planning to remedy the situation.
Amendment 205 #
2021/0391(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) 2018/1726
Article 8b
Article 8b
(b) tasks relating to training on the technical use of the JITs collaboration platform, including provision of online training mate provided to the JITs Network Secretarialst.
Amendment 55 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The 1992 Treaty on the European Union introduced the legal concept of EU citizenship with the aim to strengthen the protection of the rights and interests of the nationals of its Member States by adding to existing EU entitlements a number of new political and electoral rights. Article 20(2), point (b) and Article 22(2) of the of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU) confers on Union citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament in their Member State of residence under the same conditions as nationals of the host Member State. The right, which is also affirmed in Article 39 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter) gives specific expression to the principle of equality and non-discrimination on grounds of nationality set out in Article 21. It is also a corollary of the right to move and reside freely enshrined in Article 20(2) point (a) and Article 21 TFEU and Article 45 of the Charter. The right also allows citizens to effectively participate in the democratic life of the Union and to have a stake in the European Union as a political entity.
Amendment 57 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Article 20 (2) TFEU is concerned only with the possibility of exercising the right of vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament and is without prejudice to Article 223(1) TFEU , which provides for the establishment of a uniform procedure for elections to the European Parliament in all Member States in accordance with principles common to all Member States for those elections.
Amendment 60 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6 a (new)
Recital 6 a (new)
(6 a) Non-national Union citizens should receive information about the possibility of voting or standing as a candidate at the moment they register as residents of a Member State of which they are not nationals.
Amendment 61 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The freedom of Union citizens to choose the Member State in which to take part in elections to the European Parliament must be respected, while the appropriate measures to ensure that no one may vote more than once or stand as a candidate in more than one country. Given that most Member States allow mobile European citizens to retain under national law their right to vote for a home country list, the possibility to choose between two or more countries to vote in requires that clear information be provided to mobile citizens and Member States coordinate among themselves to reduce the risk of multiple voting. Therefore, the freedom of Union citizens to choose the Member State in which to take part in elections to the European Parliament must be respected, while the appropriate measures to ensure that no one may vote more than once or stand as a candidate in more than one country. When receiving information about the possibility of voting or standing as a candidate in their Member State of residence, non- national Union citizens should be duly informed that they may vote or stand as candidate either in their home country or in their country of residence, dependent on their choice and the applicable national provisions.
Amendment 64 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) In line with International and European standards, including, the requirements of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the law of the European Convention on Human Rights, Member States should not only recognize and respect the right of Union citizens to vote and to stand as a candidate but also ensure easythat access to their electoral rights by removing as manis as easy as possible by removing any unnecessary obstacles to participation in elections as possible.
Amendment 67 #
2021/0372(CNS)
(9) In order to facilitate the exercise by Union citizens of their right to vote and to stand as a candidate in their country of residence, such citizens should be entered on the electoral roll in sufficient time in advance of polling day. The formalities applicable to their registration should be as simple as possible. When they register as residents of a Member State of which they are not nationals, non-national Union citizens should be offered the possibility to express their decision to register to vote in the country of residence and should be informed about the possibility to stand as a candidate and submit an application in that regard. If they do not wish to do so at the moment of registration as residents, they should have the right to express their decision later. It should be sufficient for the Union citizens concerned to produce a valid identity card and, in duly justified cases, a formal declaration that includes elements evidencing their entitlement to participate in the elections. Once registered, non- national Union citizens should remain on the electoral roll under the same conditions as Union citizens who are nationals of the Member State concerned, for as long as they satisfy the conditions for exercising the right to vote. Additionally, Union citizens should provide the competent authorities with contact information, enabling those authorities to keep them informed on a regular basis.
Amendment 73 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) In order to ensure equal treatment of non-national Union citizens seeking to exercise the right to stand as candidates for election in their Member State of residence, such citizens should be required to produce the same supporting documents as those required from candidates who are nationals of the Member State concerned. However, in order to establish that such citizens are beneficiaries of the right laid down in Article 20(2)(b) and Article 22(2) TFEU, in duly justified cases, Member States should be able to require the production of a formal declaration that includes elements necessary to evidence their entitlement to stand in the elections in question.
Amendment 74 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) Union citizens who have been deprived of their right to vote and to stand as candidates, on the basis of an individual civil law or criminal law decision taken by the competent authority, should be precluded from exercising that right in the Member State of residence in elections to the European Parliament. When receiving an application for registration as a voter, Member States may require from the citizen concerned a formal declaration confirming that they have not been deprived of their right to vote. When standing as candidates in their country of residence, Union citizens should beit should be possible for the country of residence to required tohat Union citizens produce a statement confirming that they have not been deprived of the right to stand in the elections to the European Parliament. Those requirements should apply only when they are also applicable to the nationals of the Member State of residence.
Amendment 77 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) The information exchange between Member States to prevent multiple voting or instances where the same person would stand as a candidate more than once at the same election should not prevent their nationals from voting or standing as candidates in other types of elections. To facilitate communication between national authorities, Member States should be required to designate one contact point for that information exchange. A secure tool was developed in the past by the Commission to be used by the Member States under their responsibility to exchange the necessary data. That secure tool should be incorporated in this Directive, to further support exchanges between Member States’ competent authorities. Member States will act as separate controllers for their processing of personal data in this regard.
Amendment 79 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) The lack of adequate information, in the context of electoral procedures, affects citizens in the exercise of their electoral rights as part of their rights as Union citizens. It also affects the capacity of competent authorities to exercise their rights and to deliver on their obligations. Member States should be required to designate authorities with special responsibilities for providing appropriate information to Union citizens on their rights under Article 20(2), point (b), and Article 22(2) TFEU and the national rules and procedures regarding participation in and the organization of elections to the European Parliament. In turn, designated authorities should be able to cooperate with relevant civil society organisations in disseminating information on electoral procedures. In order to ensure the effectiveness of communications, information should be provided in clear and comprehensible terms.
Amendment 81 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20 a (new)
Recital 20 a (new)
(20 a) In order to increase the electoral participation of non-national Union citizens, Member States should provide appropriate information to Union citizens on the right to vote and on the administrative steps to exercise that right. Such information should be provided when the residence of non-national Union citizens is registered, later on, upon request, and sufficiently in advance of European elections.
Amendment 85 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) In order to improve the accessibility of electoral information, suchessential information on electoral rights should be made available in at least one otherll official languages of the Union than that or those of the host Member State, broadly understood by the largest possible number of Union citizens residing on its territory. Member States may use different official languages of the Union in specific parts of their territory or their regions depending on the language understood by the largest group of Union citizens residing therein. The Commission should complement such measures by providing information to EU citizens about electoral rights and electoral procedures via a dedicated information portal available in all languages of the Union and through outreach communication actions via the SOLVIT service.
Amendment 87 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
Amendment 91 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
Recital 23
Amendment 94 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
Recital 24
Amendment 97 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) It is necessary that the Commission conduct its own evaluation of the application of this Directive within a reasonable timeframe after at least twono later than 18 months after each elections to the European Parliament.
Amendment 101 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 5
Article 6 – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall designate a contact point to receive and transmit the information necessary for the application of paragraph 3. They shall communicate to the Commission the name and contact details of the contact point and any updated information orshould there be changes concerning it. The Commission shall keep a list of contact points and make it available to the Member States.
Amendment 102 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. When registering non-national EU citizens as residents, Member States shall offer them the possibility to express their option to register to vote in the country of residence and shall inform them about the possibility to stand as a candidate and submit an application in this regard. Should they not wish to do so at the moment of registration as residents, they shall maintain the right to express this option afterwards. When offering information about the possibility of voting or standing as a candidate, Member States of residence shall duly inform non- national Union citizens that they have the right to choose to vote or stand as candidate either in their home country or in their country of residence.
Amendment 106 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) state in their declaration under paragraph 2 that they have not been deprived of the right to vote in their home Member State, if such requirement also applies to nationals of the Member State of residence;
Amendment 107 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4
Article 9 – paragraph 4
4. Union voters who have been entered on the electoral roll shall remain thereon, under the same conditions as voters who are nationals, until they request to be removed or until they are removed because they no longer satisfy the requirements for exercising the right to vote. Where provisions are in place to notify nationals of such a removal from the electoral roll, these provisions shall apply to Union voters in the same wayas well.
Amendment 109 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. The Member State of residence shall inform the persons concerned in good time and in clear and plain language of the decision taken on their application for entry on the electoral roll or of the decision concerning the admissibility of their application to stand as a candidate, including the possibilities available to appeal the decision.
Amendment 111 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Article 11 – paragraph 3
3. In case of errors in the electoral rolls or in the lists of candidates to the European Parliament, the persons concerned shall be entitled to legal remedies on similar terms as the laws of the Member State of residence prescribe for voters and persons entitled to stand as candidates who are its nationals.
Amendment 112 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Article 11 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall inform clearly and in a timely manner, the persons concerned of the decision referred to in paragraph 1 and of the legal remedies referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3.
Amendment 113 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall provide appropriate information to non-national Union citizens on the right to vote and on the administrative steps to exercise that right. Such information shall be provided when the residence of non-national Union citizens is registered, later on, upon request, and sufficiently in advance of European elections. Member States shall designate a national authority with responsibility for taking the necessary measures to ensure that non-national Union citizens are informed in a timely manner of the conditions and detailed rules for registration as a voter or candidate in elections to the European Parliament. Designated authorities shall be endowed with the capacity to cooperate with relevant civil society organisations in disseminating information on electoral procedures.
Amendment 115 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) means of obtaining further information relating to the organisation of the election including the list of candidates or special measures for persons with disabilities.
Amendment 117 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The information on conditions and detailed rules for registration as a voter or candidate in elections to the European Parliament and the information referred to in paragraph 2 shall be provided in clear and plain language. in accordance with the quality requirements of Article 9 of Regulation (EU)2018/1724 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a. _________________ 1a Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October 2018 establishing a single digital gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to assistance and problem-solving services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 1).
Amendment 118 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 119 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
The Commission shall complement such measures with information services to EU citizens about electoral rights and electoral procedures via a dedicated information portal available in all languages of the Union and through outreach communication actions via the SOLVIT service.
Amendment 125 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Member States that provide for the possibilities of advance voting, postal voting, and electronic and internet voting, in elections to the European Parliament shall ensure the availability of those voting methods to Union voters under similarthe same conditions as the onesose applicable to their own nationals.
Amendment 126 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Member States shall designate an authority with responsibility for collecting and providing relevant statistical data based on common indicators to the public and the Commission, on the participation of Union citizens who are not nationals in elections to the European Parliament.
Amendment 127 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16
Article 16
Amendment 132 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
1. Within six months after each election to the European Parliament Member States shall send information to the Commission on the application of this Directive in their territory. In addition to general observations, the report shall contain statistical data on the participation in elections to the European Parliament of Union voters and Union citizens entitled to stand as candidates and a summary of the measures taken to support it. Member States shall also provide information on the efficiency of exchanges to prevent double voting with other Member States.
Amendment 137 #
2021/0372(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Within two years after the 202918 months after each elections to the European Parliament, the Commission shall assess its application and produce an evaluation report on the progress towards achievement of the objectives contained herein. The evaluation shall also include a review on the functioning of Article 13.
Amendment 51 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Combining both direct and indirect supervisory competences over obliged entities, and also functioning as a support and cooperation mechanism for FIUs, is the most appropriate means of bringing about supervision and cooperation between FIUs and other EU institutions, offices, bodies and agencies involved in the AML/CFT framework at Union level. This should be achieved by creating an Authority which should combine independence and a high level of technical expertise and which should be established in line with the Joint Statement and Common Approach of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on decentralised agencies32 . _________________ 32 https://europa.eu/european- union/sites/default/files/docs/body/joint_st atement_and_common_approach_2012_en. pdf.
Amendment 53 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) The powers of the Authority should allow it to improve AML/CFT supervision in the Union in various ways. With respect to selected obliged entities, the Authority should ensure group-wide compliance with the requirements laid down in the AML/CFT framework and any other legally binding Union acts that impose AML/CFT-related obligations on financial institutions. Furthermore, the Authority should carry out periodic reviews to ensure that all financial supervisors have adequate resources and powers necessary for the performance of their tasks. It should facilitate the functioning of the AML supervisory colleges and contribute to convergence of supervisory practices and promotion of high supervisory standards. With respect to non-financial supervisors, including self-regulatory bodies where appropriate, the Authority should coordinate peer reviews of supervisory standards and practices and request non- financial supervisors to investigate possible breaches of AML/CFT requirements. In addition, taking account of the input of other EU institutions, offices, bodies and agencies involved in the AML/CFT framework, such as Europol, the Authority should coordinate the conduct of joint analyses by FIUs and make available to FIUs IT and artificial intelligence services and tools for secure information sharing, including through hosting of FIU.net.
Amendment 54 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) With the objective to strengthen AML/CFT rules at Union level and to enhance their clarity while ensuring consistency with international standards and other legislation, it is necessary to establish the coordinating role of the Authority at Union level in relation to all types of obliged entities to assist national supervisors and promote supervisory convergence, in order to increase the efficiency of the implementation of AML/CFT measures, also in the non- financial sector. The authority’s coordinating role is also necessary to ensure cohesion and avoid duplication of tasks with other EU institutions, offices, bodies and agencies involved in the AML/CFT framework. Consequently, the Authority should be mandated to prepare regulatory technical standards, to adopt guidelines, recommendations and opinions with the aim that where supervision remains at national level, the same supervisory practices and standards apply in principle to all comparable entities. The Authority should be entrusted, due to its highly specialised expertise, with the development of a supervisory methodology, in line with a risk-based approach. Certain aspects of the methodology, which can incorporate harmonised quantitative benchmarks, such as approaches for classifying the inherent risk profile of obliged entities should be detailed in directly applicable binding regulatory measures – regulatory or implementing technical standards. Other aspects, which require wider supervisory discretion, such as approaches to assessing residual risk profile and internal controls in the obliged entities should be covered by non-binding guidelines, recommendations and opinions of the Authority. The harmonised supervisory methodology should take due account of, and where appropriate, leverage the existing supervisory methodologies relating to other aspects of supervision of the financial sector obliged entities, especially where there is interaction between AML/CFT supervision and prudential supervision. Specifically, the supervisory methodology to be developed by the Authority should be complementary to guidelines and other instruments developed by the European Banking Authority detailing approaches of prudential supervisory authorities with respect to factoring ML/TF risks in prudential supervision, in order to ensure effective interaction between prudential and AML/CFT supervision.
Amendment 58 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) In order to analyse suspicious activity affecting multiple jurisdictions, the relevant FIUs that received linked reports should be able to efficiently conduct joint analyses of cases of common interest. To this end, the Authority should be able to propose, coordinate and support with all appropriate means the joint analyses of cross-border suspicious transactions or activities. The joint analyses should be triggered where there is a need to conduct just such joint analyses pursuant to the relevant provisions in Union law. Upon the explicit consent ofApart from explicit objection by the FIUs participating in the joint analyses, the staff of the Authority supporting the conduct of joint analyses should be able to receive and process all necessary data and information, including the data and information pertaining to the analysed cases. In order to collect all relevant information in an early stage of the joint analysis and to understand the underlying criminal context, the involvement of Europol in the joint analysis may also be solicited.
Amendment 60 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) In order to improve the effectiveness of the joint analyses, the Authority should be able to initiate reviews ofdevelop methods, and procedures andfor the conduct of the joint analyses, . It shall also review these methods and procedures with the aim of determining the lessons learnt and of improving and promoting these analyses. The feedback on the joint analysis should enable the authority to issue conclusions and recommendations which would ultimately lead to the regular refinement and improvement of the methods and procedures for the conduct of joint analyses.
Amendment 61 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) In order to facilitate and improve cooperation between FIUs and the Authority, including for the purposes conducting joint analyses, the FIUs should be able to delegate one staff member per FIU to the Authority on a voluntary basis. The national FIU delegates should support the Authority’s staff in carrying out all the tasks relating to FIUs, including the conduct of joint analyses and the preparation of threat assessments and strategic analyses of money laundering and terrorist financing threats, risks and methods. Apart from the joint analyses, the Authority should encourage and facilitate various forms of mutual assistance between FIUs, including training and staff exchanges in order to improve capacity building and enable the exchange of knowledge and good practices amongst FIUs.
Amendment 62 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34 a (new)
Recital 34 a (new)
(34a) In order to ensure a close cooperation with Union law enforcement and to avoid duplication of efforts between the Authority and Europol, the working arrangement between both organisations should ensure the possibility for each of them of having a liaison officer stationed at the premises of the other entity.
Amendment 63 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) In order to establish consistent, efficient and effective supervisory and FIU-related practices and ensure common, uniform and coherent application of Union law, the Authority should be able to issue guidelines and recommendations addressed to all or category of obliged entities and all or a category of supervisory authorities and FIUs. The guidelines and recommendations could be issued pursuant to a specific empowerment in the applicable Union acts, or on the own initiative of the Authority, where there is a need to strengthen the AML/CFT framework at Union level. In the development of guidelines and recommendations the Authority could also draw upon expertise of other EU institutions, offices, bodies and agencies involved in the AML/CFT framework.
Amendment 67 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
Recital 41
(41) The Chair of the Authority should chair the General Board meetings and have a right to vote when decisions are taken by simple majority. The Commission should be a non-voting member on the General Board. Due to the complementary nature of their mandates, a representative of Europol should also be granted the status of non-voting member for the General Board in its FIU composition. To establish good cooperation with other relevant institutions, the General Board should also be able to admit other non-voting observers, such as a representative of the Single Supervisory Mechanism and of each of the three European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, EIOPA and ESMA) for the General Board in its Supervisory Composition and Europol, the EPPO and Eurojust for the General Board in its FIU composition, where matters that fall under their respective mandates are discussed or decided upon. To allow a smooth decision making process, decisions of the General Board should be taken by a simple majority, except for decisions concerning draft regulatory and implementing technical standards, guidelines and recommendations which should be taken by a qualified majority of Member State representatives in accordance with voting rules of the TFEU.
Amendment 75 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 45
Recital 45
(45) The Chair of the Authority should be appointed based on objective criteria by the Council after approval by the European Parliament. He or she should represent the Authority externally and should report on the execution of Authority’s tasks. The Chair of the Authority should be able to delegate his/her tasks relating to representation to the Vice-Chair or to a member of the Executive Board.
Amendment 81 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 59
Recital 59
(59) The Authority should establish cooperative relations with the relevant Union agencies and bodies, including Europol, Eurojust, the EPPO, and the European Supervisory Authorities, namely the European Banking Authority, the European Securities and Markets Authority and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority. To improve cross-sectoral supervision and a better cooperation between prudential and AML/CFT supervisors the Authority should also establish cooperative relations with the authorities competent for prudential supervision of financial sector obliged entities, including the European Central Bank with regard to matters relating to the tasks conferred on it by Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/201343 , as well as with resolution authorities as defined in Article 3 of Directive (EU) 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and the Council44 and designated Deposit Guarantee Schemes authorities as defined in Article 2 (1), point 18 of Directive 2014/49/EU of the European Parliament and the Council45 . To this end, the Authority should be able to conclude agreements or memoranda of understanding with such bodies, including with regard to any information exchange which is necessary for the fulfilment of the respective tasks of the Authority and these bodies. The Authorityparties involved should make itstheir best efforts to share information with sueach bodies on their requestother, within the limits posed by legal constraints, including data protection legislation. In addition, the Authority should enable effective information exchange between all financial supervisors in the AML/CFT supervisory system and the aforementioned authorities, such cooperation and information exchanges should take place in a structured and efficient way. _________________ 43 Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ L 287, 29.10.2013, p. 63). 44 Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 190). 45 Directive 2014/49/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on deposit guarantee schemes (OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 149).
Amendment 83 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 60
Recital 60
(60) Public-private partnerships (‘PPPs’) have become increasingly important cooperation and information exchange fora between FIUs, various national supervisory and law enforcement authorities and obliged entities in some Member States and at EU and international levels. Where the Authority would act as direct supervisor of selected obliged entities which are part of a PPP in any Member State, it could be beneficial for the Authority to also participate therein, on conditions determined by the relevant national public authority or authorities that set up such PPP, and with their explicit agreement. The Authority should also participate in partnerships established across multiple Member States, such as the Europol Financial Intelligence Public Private Partnership (EFIPPP).
Amendment 84 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 61
Recital 61
(61) Considering that cooperation between supervisory, administrative and law enforcement authorities is crucial for successful combatting of money laundering and terrorism financing, and certain Union authorities and bodies have specific tasks or mandates in that area, the Authority should develop its activities in synergy with the EU authorities and bodies involved in the AML/CFT framework and make sure that it is able to cooperate well with such authorities and bodies, in particular OLAF, Europol, Eurojust, and the EPPO. If there is a need to establish specific working arrangements or conclude Memoranda of Understanding between the Authority and these bodies and authorities, the Authority should be able to do so. The arrangement should be of strategic and tcooperation with Europol shall be given particular attention given the complementarity of the tasks of the Authority, especially in its FIU coordination and support mechanical nature, should not imply sharing of any confidential or operational information in possession of the Authoritysm component, with those carried out by Europol. With the exception of Europol, where cooperation should also cover operational aspects, the arrangements should be of strategic and technical nature and should account for tasks already carried out by the other Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies as regards the prevention of and fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. With the exception of Europol, the arrangements should not imply sharing of any confidential or operational information in possession of the Authority.
Amendment 85 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 62
Recital 62
(62) Since both predicate offenses as well as the crime of money laundering itself often are of global nature, and given that the Union obliged entities also operate with and in third countries, effective cooperation with all the relevant third country authorities in the areas of both supervision and functioning of FIUs are crucial for strengthening the Union AML/CFT framework. Given the Authority’s unique combination of direct and indirect supervision and FIU cooperation-related tasks and powers, it should be able to take an active role in such external cooperation arrangements, without prejudice to the respective competences of the Member States, the Union institutions, offices, Bodies and Agencies. Specifically, the Authority should be empowered to develop contacts and enter into administrative arrangements with authorities in third countries that have regulatory, supervisory and FIU-related competences. The Authority’s role could be particularly beneficial in cases where the interaction of several Union public authorities and FIUs with third country authorities concerns matters within the scope of the Authority’s tasks. In such cases, the Authority should have a leadcoordinating role in facilitating this interaction. The Authority should also undertake its activities in close consultation with other EU institutions, offices, bodies and agencies in the field of AML/CFT that already have established third-country cooperation relationships.
Amendment 90 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph -1 (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph -1 (new)
-1 The objectives listed in points (a), (b), (e) and (f) shall be pursued without prejudice to and in synergy with the complementary objectives of Europol, as defined in its founding Regulation.
Amendment 94 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Tasks listed at points (a), (b),(e) and (g) shall be pursued in close cooperation with Europol.
Amendment 95 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point c
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point c
(c) develop appropriate methods and procedures for the conduct of such joint analyses of cross-border cases, also using the analytical expertise of other EU bodies such as Europol;
Amendment 96 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point d
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point d
(d) set up, coordinate, organise and facilitate the conduct of joint analyses carried out by FIUs, taking into account analysis already carried out by other EU institutions, offices, bodies and agencies involved in the AML/CFT framework;
Amendment 97 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point e
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point e
(e) develop and make available to FIUs' and connected third parties' IT and artificial intelligence services and tools for secure information sharing, including by hosting FIU.net;
Amendment 98 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point h a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point h a (new)
(ha) Support and promote the interaction and information dissemination of FIUs with/to law enforcement agencies in general and Europol in particular;
Amendment 99 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point h b (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point h b (new)
(hb) Develop, support and promote processes for FIUs to efficiently and pro- actively detect and handle terrorist financing cases, involving also Europol intelligence;
Amendment 100 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point i
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point i
(i) in cooperation with Europol, prepare and coordinate threat assessments, strategic analyses of money laundering and terrorism financing threats, risks and methods identified by FIUs.
Amendment 101 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 6
Article 5 – paragraph 6
6. For the purpose of carrying out the tasks conferred on it by this Regulation, the Authority shall apply or take into consideration all relevant Union law, and where this Union law is composed of Directives, the national legislation transposing those Directives. Where the relevant Union law is composed of Regulations and where currently those Regulations explicitly grant options for Member States, the Authority shall apply also the national legislation exercising those options.
Amendment 102 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. With respect to FIUs in the Member States and other EU institutions, offices, bodies and agencies involved in the AML/CFT framework, the Authority shall have the following powers:
Amendment 103 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) to collect information and statistics in relation to the tasks and activities of the FIUs and other EU institutions, offices, bodies and agencies involved in the AML/CFT framework with which the Authority is cooperating;
Amendment 104 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point c
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) to obtain and, process and match information and data required for the initiation and coordination of joint analyses as specified in Article 33;
Amendment 105 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point d
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point d
(d) to issue guidelines and recommendations. with the input, when relevant, from other EU institutions, offices, bodies and agencies involved in the AML/CFT framework.
Amendment 106 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – point c
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – point c
(c) to issue guidelines and recommendations, as provided in Article 43 with the input, when relevant, from other EU institutions, offices, bodies and agencies involved in the AML/CFT framework;
Amendment 107 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 3
3. Where the scope and Union-wide relevance of thematic reviews justify coordination at Union level, they shall be carried out jointly by the relevant supervisory authorities and shall be coordinated by the Authority. The General Board in supervisory composition shall draw up a list of joint thematic reviews. The General Board in supervisory composition shall draw up a report relating to the conduct, subject-matter and outcome of each joint thematic review. The Authority shall publish that reporshare this report with the other EU institutions, offices, bodies and agencies involved in the AML/CFT framework and publish it on its website.
Amendment 108 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. The Authority shall establish and keep up to date a central database of information collected pursuant to paragraph 2. The Authority shall analyse the information received, also making use, if relevant, of information from Europol in accordance with Regulation 2016/794 and ensure that ithis analysis is made available to supervisory authorities and other EU institutions, offices, bodies and agencies involved in the AML/CFT framework on a need-to-know and confidential basis. The Authority may share the results of its analysis on its own initiative with supervisory authorities for the purposes of facilitating their supervisory activities.
Amendment 117 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 8
Article 25 – paragraph 8
8. The Authority shall refer matters for criminal prosecution to the relevant national authorities where, in carrying out its duties under this Regulation, it finds that there are serious indications of the possible existence of facts liable to constitute criminal offences. When two or more Member States are involved in facts liable to constitute criminal offences, the Authority shall consider sharing this information with Europol. In addition, the Authority shall refrain from imposing administrative pecuniary sanctions or periodic penalty payments where a prior acquittal or conviction arising from identical facts, or from facts which are substantially the same, has acquired the force of res judicata as the result of criminal proceedings under national law.
Amendment 118 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1
Article 26 – paragraph 1
The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have unlimited jurisdiction to review decisions of the Authority imposing an administrative pecuniary sanction or a periodic penalty payment. It may annul, reduce or increase the fine or periodic penalty payment imposed, as well as order compensation.
Amendment 132 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1
Article 33 – paragraph 1
1. Where, pursuant to Article 25 of [OP please insert the next number to the AMLD, COM(2021)423], a FIU of a Member State identifies a potential need to conduct a joint analysis with one or several FIUs in other Member States, it shall notify the Authority thereof. The Authority may also propose itself the initiation of joint analyses. The Authority shall inform the FIUs in all the relevant Member States and Europol and invite them to take part in the joint analysis within five days of the initial notification. To this end, the Authority shall use secured channels of communication. The FIUs in all the relevant Member States and Europol shall consider taking part in the joint analysis. The Authority shall ensure that the joint analysis is launched within 20 days of the initial notification.
Amendment 134 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 33 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The Authority shall support and be responsible for the coordination of the conduct of the analyses. The Authority shall also develop methods and procedures for the conduct of joint analyses.
Amendment 135 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 2
Article 33 – paragraph 2
2. Any FIU that declines to participate in the conduct of the joint analysis shall provide the reasons thereof in writing to the Authority, within five days of the receipt of the invitation. TIn case the proposal to initiate a joint analysis originated from an FIU, the Authority shall provide such explanation without delay to the FIU having identified the need for a joint analysis.
Amendment 136 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 33 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. In order to bring together all relevant information in an early stage of the joint analysis, the joint analysis should encompass by default the matching of subject-matter data against Europol databases and vice versa.
Amendment 137 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 3
Article 33 – paragraph 3
3. Upon explicit consentApart from an explicit and duly motivated objection from the side of the FIUs participating in the joint analysis, the staff of the Authority supporting the joint analysis shall be granted access to all the data pertaining to the subject-matter of the joint analysis and shall be able to process those data. The same principle would apply when Europol would also be given access to part or all of the data.
Amendment 140 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 2
Article 34 – paragraph 2
2. The FIUs that participated or were otherwise involved in one or more joint analyses as well as Europol may provide their feedback on the conduct of the analysis, including feedback on the operational support provided by the Authority in the process of the joint analysis, as well as feedback on the outcome of the analysis working methods and arrangements in place, the tools available and the coordination between the participating FIUs. The feedback may be labelled as confidential, in which case it will not be shared with other FIUs.
Amendment 141 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1
Article 35 – paragraph 1
1. The FIU of each Member State mayshall delegate one staff member to the Authority. The national FIU delegate shall have his or her regular place of work at the seat of the Authority.
Amendment 143 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 2
Article 37 – paragraph 2
2. The Authority shall ensure uninterrupted functioning of the FIU.net and keep it and up to date. Where necessary to support or strengthen the exchange of information and cooperation between the FIUs and other entities authorized to have access to FIU.net and based on the needs of FIUs, the Authority shall design and implement, or otherwise make available, upgraded or additional functionalities of FIU.net.
Amendment 144 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 2
Article 43 – paragraph 2
2. The Authority shall, where appropriate, conduct open public consultations regarding the guidelines and recommendations which it issues and analyse the related potential costs and benefits of issuing such guidelines and recommendations. Those consultations and analyses shall be proportionate in relation to the scope, nature and impact of the guidelines or recommendations. Where the Authority does not conduct open public consultations, the Authority shall provide its reasons. The Authority will also, when relevant, consult other EU institutions, offices, bodies and agencies involved in the AML/CFT framework to produce such guidelines and recommendations.
Amendment 146 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Article 43 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
If required by that guideline or recommendation, obliged entities shall report, in a clear and detailed way, whether they comply with that guideline or recommendation and, in case of non- compliance, they should provide reasons thereof.
Amendment 148 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 2
Article 44 – paragraph 2
2. The request referred to in paragraph 1 may include a public consultation or a technical analysis and may also involve the consultation of other EU institutions, offices, bodies and agencies involved in the AML/CFT framework.
Amendment 153 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 3 – point c a (new)
Article 46 – paragraph 3 – point c a (new)
(ca) A representative of Europol without the right to vote.
Amendment 154 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 4
Article 46 – paragraph 4
4. The General Board may decide to admit observers. In particular, the General Board in FIU composition shall admit as an observer a representative of OLAF, Europol, Eurojust and the EPPO to meetings when matters fall under their respective mandates. The General Board in supervisory composition shall admit a representative nominated by the Supervisory Board of the European Central Bank and a representative of each of the European Supervisory Authorities, where matters within the scope of their respective mandates are discussed. The General Board in both compositions may also decide to invite relevant domestic and international organisations and members of the academia of recognised standing to its meetings on an ad-hoc basis.
Amendment 156 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 1
Article 47 – paragraph 1
The General Board, on its own initiative or at the request of the Chair of the Authority, may establish internal committees for specific tasks attributed to it. The General Board may provide for the delegation of certain clearly defined tasks and decisions to internal committees, to the Executive Board or to the Chair. The General Board may revoke such delegation at any time. All decisions of the internal committees shall have to be endorsed by the General Board in order to be valid.
Amendment 167 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 1
Article 56 – paragraph 1
1. The Chair of the Authority shall be selected on the basis of merit, skills, knowledge, recognised standing and experience in the area of anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism, high-level experience in international cooperation and other relevant qualification, following an open selection procedure which shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Commission shall draw up a shortlist of twohree qualified candidates for the position of the Chair of the Authority. The European Parliament shall hear the candidates in front of its responsible Committee(s). The Council, after approval by the European Parliament, shall adopt an implementing decision to appoint the Chair of the Authority.
Amendment 170 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 2
Article 56 – paragraph 2
2. If the Chair of the Authority no longer fulfils the conditions required for the performance of his or her duties or has been guilty of serious misconduct, the Council may, following a proposal by the General Board in either composition, and after consultation of the European Parliament, adopt an implementing decision to remove the Chair of the Authority from office. The Council shall act by qualified majority.
Amendment 171 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 3
Article 56 – paragraph 3
3. Should the Chair resign or, be unable to attend to his or her dutiesdismissed or leave his/her position for any other reason, the functions of the Chair shall be performed by the Vice- Chairposition shall immediately be filled in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraph 1.
Amendment 172 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 1
Article 57 – paragraph 1
1. The Chair of the Authority shall represent the Authority and shall be responsible for preparing the work of the General Board and the Executive Board, including setting the agenda, convening and chairing all the meetings and tabling items for decision. The Chair of the Authority may delegate his/her tasks relating to representation to the Vice- Chair or to a member of the Executive Board.
Amendment 176 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 59 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Executive Director shall be in charge of the day-to-day management of the Authority and shall aim to ensure gender and geographical balance within the Authority. In particular, the Executive Director shall be responsible for:
Amendment 178 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 2
Article 72 – paragraph 2
2. The Authority shall submit on an annual basis to the European Parliament, to the Council, and to the Commission a report on the execution of the tasks conferred on it by this Regulation, including information on the planned evolution of the structure and amount of the supervisory fees referred to in Article 66, the outcome of joint analyses, the issuing and implementation of guidelines and recommendations and the measures on access to documents in application of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The Chair of the Authority shall present that report in public to the European Parliament.
Amendment 183 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 77 – paragraph 2
Article 77 – paragraph 2
2. When drafting guidelines and recommendations in accordance with Article 43, having a significant impact on the protection of personal data, the Authority shall closely cooperate with the European Data Protection Board established by Regulation (EU) 2016/679, with special attention to avoiding duplication, inconsistencies and legal uncertainty in the sphere of data protection.
Amendment 185 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 1
Article 79 – paragraph 1
Where relevant for the fulfilment of the tasks referred to in Sections 3 and 6 of Chapter II, the Authority may participate in existing cooperation arrangements established in one or across several Member States by supervisory authorities or FIUs, FIUs or other EU institutions, offices, bodies and agencies involved in the AML/CFT framework, where such arrangements involve, inter alia, cooperation and information exchange between the aforementioned authorities and selected obliged entities. PIn case of national partnerships, participation of the Authority shall be subject to consent of the relevant national authority that has established such arrangement. The Authority shall also participate at an appropriate level in partnerships established across multiple Member States.
Amendment 187 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 80 – paragraph 1
Article 80 – paragraph 1
1. The Authority mayshall conclude working arrangements with Union institutions, Union decentralised agencies and other Union bodies, acting in the field of law enforcement and judicial cooperation. Those working arrangements may be of a strategic or technical nature, and shall in particular aim to facilitate cooperation and the exchange of information between the parties thereto. The working arrangements shall neitherRegarding the Coordination and Support Mechanism for EU FIUs of the Authority, the working arrangements shall ensure the mutual involvement in strategic projects carried out by the FIU coordination and support mechanism and other Union bodies involved in the AML/CFT framework, in particular Europol. With the exception of the working arrangement with Europol, the working arrangements shall not form the basis for allowing the exchange of personal data nor. The working arrangements shall not bind the Union or its Member States.
Amendment 189 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 80 – paragraph 2
Article 80 – paragraph 2
2. The Authority shall establish and maintain a close relationship with OLAF, Europol, Eurojust, and the EPPO. To that end, the Authority shall conclude separate working arrangements with OLAF, Europol, Eurojust, and the EPPO setting out the details of their cooperation. TWith the exception of the working arrangement with Europol, which shall cover operational and strategic information, the relationship shall aim in particular to ensure the exchange of strategic information and trends in relation to money laundering and terrorist financing threats facing the Union.
Amendment 191 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 81 – paragraph 1
Article 81 – paragraph 1
1. In order to achieve the objectives set out in this Regulation, and without prejudice to the respective competences of the Member States and the Union institutions, bodies agencies and offices, the Authority may develop contacts and enter into administrative arrangements with AML/CFT authorities in third countries that have regulatory, supervisory and FIU- related competences in the field of anti- money laundering and counter terrorism financing as well as with international organisations and third- country administrations. Those arrangements shall not create legal obligations in respect of the Union and its Member States nor shall they prevent Member States and their competent authorities from concluding bilateral arrangements with those third countries.
Amendment 192 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 81 – paragraph 3
Article 81 – paragraph 3
3. In cases where the interaction of several Union public authorities and FIUs with third country authorities concerns matters falling within the scope of the Authority’s tasks as defined in Article 5, the Authority shall have a leadcoordinating role in facilitating such interaction where necessary, in close cooperation with other EU institutions, offices, bodies and agencies involved in the AML/CFT framework that have regular interactions with third-country authorities. This role of the Authority shall be without prejudice to the regular interactions by competent authorities with third-country authorities.
Amendment 193 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 82 – paragraph 5
Article 82 – paragraph 5
5. The Executive Board shall adopt practical measures for applying Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and the rules regarding disclosure of information relating to supervisory procedures. The Authority shall include in its annual report foreseen in Article 72 a detailed section on the implementation of the Regulation for the preceding year.
Amendment 195 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 88 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 88 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. By 31 December 20298, and every five years thereafter, the Commission shall assess the Authority’s performance in relation to its objectives, mandate, tasks and location(s), in accordance with the Commission's guidelines. The evaluation shall, in particular, address:
Amendment 196 #
2021/0240(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 88 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 88 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the impact of the activities related to support and coordination of FIUs, and in particular the coordination of the joint analyses of cross-border activities and transactions conducted by FIUs and the successful follow up to those joint analyses in preventing and combating ML and TF;
Amendment 1 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 a (new)
Citation 3 a (new)
— having regard to the Council measure setting up the Revised EU-level Framework required by Article 33.2 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,
Amendment 1 #
2020/2275(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 1
Paragraph 1 – point 1
1. ‘whereas democratic elections to the European Parliament constitute the main bottom-up instrument for citizens in the Union; whereas the ECI contributes to the democratic functioning of the Union; whereas the citizens of the Union have the right enshrined in Article 11(4) TEU to apply to the Commission directly to ask it to submit a proposal, within the framework of its powers, for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties; whereas the Court of Justice of the European Union has confirmed in its case law that the notion of a ‘legal act for the purpose of implementing the Treaties’ should not be interpreted restrictively and that by virtue of Article 288 TFEU such an act can mean both legislative and non- legislative measures’';
Amendment 4 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the Committee on Petitions plays a ‘protection role’ to ensure EU compliance with the CRPD within the policymaking and legislative actions at EU level; whereas the European Parliament’s Petitions Committee has been identified to form the EU Framework together with the European Ombudsman, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, and the European Disability Forum, as adopted by the Council at its 3513th meeting held on 16 January 2017;
Amendment 4 #
2020/2275(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – point 3
Paragraph 3 – point 3
3. ‘whereas, in order to achieve those objectives and achieve the full potential of the ECI, the procedures and conditions required for the ECI should ensure that valid initiatives are considered and responded to appropriately by the Commission; whereas the Commission is legally obliged to state the action it intends to take on a valid ECI, if any, and to state, in a detailed manner, the reasons for taking or not taking action; whereas at least one million signatures from at least a quarter of the Member States are required for an ECI to be valid and to be submitted to the Commission; whereas Regulation (EU) 2020/1042 has made the time limits for the collection, verification and examination stages more flexible in response to the COVID-19 pandemic through the introduction of temporary measures; whereas the application of those measures has been extended through Commission implementing acts; whereas this regulation is only temporary in nature and applicable only until the end of 2022, which is also the date by which the individual online collection systems provided for by Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2019/788 will be phased out’;
Amendment 5 #
2020/2275(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – point 4
Paragraph 4 – point 4
4. ‘whereas organising and supporting an ECI is a political right for the citizens of the Union and a unique instrument for setting the priorities for participatory democracy in the EU, allowing the public to play an active role in the projects and processes that concern them; whereas there have been six successful European Citizens' Initiatives to date, most recently the "Minority Safepack" initiative and the "End the Cage Age" initiative; whereas the "Minority Safepack" initiative was the first ECI to have been debated in the European Parliament based on the new Regulation(EU) 2019/788, and was overwhelmingly supported by Parliament in December 2020 with 76% of the votes cast’;
Amendment 7 #
2020/2275(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – point 6
Paragraph 6 – point 6
6. ‘Considers it essential that citizens be able to contribute to the exercise of the Union’s competences; considers it key, therefore, that valid ECIs should lead to the initiation of concrete proposals for both legislative and non-legislative acts referred to in Article 288 TFEUalls, therefore, on the Commission to carry out a thorough assessment of the proposals of each valid ECI, and to comply fully with its legal obligation to set out, in a detailed manner, its reasons for taking or not taking action; recalls Parliament’s obligation to assess the measures taken by the Commission in line with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2019/788 and Rule 222(9) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, particularly when the Commission fails to put forward any such proposals or fails to implement them’;
Amendment 15 #
2020/2275(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 – point 9
Paragraph 9 – point 9
9. ‘Calls on the Commission to outline the legislative and non-legislative measures which could be introducedHighlights the measures outlined in Regulation (EU) 2019/788 to improve how the citizens of the Union can exercise their right to support an ECI, given the low number of valid ECIs that have ultimately been successful in providing for the initiation of legal acts; calls for an assessment of the implementation of these measures; calls for a thorough assessment of the exercise of this right in the next EU citizenship report’;
Amendment 33 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Points out that the right to petition is the oldest instrument involving the direct participation of citizens at EU level and that it is the easiest and most direct way for citizens to contact the EU institutions and express their views on the legislation adopted and the policy choices made at EU level; recalls that the number of received petitions vis-à-vis the EU population remains modest and that significant differences exist between Member States, regions and languages when it comes to exercising the right to petition; believes that targeted information campaigns and civic education about EU citizenship rights can reach a wider population and bring tangible results in awareness raising about citizens’ rights at EU level;
Amendment 41 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Recalls that many European citizens are deprived of their right to petition, as their platforms do not comply with accessibility standards and the requirements set out in Article 33.2 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities;
Amendment 74 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls for a Eurobarometer survey to be carried out to gauge how much EU citizens know about the right to petition the European Parliament, with the aim of collecting data to use as a basis for a strong and accessible awareness-raising campaign;
Amendment 78 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls for the Petitions Web Portal to be improved to make it more visible for the public, user- friendly, easier to navigate and accessible to all citizens, especially to persons with disabilities; calls for the possibility of co- signing the petitions submitted via the Petitions Web Portal to be streamlined and accelerated;
Amendment 110 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Calls on the Commission to inform the public about the EU’s competences to make sure that ECIs concern subjects and issues that fall within the EU’s remit; emphasises that recent ECIs have called, inter alia, for the EU to take more action, more quickly, in the fight against climate change and in protecting indigenous national minorities and language communities;
Amendment 116 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30a. Is of the opinion that the way in which official replies by the Commission to successful citizens' initiatives are formulated may significantly influence how the instrument is evaluated by citizens and that greater effort and more prudent examination is required in the case of each successful initiative to ensure the Commission gives adequate thought to citizens' propositions;
Amendment 118 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Highlights the need to establish a proper follow-up mechanism for unsuccessful ECIs in order to take citizens’ input seriously, including redirecting citizens to the Committee on Petitions, as the lack of impact could lead to disengagement; underlines the role that the Committee on Petitions must play throughout hearing processes; calls on the Commission to collaborate in a timely manner with Parliament after an ECI is deemed successful, to enable Parliament to make full use of the three-month period for the organisation of hearings, and to organise the public hearing and prepare the plenary debate as part of its ECI assessment;
Amendment 121 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Emphasises the role of these three participatory instruments, which is to facilitate and encourage the engagement of citizens and residents of the EU; calls for the establishment and promotion of a large- scale, one-stop interinstitutional websiteEU citizens’ website (and application, which is easily accessible for everyone, also taking as example the so-called Citizens’ App of the Parliament) to provide information on all the rights and instruments that enable the public to participate directly in and influence decision-making at EU level;
Amendment 123 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Emphasises the role of these three participatory instruments, which is to facilitate and encourage the engagement of citizens and residents of the EU; calls for the establishment and promotion of a large- scale, one-stop, accessible interinstitutional website to provide information on all the instruments that enable the public to participate directly in and influence decision-making at EU level;
Amendment 128 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Calls for public awareness of these three participatory instruments to be raised to ensure that they become effective tools for democratic participation; emphasises that all the European institutions should maximise their efforts at communication efforts, which should be accessible and available in as many languages as possible, to ensure that as many citizens as possible know about, and are encouraged to participate in, the instruments;
Amendment 135 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Calls on the Member States to make it mandatoryavailable and highly recommended for pupils in schools to be taught about the EU’s three participatory instruments; points out that civic engagement among young people is vital for the future of all democracies;
Amendment 140 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Recalls that the EU’s multilingual communication policy is a crucial element in communicating with and engaging citizens from all Member States, with particular regard to the special needs of persons with disabilities (sign language, Braille); highlights its importance in all communication channels, including social media, in order to better connect with citizens; welcomes the guidelines published by the Ombudsman instructing the institutions on how to develop their language policy in the most citizen-friendly manner;
Amendment 141 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Recalls that the EU’s multilingual communication policy is a crucial element in communicating with and engaging citizens from all Member States, which needs to be strengthened; highlights its importance in all communication channels, including social media, in order to better connect with citizens; welcomes the guidelines published by the Ombudsman instructing the institutions on how to develop their language policy in the most citizen-friendly manner;
Amendment 143 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Stresses the need to address the shortcomings of the EU petition system, taking into consideration the special needs of persons with disabilities, in order to ensure its full democratic potential and agenda-setting role; calls on the EU institutions to use their resources to increase the attractiveness of this tool and promote citizens’ participation in EU law- making; in this regard, stresses the need for more EU funding to be allocated to the promotion of the participatory mechanisms;
Amendment 154 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Calls on the Commission to inform the public about the EU’s competences to make sure that ECIs concern subjects and issues that fall within the EU’s remit; emphasises that recent ECIs have called, inter alia, for the EU to take more action, more quickly, in the fight against climate change and in protecting indigenous national minorities and language communities;
Amendment 160 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30a. Is of the opinion that the way in which official replies by the Commission to successful citizens' initiatives are formulated may significantly influence how the instrument is evaluated by citizens and that greater effort and more prudent examination is required in the case of each successful initiative to ensure the Commission gives adequate thought to citizens' propositions;
Amendment 162 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Highlights the need to establish a proper follow-up mechanism for unsuccessful ECIs in order to take citizens’ input seriously, including redirecting citizens to the Committee on Petitions, as the lack of impact could lead to disengagement; underlines the role that the Committee on Petitions must play throughout hearing processes; calls on the Commission to collaborate in a timely manner with Parliament after an ECI is deemed successful, to enable Parliament to make full use of the three-month period for the organisation of hearings, and to organise the public hearing and prepare the plenary debate as part of its ECI assessment;
Amendment 165 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Emphasises the role of these three participatory instruments, which is to facilitate and encourage the engagement of citizens and residents of the EU; calls for the establishment and promotion of a large- scale, one-stop interinstitutional websiteEUcitizens’ website (and application, which is easily accessible for everyone, also taking as example the so-called Citizens’App of the Parliament) to provide information on all the rights and instruments that enable the public to participate directly in and influence decision-making at EU level;
Amendment 167 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Emphasises the role of these three participatory instruments, which is to facilitate and encourage the engagement of citizens and residents of the EU; calls for the establishment and promotion of a large- scale, one-stop, accessible interinstitutional website to provide information on all the instruments that enable the public to participate directly in and influence decision-making at EU level;
Amendment 172 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Calls for public awareness of these three participatory instruments to be raised to ensure that they become effective tools for democratic participation; emphasises that all the European institutions should maximise their efforts at communication efforts, which should be accessible and available in as many languages as possible, to ensure that as many citizens as possible know about, and are encouraged to participate in, the instruments;
Amendment 179 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Calls on the Member States to make it mandatoryavailable and highly recommended for pupils in schools to be taught about the EU’s three participatory instruments; points out that civic engagement among young people is vital for the future of all democracies;
Amendment 184 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Recalls that the EU’s multilingual communication policy is a crucial element in communicating with and engaging citizens from all Member States, with particular regard to the special needs of persons with disabilities (sign language, Braille); highlights its importance in all communication channels, including social media, in order to better connect with citizens; welcomes the guidelines published by the Ombudsman instructing the institutions on how to develop their language policy in the most citizen-friendly manner;
Amendment 185 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Recalls that the EU’s multilingual communication policy is a crucial element in communicating with and engaging citizens from all Member States, which needs to be strengthened; highlights its importance in all communication channels, including social media, in order to better connect with citizens; welcomes the guidelines published by the Ombudsman instructing the institutions on how to develop their language policy in the most citizen-friendly manner;
Amendment 187 #
2020/2275(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Stresses the need to address the shortcomings of the EU petition system, taking into consideration the special needs of persons with disabilities, in order to ensure its full democratic potential and agenda-setting role; calls on the EU institutions to use their resources to increase the attractiveness of this tool and promote citizens’ participation in EU law- making; in this regard, stresses the need for more EU funding to be allocated to the promotion of the participatory mechanisms;
Amendment 2 #
2020/2262(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that while the number of reasoned opinions received from national parliaments continued to fall between 2017 and 2019, the number of opinions submitted to the Commission and contributions to the European Parliament, including on non-legislative initiatives, remains consistently high, which is testament to the positive and forward- looking engagement of national parliaments with the EU policy cycle; notes that several of these submissions focused on important institutional issues such as the completion of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) and the activation of passerelle clauses; calls on the Commission to use all available means to support the active engagement of national parliaments in the legislative process of the EU;
Amendment 9 #
2020/2262(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the conclusions of the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and ‘Doing less more efficiently’ of June 2018; welcomes, in particular, the concept of ‘active subsidiarity’, aiming to promote greater ownership of EU policies; insists that the Commission implement these conclusions, and in particular integrate the ‘model grid’, based on the criteria contained in the Protocol on subsidiarity and proportionality originally attached to the Amsterdam Treaty as well as relevant jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice in order to assess the application of both principles throughout the decision- making process; notes that this will require a strong commitment, including from EU co-legislators;
Amendment 12 #
2020/2262(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Points out that local and regional authorities implement and use approximately 70% of EU legislation1a; considers that closely consulting their elected representatives in EU matters is a very effective way to bring EU institutions closer to citizens; _________________ 1aCommittee of the Regions Opinion "Better regulation: taking stock and sustaining our commitment" https://cor.europa.eu/EN/our- work/Pages/OpinionTimeline.aspx?opId= CDR-2579-2019
Amendment 18 #
2020/2262(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 27 #
2020/2262(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Encourages the involvement of regional parliaments with legislative powers, whichPoints out that regions with legislative powers are the most visible embodiment of European diversity; encourages the involvement of regional parliaments with legislative powers in EU legislative initiatives and supports their systematic consultation on major initiatives; recalls that such parliaments are represented in the Committee of regions and that under Article 6 of Protocol No 2 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union they can be consulted by national parliaments, and supports their systematic consultation on major initiatives; commends that such parliaments also engage in direct interaction with the Commission through the submission of opinions on various issues of interest and calls on the Commission to encourage this engagement in the future; is of the opinion that giving greater importance to the concerns of regional Parliaments and authorities would increase the active dimension to the subsidiarity principle as well;
Amendment 40 #
2020/2262(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Believes that the REFIT platform should be expanded to widen its focus from regulatory burdens to matters of subsidiarity and proportionality and should increase the involvement of local and regional authorities; warns against the rigid application by the Commission of a ‘one in, one out’ principle in the implementation of better law-making processes.
Amendment 34 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas, despite some steps forward in defining common standards of electoral procedures for the European Parliament, today EU elections are still mostly governed by national laws and therefore; whereas more improvements are needed to establish a genuinelymore uniform procedure for European elections;
Amendment 46 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas the conclusion of the ratification process for Council’s Decision 2018/994 of 13 July 2018 is still pending but cannot hold back the necessary changes in the Union’s electoral systems;
Amendment 58 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas the reform of the European Parliament's electoral procedure should aim to enhance the democratic and transnationalEuropean dimension of the European elections and the democratic legitimacy of the Union decision-making process, reinforce the concept of citizenship of the Union, improve the functioning of the European Parliament and the governance of the Union, make the work of the European Parliament more legitimate, strengthen the principles of electoral equality and equal opportunities, enhance the effectiveness of the system for conducting European elections, and bring Members of the European Parliament closer to their voters, and in particular the youngest amongst them;
Amendment 60 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M a (new)
Recital M a (new)
Amendment 61 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M b (new)
Recital M b (new)
Mb. whereas all Member States that have joined the European Union after the adoption of the Copenhagen criteria were encouraged and expected to sign and ratify the Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities, Article 15 of which foresees that “The Parties shall create the conditions necessary for the effective participation of persons belonging to national minorities in cultural, social and economic life and in public affairs, in particular those affecting them.”
Amendment 62 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M c (new)
Recital M c (new)
Mc. whereas the Venice Commission has dealt extensively with the basic principles and good practices related to the representation of national minorities, issuing recommendations and acknowledging especially the role of guaranteed reserved seats for members of national minorities, lower electoral thresholds in proportional electoral systems for parties representing national minorities or the designation of electoral districts with the purpose to enhance the minorities' participation in the decision- making processes1a; whereas it pointed out that while a proportional electoral system is believed to offer more guarantees for minorities, this positive effect is neutralised if it is accompanied by thresholds, which considerably reduce the chances of minorities to be represented; __________________ 1a Compilation of Venice Commission Opinions and Reports Concerning Electoral Systems and National Minorities CDL-PI(2019)004 *, in particular its Report on Electoral Law and National Minorities CDL-INF (2000)
Amendment 63 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M d (new)
Recital M d (new)
Md. whereas the importance of the electoral process for facilitating the participation of minorities in the political sphere is also emphasised by "The (OSCE) Lund Recommendations on the effective participation of national minorities in public life";
Amendment 64 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M e (new)
Recital M e (new)
Amendment 65 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M f (new)
Recital M f (new)
Mf. whereas across the EU there are various good practices fostering the participation of national minorities in national elections such as in Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania and Slovenia; whereas in European elections in Belgium the German speaking region constitutes a separate constituency and in Italy the lists of the French, German and Slovene linguistic minorities may be linked to a national list, in which case the votes of the linguistic list will be added to those of the national list, obtaining one of its seats if a linguistic candidate receives at least 50,000 votes;
Amendment 70 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas the right of all citizens of the Union to participate, on an equal basis, in the democratic life of the Union would be promoted by a genuinedeeper harmonisation of the procedure for elections to the European Parliament in all the Member States , which would also strengthen the political dimension of European integration;
Amendment 97 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital W
Recital W
Amendment 143 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Regrets that most national and linguistic minorities are not usually represented in the European Parliament because they are too small to obtain a seat of their own; points out in this regard the effective barrier that electoral thresholds represent for parties representing minority communities running in single national constituencies or in large, densely populated constituencies;
Amendment 146 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Regrets that there are only two Member States which have special provisions for the Election of the European Parliament for minorities; Commends in this regard the good practices from Belgium in relation to the German minority and from Italy in relation to the French linguistic minority of Valle d’Aosta, the German one in Bolzano and the Slovenian in Friuli- Venezia Giulia;
Amendment 147 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Amendment 148 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 d (new)
Paragraph 8 d (new)
8d. Stresses that the legitimacy of the democratic institutions is based on participation and representation of all groups in society, including persons belonging to national and linguistic minorities;
Amendment 149 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 e (new)
Paragraph 8 e (new)
8e. Considers therefore that the European electoral law should provide a derogation from nationally provided thresholds for parties representing recognized national and linguistic minorities or groupings of such parties in order to increase the chances of national and linguistic minorities to participate in the political life of the Union and to be represented in the European Parliament;
Amendment 150 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 f (new)
Paragraph 8 f (new)
8f. Strongly regrets that there are still Member States in the European Union whose election laws de jure prohibit the creation of parties based on ethnic, racial or religious lines or which expressly prohibit the use of mother tongue for minorities in election campaigns; considers that such practices are discriminatory, create unjustified electoral barriers and limit access to voters and political participation in elections and beyond and should therefore be banned;
Amendment 158 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Believes that all European voters should be allowed to indicateble to identify their preferred candidate for the President of the Commission, and that leading candidates should be able to stand in all Member States, nominated by a European political party, by a movement or by a coalition of European partiesnominated by a European political party, putting forward a common electoral programme;
Amendment 165 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on European political parties and movements to nominate their candidates for the position of President of the Commission - or common candidates of a coalition of European parties and movements - at least 12 weeks before the start of the electoral period; considers that binding democratic procedures and transparency in the selection should be ensured; expects candidates to be placed in the first position of the corresponding list of the joint constituency;
Amendment 190 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 201 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 213 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 235 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 271 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Recital 4 a (new)
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Recital 4 a (new)
(4a) Electoral thresholds should not affect the chances of national and linguistic minorities to participate in the political life of the Union and to be represented in the European Parliament. A derogation from a nationally provided threshold for parties representing recognized national and linguistic minorities or groupings of such parties should be possible for said minorities to be able to express a cohesive vote. The recognition of national and linguistic minorities should be understood in the sense of the Framework Convention for the protection of National Minorities, Member States being encouraged to interpret its provisions in the most inclusive manner.
Amendment 276 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Recital 5
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Recital 5
(5) Article 17(7) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) gives the European Parliament the right to elect the President of the European Commission. In order to give that right its appropriate expression, theall European public sphvoteres should be developed in such a way that all European voters are allowed to indicateable to identify their preferred candidate for the President of the European Commission. For this to happen, the lead candidates nominated by a European political party, by a movement or by a coalition of European parties, need to be able to stand behind a common electoral programme in all Member States. Likewise, a Union-wide constituency, in which lists are headed by each political family’s candidate for President of the Commission, should be created, in order to enhance the democratic and pan- European dimension of the European elections. That Union-wide constituency should be subject to clear rules ensuring gender and demographic proportionality, with particular attention to small and medium sized Member States.
Amendment 282 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Recital 6
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Recital 6
(6) According to Article 10(4) of the TEU, political parties at European level contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union. European political parties and movements should therefore play a more central role in the European elections’ process, including by giving them the possibility of tabling pan- European lists in the Union-wide constituency, so that they become known by and more visible to electors, both on ballot papers and in campaign materials and publications.
Amendment 299 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex to the motion for a resolution – recital 9
Annex to the motion for a resolution – recital 9
Amendment 374 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Article 2 – point 8
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Article 2 – point 8
Amendment 447 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Article 12 – paragraph 2
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. Members of the European Parliament shall be elected as representatives of the citizens of the Union on the basis of proportional representation, in each Member State and in the Union- wide constituency.
Amendment 456 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Article 12 – paragraph 4
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Article 12 – paragraph 4
Amendment 462 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Parties or groupings of parties representing recognized national and linguistic minorities shall be exempted from the minimum thresholds, provided they receive at least 50% of the votes necessary to obtain a seat.
Amendment 474 #
Amendment 527 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Article 15 – paragraph 19
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Article 15 – paragraph 19
19. Campaigning for the Union-wide constituency shall start eight weeks before Election day. No electoral campaigning shall be allowed on Election day.
Amendment 543 #
Amendment 600 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Article 17 – paragraph 4
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Article 17 – paragraph 4
Amendment 608 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Article 18 – paragraph 1
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall designate a contact authority responsible for exchanging data on voters and candidates with its counterparts in the other Member States and with the European Electoral Authority established under Article 27.
Amendment 610 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Article 18 – paragraph 2
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Article 18 – paragraph 2
Amendment 639 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Article 26 – paragraph 5
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Article 26 – paragraph 5
Amendment 645 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Article 26 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Article 26 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 651 #
Amendment 716 #
2020/2220(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Article 30
Annex to the motion for a resolution – Article 30
Amendment 1 #
2020/2209(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 a (new)
Citation 11 a (new)
— having regard to the Council measure setting up the Revised EU-level Framework required by Article 33.2 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities1a, _________________ 1a Council doc. No 6170/17
Amendment 6 #
2020/2209(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the Committee on Petitions plays a ‘protection role’ to ensure EU compliance with the CRPD within the policymaking and legislative actions at EU level; whereas the European Parliament’s Petitions Committee has been identified to form the EU Framework together with the European Ombudsman, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, and the European Disability Forum, as adopted by the Council at its 3513th meeting held on 16 January 2017;
Amendment 35 #
2020/2209(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes note of the progress made by Member States in effectively implementing and monitoring the CRPD and in adapting accessibility measures to comply with the standards of the CRPD; calls on the Member States to designate, without further delay, responsible authorities to serve as focal points, and to establish coordinating mechanisms at all administrative levels, in accordance with Article 33 of the CRPD, for its implementation and monitoring;
Amendment 44 #
2020/2209(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Recalls that many persons with disabilities are still segregated from community life and do not have control over their daily lives, in particular those living in residential institutions as the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted and intensified the challenges faced by persons living in institutions; urges the Member States to mainstream support services in order to ensure for people with disabilities the equal right to live independently and to be included in the community;
Amendment 45 #
2020/2209(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9 b. Recalls the high number of European citizens deprived of their right to participate in elections including EP elections because of their disabilities or mental health problems; thus, calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure the real right of persons with disabilities to vote in European Parliament elections;
Amendment 52 #
2020/2209(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Warmly welcomes the adoption of stronger rail passenger rights for people with disabilities and with reduced mobility, especially the phasing out of the current exemptions for Member States and the reduction of the period of advance notice to be given by persons with disabilities or reduced mobility who require assistance; encouragecalls the Member States to arrange, whereas soon as possible, shorter pre-notification periods for persons with disabilities who require assistance with travel, in order to allow persons with disabilities and with reduced mobility to more readily exercise their free movement rights; calls for the swift implementation of the rules laid down in the recast of Regulation (EC) No 1371/200718 in all Member States; _________________ 18 Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations, OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 14.
Amendment 63 #
2020/2209(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Member States to ensure the swift implementation at all levels of Directive 2016/2102 on the accessibility of public sector bodies’ websites and mobile applications, in order to guarantee that persons with disabilities are able to access all information they require in an accessible format, including national sign languages; welcomes the Commission’s initiative for an action plan on web accessibility for all EU institutions, bodies and agencies with a view to ensuring the compliance of EU websites, and the documents published on these websites and online platforms, with European accessibility standards; urges all EU institutions, bodies and agencies to comply with the European accessibility standards as quickly as possible;
Amendment 67 #
2020/2209(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. EncouraUrges the relevant Parliament services to continue their efforts and finalise the project on the inter-service working group on sign language in the shortest possible time frame in order to meet the requests of petition 1056/2016 to allow for the tabling of petitions in international and national sign languages used in the EU and thereby make the fundamental right to petition more accessible for sign language users;
Amendment 73 #
2020/2209(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that there is no mutual recognition of disability status between Member States; calls on the Member States to work together in a spirit of mutual trust to recognise the status assigned in another Member State; emphasises the Commission’s goal of working with Member States to expand the scope of the mutual recognition of disability status in areas such as labour mobility, statistics and the benefits related to the conditions of service provision;
Amendment 100 #
2020/2209(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22 a. Calls on the Commission for special emphasis on a common framework for European statistics on individuals and households, making the situation and problems of persons with disabilities more comparable at European level so that policy makers can find more effective and tailored solutions to the needs of persons with disabilities.
Amendment 1 #
2020/2202(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1 Recalls that Part Two of the Withdrawal Agreement allows both EU citizens residing in the UK and UK nationals residing in the EU-27 at the end of the transition period to continue to live in their host State, exercising their rights based on EU law, provided that EU citizens and UK nationals are workers or self-employed, or have sufficient resources and health insurance, or are family members of a person who fulfils these conditions, or have already acquired the right of permanent residence and thus no longer be subject to these conditions;
Amendment 2 #
2020/2202(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1 a. Welcomes the Joint Statement following the tenth meeting of the Specialised Committee on Citizens’ Rights of 15 June 20221a whereby the EU and UK reaffirmed their commitment to protect citizens’ rights in accordance with the obligations laid down in the Withdrawal Agreement; _________________ 1a https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files /20.06.2022_joint_statement_sc_citizens_r ights_en.pdf
Amendment 3 #
2020/2202(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the Withdrawal Agreement allows the EU Member States and the UK to require mandatory application as a condition for confirmation of the enjoyment of the rights provided by the Agreement and that, like 13 Member States, the UK opted for a ‘constitutive system’ (the EU Settlement Scheme – EUSS), which grants eligible EU citizens resident in the UK either settled status or pre-settled status at the end of the transition period, allowing them to reside legally in the UK and enjoy all the rights provided for under the Withdrawal Agreement (WA); recalls that the WA makes clear that the administrative procedures under a constitutive system must be ‘smooth, transparent and simple’ and administrative costs must not exceed those imposed on nationals of the host State for obtaining similar documents;
Amendment 11 #
2020/2202(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. SRegrets that the eligibility conditions applied by the UK for access to rights under the EUSS still differ from those provided in the Withdrawal Agreement; stresses that the misalignment of the EUSS with the WA creates a risk of legal uncertainty for EU citizens in the UK as to whether their rights are guaranteed under UK immigration law or by the WA, and whether they can use their EUSS status to prove their rights under the WA;
Amendment 13 #
2020/2202(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Expresses its concern about the difficulties that EU citizens may encounter when applying for settled or pre-settled status due to the UK Home Office’s insistence on a digital-only approach; reiterates its call to the UK authorities to issue a physical document as proof of their right to reside in the UK in order to provide greater certainty and a sense ofsecurity1a; _________________ 1a European Parliament, Resolution of 15 January 2020 on implementing and monitoring the provisions on citizens' rights in the Withdrawal Agreement(2020/2505(RSP)).
Amendment 18 #
2020/2202(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. URegrets the increasing delays in issuing residence documents and entry visas for EU citizens in UK and urges the UK authorities to elaborate plans to reduce the number of cases awaiting a decision; similarly urges the UK authorities to ensure the effective and transparent implementation of temporary protection measures for EU citizens who missed the deadline for applications;
Amendment 21 #
2020/2202(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Is concerned that the conditions and rights of pre-settled status holders are less secure than those of settled status, in particular that, pre-settled status holders without Comprehensive Sickness Insurance (CSI) have not been considered to have Withdrawal Agreement rights and thus cannot access benefits; recalls that in its judgement of 10 March 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that eligibility for NHS treatment does count as CSI and that the UK should not have imposed the CSI requirement to maintain a right to reside; urges therefore the United Kingdom to comply, pursuant to Article 89 of the Withdrawal Agreement, with such judgments;
Amendment 24 #
2020/2202(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers it inconsistent with the WA that pre-settled status holders who do not reapply successfully for settled status risk losing their rights to live, work and access services in the UK; points out that pre-settled status holders can only lose their residence rights in limited circumstances (e.g. criminality, fraudulent applications, and extended absences), and that these circumstances do not include failing to apply for settled status; welcomes the fact that the UK High Court has granted permission to the UK Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements to proceed with its judicial review claim against the Home Office in this respect;
Amendment 32 #
2020/2202(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Urges declaratory Member States to address the UK’s concerns relating to evidencing status and to UK citizens living in the EU accessing benefits and services and calls on the Commission to improve the monitoring of the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement in the Member States in order to reduce cases of misapplication;
Amendment 37 #
2020/2202(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Acknowledges that the UK is a sovereign State and as such is free to set its own immigration policies; points out, however, that Section 75 of the UK’s Nationality and Borders Act requiring those without a UK immigration status (including EU citizens, with the exception of Irish citizens) to have an electronic travel authorisation (ETA) before entering Northern Ireland will impact negatively on European Union citizens resident in Ireland; stresses, moreover, that the ETA system would not be fully in line with Article 2 of the Protocol on Northern Ireland, which protects the rights of individuals and requires the UK to ensure that there is no diminution of the rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity, including protection against discrimination; emphasises that any UK proposal which could ultimately require EU citizens resident in Ireland to register in order to obtain an exemption from the ETA system is disproportionate and its implementation would amount to a possible breach of the principle of non- discrimination as set out in the Treaties";
Amendment 1 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas according to several Eurobarometer surveys, a large proportion of EU citizens are not satisfied with the way democracy works in the EU and tend to distrust the EU institutionsthe results of the 2019 European elections sent a positive signal that European citizens are taking an increasing interest in developments at EU level and that they believe that EU legislation has an impact on their daily lives; whereas in Civic Engagement Eurobarometer 20201a, voting in European elections was regarded by 55% of respondents as the most effective way of ensuring voices are heard by decision- makers at EU level; whereas, not only is this perception presenevertheless, according to several Eurobarometer surveys, a proportion of EU citizens are not sat EU level, but also at national level;isfied with the way democracy works in the EU; _________________ 1aFlash Eurobarometer (FL4023) en- report.pdf (europa.eu)
Amendment 4 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas overall turnout at the recent European Parliament elections was 50.6%, the highest turnout since the 1994 elections and a notable increase from 2014 where the turnout was 42.6%; whereas, although the turnout in 2019 was higher among all groups of the population, the increase was led by the younger generation, with large increases among people aged under 25 and aged 25–39; whereas despite the overall increase in turnout large differences remain between individual Member States;
Amendment 13 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
D a. whereas citizens of the EU and any natural or legal person residing in or with a registered office in a Member State have the right to submit petitions to the European Parliament under Article 24 TFEU and Article 227 TFEU whenever the matter affects them directly and falls within the EU fields of activity;
Amendment 15 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
D b. whereas there have been six successful European Citizens' Initiatives to date, most recently the "Minority Safepack" initiative and the "End the Cage Age" initiative; whereas the "Minority Safepack" initiative was the first ECI to have been debated in the European Parliament based on the new ECI regulation, and was overwhelmingly supported by Parliament in December 2020 with 76% of the votes cast;
Amendment 22 #
2020/2201(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines that the level of EU citizens’ engagement in the EU participatory democracy process and the subsequent use of tools is proportionate to the level of knowledge of EU actions and policies within the Union’s multi-level governance system; points out that European citizens are not sufficiently aware of their rights as EU citizens, including the right to vote in European and local elections when they exercise their right to mobility;
Amendment 27 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas most forms of participation are generally ubiased bytowards organised interest groups and notrarely used by individual citizens; whereas individual citizens are largely unaware of the existing participatory instruments;
Amendment 35 #
2020/2201(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses the need for supportive measures aimed at increasing civic literacy and building civic capacity to encourage citizens’ understanding of the policymaking process and to promote civic engagement in the actions of the Union; considers to that end that stronger action by Member States and the Commission in fostering EU citizenship education is necessary; calls on the Commission to provide support to complement educational programmes and training in all Member States, notably by supporting the development of a common curriculum on European citizenship education; invites the Commission and the Member States to develop a comprehensive European strategy on civic and citizenship education accompanied by supporting platforms to promote its implementation;
Amendment 38 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses the need to reflect on how the Union can become more democratic and effective; believes that a profound reform of the Union and possible changes to the Treaties, which wouldeffective in engaging with citizens under the Union's core principles of representative democracy; believes that citizens should have a greater voice in EU decision- making to make the Union more refflective, united, democratic, solidary, sovereign and resilient, are strengthened by directly engaging with of citizens' views and more resilient, democratic and effective; in this regard, believes that Treaty change should not be precluded, although it should not be a goal in itself, and that the Conference on the Future of Europe is the appropriate forum to discuss this possibility; stresses that citizens should have a clear understanding of citizen engagement and dialogue structures so that expectation meets reality, otherwise there is a risk of disenfranchising citizens;
Amendment 47 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points out that the existing participatory instruments should be improved to make citizens’ participation more accessible; opines that, to facilitate public participation in wider political discourse and equip the public with the opportunity to influence political outcomes, with synergies in existing mechanisms, it is imperative that citizen engagement is structured in a way that creates realistic expectations and provides a benefit to strategic agenda of the Union by further legitimising policy; believes that this bottom-up participatory agenda should be capable of complementing, not substituting, representative democracy in the EU;
Amendment 48 #
2020/2201(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Calls on the Commission to strengthen existing instruments of engagement with citizens, particularly those referred to in the Treaties;
Amendment 51 #
2020/2201(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Regrets the limited political and legal follow-up given by the Commission to successful European Citizens’ InitiativesNotes that the European Citizens’ Initiative has not expressed its potential as a key instrument for active citizenship and public participation and regrets the limited political and legal follow-up given by the Commission to successful European Citizens’ Initiatives, which eventually jeopardizes the potential use of this participatory tool by European citizens and engenders loss of trust in EU decision-making; strongly regrets the Commission’s dismissal of the Minority SafePack European Citizens’ Initiative, which addresses basic values and objectives enshrined in the Treaties;
Amendment 53 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines the benefit of engaging with citizens in the development of a European public sphere and inat not all stakeholders, notably citizens and civil society groups, are equally active politically, equally vocal, and influential; the reinforcement of the democratic legitimacy of the EUe, believes that EU participatory democracy requires supporting unorganized citizens and promoting their access to electoral and participatory opportunities within and outside EU channels;
Amendment 58 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises that the EU institutions have to be informed of citizens’ concerns and need to be more attentive to these concernsincreased information sharing regarding citizens’ concerns will assist the EU institutions in their efforts to be attentive and responsive to these concerns under the Union's core principles of representative democracy;
Amendment 60 #
2020/2201(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the importance of the right to petition granted by the Treaties to EU citizens and residents, allowing them to submit a petition to the European Parliament on an issue that falls within the EU’s fields of activity; calls for a strengthened involvement of the Commission in the process of providing responses to petitions in order to ensure that citizens receive timely and precise responses to their requests and complaints;
Amendment 63 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines the need to engage with young people in particular in a political debate on the future of Europe, as today’s decisions will determine their future; emphasises that the Erasmus+ programme should be utilised to enhance European citizenship education, especially amongst students and young people;
Amendment 64 #
2020/2201(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls that EU citizens have the right to address the European Ombudsman, which is one of the main rights conferred by the European citizenship, and that the Ombudsman has an important role in ensuring good administration, accountability and transparency in the EU institutions;
Amendment 65 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Highlights that it is clear there is a mismatch between the expectations of citizens from the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) and the ECI’s capacity to lead to legislative output; underlines that communication on citizen engagement needs to highlight the practical role of any mechanisms, otherwise failing to meet expectations will reduce participation, and in turn legitimacy; points out that new mechanisms should seek to increase the transparency of the follow-up stage and enhance the deliberative character of the ECI model; believes that the Commission should proactively address the concerns of the initiators and carry out a sufficient assessment including possible instruments to achieve stated goals; notes that the Commission must fully comply with its legal obligation to state sufficient reasons for why it did or did not take action on an ECI, and believes this needs to be more comprehensive to ensure citizens are provided with an accurate picture of what should be expected from engagement with or launching of an ECI;
Amendment 67 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Notes that the COVID-19 pandemic has encouraged the use of digital media and online conference systems, therefore sees further opportunities that digitalisation offers for civic engagement in times of crisis; points out that this has helped citizens to participate more quickly, widely and inclusively in decision-making; believes that the EU should promote new and innovative ways of citizen engagement, enabling the use of digital technology tools that facilitate multilingual dialogue with citizens;
Amendment 68 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5 c. Points out the New European Bauhaus initiative as a recent innovation to encourage and facilitate citizens’ participation; highlights that the initiative brings citizens, experts, businesses, and institutions together and facilitates conversations about making tomorrow’s living spaces more affordable and accessible;
Amendment 69 #
2020/2201(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop innovative and inclusive tools for citizens’ participation and dialogues, making better use of digital technologies to allow all citizens (younger and older people, people with disability, mobile EU citizens, people living in rural or less populated areas) to effectively take part in EU decision-making, building on the lessons from the way the COVID-19 pandemic acted as an accelerator for the use of digital tools;
Amendment 75 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses the need for permanentimportance of effective participatory mechanisms to allow forfurther facilitate and encourage citizens’ participation in EU decision- making;
Amendment 79 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Highlights the fact that regularly held citizens’ dialogues could serve different purposes, such as determining annual political or legislative priorities, developing specific proposals in relation to specific questions, or discussing institutional matters or deciding on the spending of certain public resources; ; underlines, however, that while citizens’ dialogues will prove to be beneficial in some areas, it is important that citizens have a clear understanding of engagement outcomes, including inherent limitations, with appropriate, and transparent, follow-up procedures; stresses the need for them to be of non- binding and advisory character only;
Amendment 93 #
2020/2201(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to encourage the active participation of EU citizens in EU matters, notably young people, in order to support their involvement in shaping society and politics; sees the upcoming Conference on the future of Europe as a timely opportunity to improve citizens’ participation;
Amendment 96 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Highlights that civil society organisations, shouldtakeholders and other lobby groups already play a major role in participatory instruments; underlines the fact that, in order for such instruments to be successful, the Committee of the Regions (CoR) and the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) must be involved;
Amendment 103 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Recalls that, prior to the launching of these dialogues, the EU institutions must commit themselves to following up on their outcome in the light of their competences and legislative procedures; notes that citizens’ disappointment often stems from politicians over-promising and under-deliveringhighlights that any new participation instrument should be accompanied by a significant communication campaign, with high-level political engagement at EU and national level, similar to the successful electoral campaign in 2019 European Parliament elections;
Amendment 106 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses that the outcome of the participatory process must be clearly defined, so that it can be subject to a legally binding follow-up; proposes that participants should be provided with written feedback at the end of such exercises, since they ensure the accountability of the institut; recognises that there are difficulties and challenges to overcome if participative forums are to contribute more significantly to democratic quality, and in turn to a sense of ownership and European identity; in this light, opines that citizen engagement structures require an increased level responsiveness of the Commissions and the credibility of such processesmore transparency in the follow-up stage;
Amendment 111 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Believes that citizens’ participatory processes must adhere to the highest possible level of transparencyHighlights that promoting the democratic legitimacy of the EU’s institutions through public engagement requires a greater understanding of EU decision-making and transparency surrounding the legislative procedure;
Amendment 112 #
2020/2201(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Member States to fully respect the rights of mobile EU citizens and to ensure that they can fully exercise their right to participate in European and local elections, which should not be limited by disenfranchisement in the countries of origin.
Amendment 118 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Amendment 119 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 126 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Proposes the establishment of at the Commission investigate how it can indeependent civil society organisation or foundation that pan-EU networks, based on voluntary participation, to facilitate information sharing and knowledge transfer and to brings together different democracy initiatives and that focuses , including across different regions, and ensure that best practice methods are used; believes that this will increase citizen awareness of EU decision- making procedures, as well as ensure more opportunities for citizens moreto influential ince policy- making;
Amendment 129 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Proposes that the Commission’s ‘Have your say’ website becomes a one- stop resource granting access to all participatory instruments; calls on the Commission to embrace further digital possibilities for citizen engagement, in all official EU languages, including tutorials, past examples and information on relevant legislation; believes that provisions should be made for persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled;
Amendment 132 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 139 #
2020/2201(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Stresses the need to permanently include citizens in facilitate citizens’ participation, withe structural reforms of the EU by reforming the Convention method as provided for in Article 48 of the Treaty on European Unionufficient engagement from EU institutions, in the structural reforms of the EU; proposes that this be discussed in the Conference on the Future of Europe;
Amendment 1 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1
Citation 1
— having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and in particular Article 50 and Article 8 thereof,
Amendment 3 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 10 a (new)
Citation 10 a (new)
— having regard to the Commission Declaration for the European Parliament plenary of 16 April 2019;
Amendment 4 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 a (new)
Citation 11 a (new)
— having regard to European Council Decision (EU) 2018/937 of 28 June 2018 establishing the composition of the European Parliament,
Amendment 5 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 b (new)
Citation 11 b (new)
— having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 10 December 2018, Andy Wightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, case C- 621/18,
Amendment 6 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 c (new)
Citation 11 c (new)
Amendment 7 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 d (new)
Citation 11 d (new)
— having regard to the study commissioned by the European Parliament Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs, entitled ”Interpretation and implementation of Article 50 TEU – Legal and institutional assessment”, March 2021,
Amendment 8 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 e (new)
Citation 11 e (new)
— having regard to the Good Friday or Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998 between the Government of the United Kingdom, the Government of Ireland and the other participants in the multi-party negotiations (the "Good Friday Agreement"),
Amendment 9 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A (new)
Recital -A (new)
-A. Whereas the objective of this report is to analyse the way in which the provisions of Article 50 of the TEU were interpreted and applied, and the way the procedure of withdrawal of the UK from the EU under that Article was organised and conducted, including the lessons drawn for EU law and the functioning of the European Union.
Amendment 10 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A a (new)
Recital -A a (new)
-Aa. Whereas the reflection on the implementation of Article 50 contributes to a better understanding of key components of the EU constitutional identity, the principles underpinning the European integration, the importance of the decision making autonomy and the right to regulate, to be taken into account in future treaty change;
Amendment 11 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas Article 50 of the TEU solved the pre-existing uncertainty and ambiguity surrounding the right to withdraw from the EU by explicitly giving Member States the unilateral right to withdraw, subject to no conditions apart from compliance with their own national constitutional requirements; whereas, while the compliance with such requirements is a question of the national law of the Member State wishing to withdraw, uncertainty may arise if different branches of government express conflicting views on what compliance requires;
Amendment 14 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is not directly applicable to the TEU as the EU is not a party to the Convention;
Amendment 15 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas Article 50 of the TEU establishes the onlyan exclusive procedure under which a Member State may lawfully withdraw from the EU; by integrating withdrawal into the EU legal order and thereby excluding relevant provisions from international law;
Amendment 17 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the withdrawal agreement is an EU legal act, on the content of which the CJEU may issue rulings through the annulment procedure or through preliminary ruling requests;
Amendment 20 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas Article 50 of the TEU is silent on several aspects of the procedure that arose during the withdrawal of the UK from the Union; whereas many of the political solutions adopted through the negotiations with the United Kingdom would serve as likely precedents in case of a future application of the Article, in particular in terms of deadlines and their extension, the sequencing of negotiations, the recourse of a transition period and the definition of the future relationship of the exiting country with the EU;
Amendment 21 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas Article 50 of the TEU does not impose any formal requirements regarding the notification of the intention to leave the Union or its revocation, the extension of the period of two years set out under Article 50(3) of the TEU, and does not explicitly provide for the possibility of transitional arrangements,
Amendment 22 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas Article 50 does not specify a time limit between the decision to withdraw and the notification thereof to the European Council; whereas the principle of sincere cooperation should require the handing in of the notification as soon as the decision to leave is taken and the requirement to respect national constitutional requirements is fulfilled;
Amendment 23 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas Article 50 foresees a two- year period for the parties to reach an agreement, which can be extended with the agreement of both parties; whereas the Article does not mention a specific time-limit for the extension nor the maximum number of times of extensions, thus allowing for useful flexibility in the negotiation process; whereas, nevertheless the repeated recourse to extensions could be seen as going against the logic of Article 50;
Amendment 24 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas, in its judgment of 10 December 2018, in case C-621/18, the Court of Justice determined the conditions under which the withdrawing Member State may revoke unilaterally the notification of its intention to withdraw from the Union,
Amendment 25 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)
Recital C c (new)
Cc. whereas Article 50 of the TEU is not clear as regards the application of parts of Article 218 of the TFEU other than its paragraph 3,
Amendment 26 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C d (new)
Recital C d (new)
Cd. whereas the application of Article 50 of the TEU underlines that EU membership is voluntary and that a Member State cannot be forced to stay or leave, whereas the decision to withdraw from the Union is made in line with the withdrawing state’s internal constitutional order;
Amendment 30 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas Article 50 of the TEU confers on the Union institutions the exceptional horizontal competence to negotiate an agreement covering all matters necessary to arrange the withdrawal of a Member State;
Amendment 34 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas under the TEU, citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament; whereas in order to be able to give its consent to the withdrawal agreement, as foreseen in Article 50, Parliament should be closely involved in the negotiations especially in what regards citizens' rights;
Amendment 37 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas under the TEU, EU citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament;
Amendment 38 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas Parliament is part of the decision-making procedure under Article 50 of the TEU and exercises general political control, as provided for in Article 14 of the TEU;
Amendment 40 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
Ha. whereas the withdrawal of the UK had an impact on the composition of the European Parliament as provided for in Article3(2) of European Council Decision (EU) 2018/937,
Amendment 43 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. whereas Article 50 is triggered by a political events preceding it, which have strong influence on the conduct of the withdrawal negotiations; whereas a great flaw of the Brexit process was that the extremely complex and multidimensional problem that is a country's relationship with the EU was presented to people as a binary choice; whereas UK citizens were never given a clear picture of what relationship their country would have with the EU once it left, and often were given misleading claims about the implications of Brexit, especially in what regards the issue of Northern Ireland;
Amendment 45 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. whereas the Union institutions have undertaken all efforts not to politicise the process of withdrawal, but the withdrawal under Article 50 of the TEU is nevertheless inherently political as it stems from and is influenced by fundamental choices regarding membership of the EU and/or the relationship with the EU;
Amendment 46 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I b (new)
Recital I b (new)
Ib. whereas after the entry into force of the Withdrawal Agreement the only legal path for a re-accession to the EU is on the basis of Article 49 of the TEU;
Amendment 47 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I c (new)
Recital I c (new)
Ic. whereas Article 8 of the TEU emphasises the special relationship of the EU and its neighbouring countries;
Amendment 48 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I d (new)
Recital I d (new)
Id. whereas, according to the European Parliament’s rules of procedure, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs is responsible for the institutional consequences of withdrawal from the Union;
Amendment 49 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
Amendment 51 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights that the withdrawal of aone of its Member States has been an unprecedented and extremely critical process for the European Union;
Amendment 58 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Emphasises that the historical importance for EU membership of the UK’s withdrawal did not and does not deviate the Union from its integration process, as the Article 50 provides guarantees to the EU legal order and protects fundamental goals of the European integration;
Amendment 62 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines that the provisions of Article 50 of the TEU and the way in which they were interpreted and implemented reflect and uphold the common values and the goals that are at the foundation of the Union, in particular freedom, democracy and the rule of law;
Amendment 65 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Believes that Article 50 of the TEU has met its objectives of preserving the sovereign right of a Member State to withdraw from the European Union, thus confirming explicitly the voluntary nature of EU membership, and of ensuring the orderly withdrawal of the UK from the Union, while allowing for the subsequent building of an enhanced relationship between the EU and the UK as a third country;
Amendment 66 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Amendment 75 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Is satisfied that the negotiations with the United Kingdom prioritised an agreement on the rights of citizens and that the issue was first in the sequencing of withdrawal agreements;
Amendment 77 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Believes that the clear division of tasks among the institutions and the unprecedented inclusive and transparent approach adopted byof the Commission and its Chief Negotiator were paramount in maintaining coherence and unity within the EU and in promoting the EU’s priorities and interests in the negotiations, and safeguarding the integrity of the legal order of the Union;
Amendment 79 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Commends the main institutional actors for having safeguarded the unity among the 27 Member States as well as within and among the Union institutions respecting the nature of the withdrawal as a Union process;
Amendment 80 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Believes that the Union’s interest has prevailed thanks to strategic organisation and conditionality between the different stages of the procedure, in particular through the sequencing of the negotiations, and the conditions linked to the extension, to the transition period, as well to the start of the second phase of talks on a new and close partnership between the EU and the UK on the basis of substantial progress in the negotiations on citizens’ rights, Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland and the financial settlement;
Amendment 81 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Appreciates that the chapter on citizens’ rights of the withdrawal arrangements was agreed rather early in the negotiations, and the initial version of the draft Withdrawal Agreement of 19 March 2018 contained an entirely agreed Part Two on citizens’ rights, including on the direct effect of its provisions, and on the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice on the relevant provisions on citizens’ rights;
Amendment 82 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 d (new)
Paragraph 7 d (new)
7d. Stresses that the Union has clearly identified from the outset as issues of the European Union as a whole the specific circumstances of the island of Ireland and the need to safeguard the Good Friday Agreement and mitigate the effects of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal on the Republic of Ireland;
Amendment 83 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 e (new)
Paragraph 7 e (new)
7e. Considers that the time-limited transitional period with continued application of existing EU regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judicial and enforcement instruments and structures following the withdrawal was in the interest of both parties and facilitated the negotiation of and bridging to the future relationship;
Amendment 84 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 f (new)
Paragraph 7 f (new)
Amendment 87 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Believes, nevertheless, that the withdrawal process was characterised by hesitancyvolatility, on the part of the UK, leading to protracted uncertainty from the outset, reflected in the time gap between the referendum and the withdrawal notification under Article 50 of the TEU, and until the end of the negotiations, due to; Considers that raising the spectre of a no-deal withdrawal amounted to brinkmanship and gravely endangered the prospects of an orderly withdrawal;
Amendment 96 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Is of the view that the provisions of Article 50 of the TEU on the notification and extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the TEU have been handled in a sufficiently flexible manner to respond to the political vacillations and inconsistencies of the successive UK governments, while preserving the integrity of the withdrawal process and upholding the legal order of the Union;
Amendment 97 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Recalls that the decision to withdraw is the sovereign right of a Member State and that the Union is obliged to acknowledge the intention of that state; reminds that Article 50 of the TEU does not specify and therefore places no constraints on the form of notification of the intention to withdraw; believes in this context that the conduct of a Member State not respecting EU law and/or expressing its intention to not apply the EU Treaties, not recognise the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and not respect its judgements are a clear rejection of the obligations linked to EU membership;
Amendment 98 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 c (new)
Paragraph 9 c (new)
9c. Points out that the withdrawal from the European Union is by nature a complex process, and that the political choices of the withdrawing Member State regarding its future relations with the Union can add to such complexity;
Amendment 99 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 d (new)
Paragraph 9 d (new)
Amendment 102 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Notes, in this regard, that if an agreement is not reached, the withdrawal becomes effective two years after notification of the Council, in accordance with Article 50 (3) of the TEU; emphasises that there are no provisions in the Treaty to tackle a no-deal scenario;
Amendment 103 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Reiterates the importance of the work undertaken by the Commission and the Member States at all levels of public administration and in reaching out to citizens and private sectors, in terms of awareness raising and preparation, through the publication of a great number of specific stakeholder preparedness notices, and the timely adoption of unilateral and temporary contingency measures;
Amendment 104 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 c (new)
Paragraph 10 c (new)
Amendment 105 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 c (new)
Paragraph 10 c (new)
10c. Notes that the Treaty does not specify any substantive requirements on the guidelines of the European Council under Article 50(2) of the TEU, or regarding the framework for the future relationship between the withdrawing Member State and the Union and its link with the withdrawal arrangements;
Amendment 106 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – introductory part
Paragraph 11 – introductory part
11. Considers that Article 50 of the TEU strikes a balance between ensuring a legally sound withdrawal process and safeguarding the political flexibility necessary for adaptation to the specific circumstances; believes, however, that, in the framework of a future reform of the Treaty, the opportunity of remedying some of the loopholes identified in Article 50 of the TEU could be assessed, with particular regard tocomplexity of the withdrawal process and the far-reaching nature of its consequences are disproportional in relation to the lack of detail of the provisions of Article 50 of the TEU, including on the following aspects:
Amendment 113 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 1
Paragraph 11 – indent 1
- delimited requirements for the extension of the period of two years set out under Article 50(3) of the TEU,
Amendment 117 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 1 a (new)
Paragraph 11 – indent 1 a (new)
- the formal requirements of the notification of the intention to leave,
Amendment 120 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 2
Paragraph 11 – indent 2
- a legal basis and strict conditions forthe transitional arrangements,
Amendment 125 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 3
Paragraph 11 – indent 3
- explicit conditions for the revocation of the notification of the intention to leave,
Amendment 129 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 4
Paragraph 11 – indent 4
- clarification of the application of the provisions of Article 218 of the TFEU, notably on the role other than its paragraph 3, and in particular on the role of the European Parliament and of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the procedure;
Amendment 133 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Believes, furthermore,Regrets that the withdrawal of the UK from the Union entailed the departure of an entire community of EU citizens; believes that the withdrawal provisions of the Treaty should, as much as possible, ensure legal certainty for the vast number of EU citizens affected by the withdrawal, setting out minimum standards for the protection of their rights obtained on the basis of EU law;
Amendment 138 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Amendment 144 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Emphasises that the European Parliament played a pivotal role in the entire process of the withdrawal, contributing actively with duly substantiated resolutions to the identification of strategies and to the protection of the interests and priorities of the EU and its citizens, since the run-up to the UK referendum on EU membership; recalls in this regard that the contribution of Parliament was structured mainly through the Brexit Steering Group (BSG), created by the Conference of Presidents on 6 April 2017, with the support and close involvement of Parliament’s committees and the Conference of Presidents;
Amendment 146 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13b. Stresses that the Parliament was mobilised as a whole and in unison in the monitoring of the process of withdrawal, both through its political bodies and through its committees, which were called to identify from early on the impact of the UK’s withdrawal on the policy areas and legislation in their respective fields of responsibility; reiterates the importance of the continuous involvement of the committees responsible for sectoral policies during the negotiations; commends the long and exhaustive preparatory work undertaken by the committees in gathering evidence, advice and expertise through hearings, workshops and studies on all issues related to the withdrawal or the future relationship between the EU and the UK;
Amendment 147 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 c (new)
Paragraph 13 c (new)
13c. Recalls that the European Parliament has engaged in active dialogue with citizens and organisations representing them, through auditions and meetings organised by parliamentary committees and the BSG, who have striven to give a voice to their concerns and expectations during the withdrawal process;
Amendment 149 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Reminds that according to Article 50 (4) of the TEU, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State cannot participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning the process of withdrawal, while the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) elected in the withdrawing Member State continue to be MEPs with all their rights and obligations intact until the withdrawal becomes effective;
Amendment 150 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)
Paragraph 14 b (new)
14b. Recalls the central role of the Union negotiator in liaising and creating remarkable unity between the Union’s institutions and the 27 Member States;
Amendment 151 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 c (new)
Paragraph 14 c (new)
14c. Recognises the unprecedented nature of inter-institutional cooperation and transparency in the implementation of the Article 50 of the TEU, including the working methods and structures involved in the negotiations, the information channels, the publication of negotiating documents and the participation in meetings, and in particular in Sherpa meetings and meetings of the General Affairs Council;
Amendment 152 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 d (new)
Paragraph 14 d (new)
14d. Acknowledges the relevance of the core principles proposed by the European Parliament and introduced by the European Council in its successive negotiation guidelines, and subsequently implemented in the negotiations: - Protecting citizens’ rights derived from their status as EU citizens; - Acting in the interest of the Union and preserving its constitutional integrity and the autonomy of its decision-making; - Safeguarding the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union; - Preserving the financial stability of the Union; - Defending the withdrawing state’s enjoyment of all the rights and fulfilment of all the obligations deriving from the Treaties, including the principle of sincere cooperation; - Defending the clear difference in status between Member States and non-member States, as a state having exited the Union cannot have the same rights and obligations as a Member State;
Amendment 153 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 e (new)
Paragraph 14 e (new)
14e. Continues to support fully the abovementioned principles;
Amendment 154 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 f (new)
Paragraph 14 f (new)
14f. Is of the opinion that the abovementioned principles reach beyond the context of Article 50 of the TEU, as they underpin European integration and have become key elements of the EU constitutional identity and EU legal order even though they are not part of the treaty;
Amendment 155 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 g (new)
Paragraph 14 g (new)
14g. Notes that in this respect, the Article 50 of TEU exit procedure has led both the EU and its Member States to reaffirm the Union’s constitutional identity;
Amendment 156 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 h (new)
Paragraph 14 h (new)
Amendment 158 #
2020/2136(INI)
15. Reiterates that, until a withdrawal agreement enters into force or, failing that, the two-year period mentioned in Article 50(3) of the TEU has elapsed, the withdrawing State remains a Member State, and enjoys all the rights and is under all the obligations deriving from the Treaties without exception, including the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) of the TEU, as well as the obligation to hold elections to the European Parliament and to appoint its representatives in the institutions and bodies of the Union;
Amendment 161 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Amendment 170 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Considers, in this context, that the role of the Parliament is essential in safeguarding the parliamentary and democratic dimension of a procedure with such a constitutional and institutional impact on the Union and on the rights of EU citizens; considers that its role must be enhanced in any future Treaty reform, in all aspects of the process from the negotiations to the implementation of a withdrawal agreement, including for major decisions such as extensions in accordance with Article 50(3) of the TEU;
Amendment 175 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Emphasises in this regard that while the Article 50 process is concluded once the withdrawal from the EU becomes effective, the actual unwinding of EU membership and implementation of the withdrawal agreement is a long term process; Reaffirms in this context that Parliament will play its full role in the monitoring of the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement;
Amendment 176 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Amendment 180 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Considers that Article 50 of the TEU addresses and allows to solves the procedural aspect of a Member State’s withdrawal, but does not solve the significant political and economic consequences and disruptive effects of the withdrawal of a Member State from the EU;
Amendment 182 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Amendment 184 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Reiterates its call for an in-depth reflection on the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union, and on its impact on the future of the EU; believes that such a reflection should ensure an open and broadened dialogue on the reforms that the Union needs in order to reinforce democracy and the capacity to deliver on citizens needs and expectations; recalls in this context that the Union has embarked on an unprecedented process of reflection on its future in the framework on the Conference of the Future of Europe;
Amendment 194 #
2020/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Believes that it is the responsibility and role of the Union and its Member States to prevent the repetition of a withdrawal from the EUserve the nature of the European integration through their commitment to the European values and principles, including loyal cooperation principle and to prevent the repetition of a withdrawal from the EU; regrets in this context the restraint and limited engagement of the European Parliament and its committees in the run-up to the UK referendum which did not allow to improve access of the European citizens of UK to the information on the functioning of the EU and implications of withdrawal process; calls on Member States to consistently provide wide- reaching information to EU citizens on the functioning of the European Union, its areas of action and its decision-making processes; considers that for this purpose the Conference on the Future of Europe offers an opportunity for enhanced dialogue with citizens and civil society on the European Union and how it should evolve;
Amendment 1 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5
Citation 5
— having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), in particular Articles 9 and 10, 15(3)3, 14, 15,16 and 17(3) thereof,
Amendment 2 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
Citation 8 a (new)
- having regard to the special report 13/2019 of the European Court of Auditors on the ethical frameworks of the audited EU institutions
Amendment 5 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 13
Citation 13
— having regard to the recommendations of Transparency Intthe Organisation for Economic Co-Opernational and Development (OECD), the Council of Europe’´s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)various NGO´s,
Amendment 7 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the TEU stipulates that ‘the Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens, who shall receive equal attention from its institutions, bodies and agencies’; whereas this implies that public decisions are taken in the interest of the common good and notthat conflicts of interests - which occur, according to the definancial power of individual actors; ition of the OECD "when an individual or a corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit his or their own profession or official capacity in some way for personal or corporate benefit" - should be avoided in the legislative process and whereas any definition of conflict of interest has a contextual and evolving nature and full transparency does not necessarily guarantee the absence of any conflict of interest, nor does it guarantee that public trust will be won or decreased;
Amendment 10 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas the Treaties have established a system of division of powers between the institutions of the Union that assigns to each institution its own role within the institutional structure of the Union and in the performance of the tasks entrusted to it;
Amendment 15 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
B a. whereas the European Court of Auditors has stated in its special report 13/2019 1a on the ethical framework of the EU that Parliament, Council and Commission "have to a large extent adequate ethical frameworks in place for both staff and Members". _________________ 1a https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADoc uments/SR19_13/SR_ethical_frameworks _EN.pdf
Amendment 18 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
B b. whereas nevertheless the enforcement of the ethical framework could be improved;
Amendment 22 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the shortcomings of the current EU ethics framework derive largely from the fact that it relies on a self-regulatory approach and lacks adequate human and financial resources and competences to verify informany further evolution of the EU ethics framework must have a clear legal basis while respecting the separation of powers as laid down in the Treationes;
Amendment 24 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
Amendment 27 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas, as a consequence, multiple cases of unethical conduct and their inadequate handling by the EU institutions have harmed every incidence of unethical behaviour can endanger the trust which European citizens place in the EU institutions;
Amendment 32 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the current ethics standards frameworks appearse to be highly fragmented, with different rules in different institutions, creating a complex system which is difficult for both EU citizens and for those who have to respect the rules to understandailored according to the specificities of each European institutions;
Amendment 35 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
E a. whereas the balance of powers assigned to the institutions is a fundamental guarantee afforded by the Treaty to European citizens;
Amendment 36 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the Meroni doctrine developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) allows for the delegation of EU institutions’ competences to external bodies; under strict conditions; whereas according to the court any delegation of competences must be limited and can only relate to clearly defined executive powers, the use of which must be entirely subject to the supervision of the high authority and cannot concern discretionary powers involving any political judgement in order not to jeopardise the balance of powers between the institutions;
Amendment 39 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
F a. whereas, following the preceding considerations, the legal margin for overarching rules applied to individual institutions with a common application is very narrow;
Amendment 40 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
Amendment 43 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
G a. Underlines that all EU institutions have to meet the highest standards of independence and impartiality while stressing each institution´s right of organisational sovereignty;
Amendment 44 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G b (new)
Recital G b (new)
G b. Recalls that Members of Parliament´s freedom of the mandate is in the interest of the citizens they represent;
Amendment 45 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G c (new)
Recital G c (new)
Amendment 46 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G d (new)
Recital G d (new)
G d. Points out that all staff in the institutions is covered by the EU staff regulations of officials of the European Union (EUSR) and conditions of employment of other servants of the European Union (CEOS);
Amendment 47 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G e (new)
Recital G e (new)
G e. Recalls that the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union set out a European governance framework based on the separation of powers, laying down distinct rights and obligations for each institution;
Amendment 48 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G f (new)
Recital G f (new)
G f. Points out that based on the principle of conferral, institutions cannot delegate by means of an interinstitutional agreement, powers which they themselves do not have, for instance where such powers are conferred by the Treaties on the Court of Auditors or have remained with the Member States;
Amendment 49 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G g (new)
Recital G g (new)
G g. Recalls furthermore that one of Parliament´s primary functions as laid down in the Treaty on European Union is to exercise political control;
Amendment 50 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 57 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Principles Considers that any option under discussion for improving transparency and integrity in the EU institutions must be respectful of the following principles: - the principle of sound financial management, ensuring the efficient and effective management of Union ressources - the principles of conferral and separation of powers - the freedom to choose an occupation and the right to engage in work as stipulated by article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union - rule of law and fundamental European principles such as the presumption of innocence, the right to be heard, the principles of legality and proportionality - Freedom of the mandate of Members of European Parliament
Amendment 58 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Further stresses that any option under discussion requires a solid legal base for the constitution and for any competences to be assigned;
Amendment 59 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1 c. Insists that any option under discussion requires a clear definition of the mandate, composition and competences none of which must duplicate or interfere with the work of OLAF, the European Ombudsman, the European Court of Auditors or the European Court of Justice;
Amendment 60 #
Amendment 61 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1 a (new)
Subheading 1 a (new)
Underlines that the principle of separation of powers is the foundation pillar of modern democracy; considers it imperative for the legislative to control the executive, as any reversal of the roles and powers of the legislative and executive would otherwise endanger the independence of the free mandate of elected Members of Parliament;
Amendment 62 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1 b (new)
Subheading 1 b (new)
Stresses that any option under discussion for improving transparency and integrity in the EU institutions can neither, based on primary law, issue any decision on whether a criminal offense has been committed, nor impose any sanctions, nor impose any administrative measures intended to avoid or clean up accidental or negligent non-compliance with the rules;
Amendment 63 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1 c (new)
Subheading 1 c (new)
Highlights that any option under discussion for improving transparency and integrity in the EU institutions which is to regulate the grey area in between can only have an advisory function for the institutions concerned;
Amendment 64 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1 d (new)
Subheading 1 d (new)
Insists that any decisions on measures to be taken or sanctions to be imposed can only be taken by the competent bodies of the institutions themselves;
Amendment 65 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1 e (new)
Subheading 1 e (new)
Recalls that distinction must be made between a conflict of interest arising during or after the exercise of a function and the importance to distinguish between the two and recalls furthermore to distinguish between acts that authorised if declared and acts that are not authorised at all.
Amendment 66 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1 f (new)
Subheading 1 f (new)
Suggests that each institution concludes agreements on exchange of information with the Member States respecting the framework of the separation of powers;
Amendment 70 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – introductory part
Paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Considers that the new EU Ethics Body should be delegated a list of competences to implement ethics rules for Members and staff; takes the view that this list should include by way of a minimum the competences provided for in:any options under discussion for improving transparency and integrity in the EU institutions should only have advisory competences for the members of the institutions;
Amendment 72 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – indent 1
Paragraph 2 – indent 1
Amendment 73 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – indent 2
Paragraph 2 – indent 2
Amendment 76 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – indent 3
Paragraph 2 – indent 3
Amendment 79 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – indent 4
Paragraph 2 – indent 4
Amendment 82 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – indent 5
Paragraph 2 – indent 5
Amendment 87 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 94 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Insists that the IIAany cooperation agreement between the institutions should be open to the participation of allother EU institutions and bodies; believes that the IIA should allow the Ethics Body to conclude agreements with national authorities with a view to ensuring the exchange of information necessary for the performance of its task in order to agree on common measures which can be implemented in respect of the division of powers;
Amendment 100 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 101 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that the participating institutions should entrust the EU Ethics Body with monitoring powers over ethics standards, as well as advisory, investigative and enforcement powersany options under discussion for improving transparency and integrity in the EU institutions has to be respectful of the balance between the institutions as established by the treaties, underlines that it must not replace, substitute or interfere with the responsibilities and prerogatives of each institution and points out that given these considerations, the decision-making powers must remain within the respective institutions, hence only a body with advisory function able to issue non- binding recommendations is conceivable;
Amendment 109 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 120 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 126 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 130 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Stresses that requesting tax documents and bank records are interventions in private law, for which there must be serious allegations that enter in competence of OLAF;
Amendment 134 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Believes that in relation to its enforcement powers, the body could take over from the Appointing Authority in dealing with staff ethics obligations, and that in relation to Members of Parliament or Commissioners, the body couldannot be granted enforcement powers within the limits of the provisionssince this transferral of powers would countained in the Treaties, and without prejudice to any additional mechanisms provided for in Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, in particular concerner the separation of powers laid down ing termination of officehe Treaties;
Amendment 142 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that thesuch an EU Ethics Body should be entrusted with advisory tasks in order to provideto improve the enforcement of existing provisions in the EU institutions in order to provide reliable and trustworthy advice to any individual possibly covered by its scope who wishes to request interpretation of an ethical standard in relation to appropriate conduct in a specific case;
Amendment 150 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. BelievUnderlines that the decision on the absence of conflicts of interest of designated Commissioners-designate should remain a competence of Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affair remains a political and institutional competence of the European Parliament and its bodies, while thesuch an EU Ethics Body shcould support the process with the publication of itsits non-binding analysis of each individual case and make its investigative capacities available;
Amendment 153 #
Amendment 154 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3 a (new)
Subheading 3 a (new)
Recalls that the competent bodies in the institutions are regulated by law and that the composition of the competent body in the European Parliament could be made up of MEPs and former MEPs, such an EU Ethics Body may be composed of Members or former Members of the institutions;
Amendment 155 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3 b (new)
Subheading 3 b (new)
Amendment 159 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Believes that the Ethics Body should be composed of nine Members, three selected by the Commission, three elecappointed by Parliament, and three asdesignated de jure from among the former Presidents of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the Court of Auditors and former EU Ombudsmen;
Amendment 164 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Considers that its members must be independent, chosen on the basis of their competence, experience and professional qualities, as well as their personal integrity, have an impeccable record of ethical behaviour and provide a declaration of the absence of conflicts of interest; is of the opinion that the composition of the body should be gender-balanced; underlines that all member shall be independent in the performance of their duties;
Amendment 176 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. InsistsRecommend that the college be supported by a secretariat with the human, material and financial resources commensurate with its mandate and tasks in accordance with the principles of sound financial budget management;
Amendment 181 #
Amendment 182 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Proposes a two-stepn approach whereby, in the event that thesuch an EU Ethics Body becomes aware of a breachdeals with a breach of conduct or possible breach of ethics rules, it first recommends actions to put an end to the breach; considers that ithis first preventive step should ensure confidentiality and the right of the person to be heard; suggests that in the event that the individual concerned refuses to take the appropriate actions, the EU Ethics Body should make relevant information about the case publicly available and decide, if appropriate, on sanctions; considers that this two-step approach should apply provided that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the individual acted in bad faith and recommends that intentional breach, gross negligence, the concealment of evidence and non- compliance with the obligation to cooperate should be, as such, subject to sanctions, even when the breach itself has ceaseto be heard;
Amendment 192 #
Amendment 193 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 5 a (new)
Subheading 5 a (new)
Amendment 194 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 5 b (new)
Subheading 5 b (new)
Insists that the procedures laid down in the Treaties must be applied, such as the transfer of investigations by the European Court of Auditors to OLAF and to the European Court of Justice;
Amendment 197 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Is of the opinion that the EU Ethics Body should publish an annual report containing both information about the fulfilment of its tasks and, where appropriate, recommendations for improving ethics standardsto be presented to the European Parliament;
Amendment 204 #
2020/2133(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Insists that the decisions of thean EU Ethics Body should bcannot issue legally binding, reviewable before the CJEU and subject to possible complaints to the EU Ombudsma decisions, since no institution can delegate decision- making authority to another institution;
Amendment 26 #
2020/2088(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the higherst turnout was ultimately linked to gains by Eurosceptics, which should be considered as a warnin 20 years demonstrates a strong engagement of citizens in shaping the future of the Union and can be pinned down to multiple reasons, such as a rise in the number of those voters who are ing for European integration, especially in several founding Member States where far-right extremists and anti-European forces won the elections;avour of the EU or who believe that their voice can make things change in the EU1a; _________________ 1aThe 2019 post-electoral survey: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your- service/files/be- heard/eurobarometer/2019/post-election- survey-2019-complete-results/report/en- post-election-survey-2019-report.pdf
Amendment 75 #
2020/2088(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas the Spitzenkandidaten process has yet to be fully developed; whereas it lacks, among other things, the possibility for Spitzenkandidaten to stand as official candidates in all Member States on transnational lists, allowing all European voters to choose and vote for their preferred Spitzenkandidat; whereas Parliament raised this issue in its decision of 7 February 2018 on the revision of the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission15 ; _________________ 15 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0030.
Amendment 91 #
2020/2088(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas institutional improvements such as transnational lists, as acknowledged by ParliamentEuropean elections are a joint European exercise in democracy where separate elections in Member States with national parties from pan- European political families lead to a common European result; whereas in the past Parliament has discussed various improvements to this exercise, such as in its resolution of 7 February 2018 on the composition of the European Parliament, or the transformation of the Council into a second legislative chamber of the Union, as proposed in its resolution of 16 February 2017 on possible evolutions of and adjustments to the current institutional set-up of the European Union, would radically transform the European elections into one true European election, as opposed to the collection of 27 separate national elections that it is today;
Amendment 95 #
2020/2088(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M a (new)
Recital M a (new)
M a. whereas one of the ideas discussed concerned the creation of a joint constituency with transnational lists; whereas Parliament ultimately rejected the idea on 7 February 2018 based on concerns that elections without a local constituency would not ensure accountability to voters, would weaken the link between Members and their electorate but would also favour large Member States; whereas the objective of the EU must be to be more democratic and accountable instead of more centralised and distant;
Amendment 199 #
2020/2088(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 207 #
2020/2088(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 223 #
2020/2088(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Acknowledges that despite the fact that the agreed reform of the Electoral Law has not yet been ratified by some Member States, further improvements are required, such as provisions for remote voting operations in defined or exceptional circumstances, as well as on the elections in the joint European constituency;
Amendment 225 #
2020/2088(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13 a. Regrets that while minorities make up about 10% of the overall EU population, their elected representatives represent only about 5% of the membership of the European Parliament 1a; points out in this regard the effective barrier that electoral thresholds represent for parties representing minority communities running in single national constituencies; points out several examples of good practice in this regard, where special thresholds apply for parties representing language communities or recognized linguistic or national minorities such as Italy or Belgium; is of the opinion that the EU institutions should issue recommendations to Member States in this regard; _________________ 1ahttps://www.enar-eu.org/ENAR-s- Election-Analysis-Ethnic-minorities-in- the-new-European-Parliament-2019
Amendment 228 #
2020/2088(INI)
13 b. Strongly regrets that there are still Member States in the European Union whose election laws prohibit the use of mother tongue for national minorities in election campaigns; considers that such practices are discriminatory, create unjustified electoral barriers and limit access to voters and thus political participation in elections and beyond;
Amendment 230 #
2020/2088(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 c (new)
Paragraph 13 c (new)
13 c. Recalls the particular difficulties faced by Roma in the area of political participation, especially in what regards accessing voter registration procedures due among others to lacking identity documentation; calls on the Member States to strengthen Roma voter education and turnout;
Amendment 254 #
2020/2088(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Points out that European parties' manifestos were still not a relevant part of the political debate ahead of the elections; strongly regrets instances when such debate instead of EU matters were focused on national topics without any direct link to EU policy-making; considers that the European dimension of elections can most significantly be enhanced through more information provided to citizens on the decisions taken by the EU and the impact of such decisions on their daily lives;
Amendment 1 #
2020/2080(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Highlights that permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) significantly contributes to the convergence of Member States' actions in the area of common foreign and security policy and represents an important step towards achieving the Treaty objective of a common defence;
Amendment 5 #
2020/2080(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Welcomes the inclusiveness of PESCO towards all Member States as reflected in the high number of participants in projects; is of the opinion that PESCO should favour low entry- criteria and be accessible towards Member States that are smaller and/or have low defence budgets;
Amendment 41 #
2020/2080(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Believes that the involvement of the United Kingdom in PESCO projects, where invited and where effective reciprocity is ensured, would be in the strategic interest of the Union; expresses its hope that the area of defence will be covered in the EU-UK negotiations on their future relationship, in line with the Political Declaration.
Amendment 44 #
2020/2080(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Reiterates that Parliament should play a prominent role in the scrutiny and supervision of the implementation and evaluation of the CSDP; expects in this regard that, in line with Article 26 TEU, Parliament will be fully informed and consulted by the Vice- President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy in the context of the current strategic review of the first PESCO phase, which ends in 2020.
Amendment 1 #
2020/2072(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Recalls that the EU architecture on the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights has been in continuous development ever since the creation of the European Community (EC) and that after its introduced in the EC by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, it was progressively anchored and strengthened in the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty, the Amsterdam Treaty, the Treaty of Nice and the Treaty of Lisbon and that at present respect for the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights are recognized as the founding values of the Union; whereas this process must be further advanced;
Amendment 2 #
2020/2072(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1 a. Recalls that the EU has codified in its accession criteria that EU membership requires that candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, respect for and protection of minorities; points out however that the EU lacks effective tools to enforce these criteria once a country has become part of the EU;
Amendment 44 #
2020/2072(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Recalls that while in the EU legal framework the rule of law is explicitly mentioned as a value which is common to the EU and its Member States (Article 2 TEU), the EU Treaties do not provide a definition of the notion; points out that the rule of law is a complex and in many aspects vague concept and therefore the setup of the Annual Monitoring Cycle would require a consensus on the principles of the rule of law common to all Member States; considers that the strict minimum of the meaning of the rule of law is a system where laws are applied and enforced and that in the definition of the concept the Commission should use a broad definition, drawing on principles set out in the case law of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights as well as the principles expressed by the Venice Commission;
Amendment 46 #
2020/2072(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Stresses that the rule of law is intrinsically linked to respect for democracy and for fundamental rights and that therefore the three principles must be jointly monitored;
Amendment 56 #
2020/2072(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Points out that in the case of Romania and Bulgaria a Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) was set up when they joined the EU on 1January 2007 as a transitional measure to assist the two countries to remedy shortcomings in the fields of judicial reform, corruption and organised crime and that 13 years after their accession the mechanism is still applied in case of both counties; considers that the Annual Monitoring Cycle, which would apply equally to all member States of the European Union should replace the CVM; considers that the benchmarks set up by the European Commission for assessing progress within the CVM could be used within the framework of the Annual Monitoring Cycle;
Amendment 72 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the Union has codified in its accession criteria that Union membership requires that a candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, respect for and protection of minorities; points out however that the Union lacks effective tools to enforce these criteria once a country has become part of the Union;
Amendment 74 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas while the respect for the rights of minorities is a part of the set of political criteria an accession-candidate country must fulfil at the time of accession, no such benchmarks apply for states that are already members of the Union; whereas the absence of such benchmarks encourages backtracking by Member States;
Amendment 93 #
2020/2072(INL)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. HighlightConsiders that the Conference on the Future of Europe could provides a momentum for better understan the opportunity to discuss embedding in the need to protect Union values in this context; thereforeTreaties a more effective enforcement of Union values and that, in the event of Treaty changes being made in the future, the effectiveness of the Article 7 procedure should be enhanced by removing the requirement for unanimity and reinforcing the sanction mechanism;
Amendment 179 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. points out that the Mechanism should consolidate and supersede existing instruments, in particular the Annual Rule of Law Report, the Commission’s Rule of Law Framework, the Council’s Rule of Law Dialogue and the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), while increasing complementarity and coherence with other available tools, including infringement procedures under Article 7 TEU, budgetary conditionality once in force, and the European Semester; is of the opinion that the Annual Monitoring Cycle can fulfil the objectives of the CVM for Bulgaria and Romania, thus contributing to equal treatment of all Member States; considers that the benchmarks set up by the Commission for assessing progress within the CVM could be used within the framework of the Annual Monitoring Cycle; considers that the three institutions should use the findings from the Annual Monitoring Cycle in their assessment for the purposes of triggering Article 7 TEU and Regulation (EU) 2020/xxxx of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the Union's budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States11 ; _________________ 11[instead of xxxx insert final number of 2018/136(COD) in the text and correct OJ reference in footnote] OJ C ..., ....., p. ....;
Amendment 202 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Recalls that respecting the rights of minorities is an integral and essential part of the values of the Union as set out in Article 2 TEU; reminds that by respecting the rights of minorities the Union also protects its cultural and linguistic diversity and safeguards its cultural heritage, as foreseen in Article 3 TEU; stresses therefore that the protection of minorities must form an essential part of the Annual Monitoring Cycle;
Amendment 268 #
2020/2072(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part 2 – point 6
Annex I – part 2 – point 6
6. The Commission shall draw on all information at its disposal when preparing the Annual Report. Of particular relevance in that regard are reports and data from the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, the Council of Europe, including the Venice Commission and, the Group of States against Corruption, the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, and other international organisations that produce relevant studies.
Amendment 35 #
2020/2044(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls the important role of the Committee on Petitions as the only committee directly communicating with the citizens, in defending and promoting the rights of EU citizens and residents, ensuring that petitioners’ concerns and complaints are examined in timely fashion and, wherever possible, resolved, through an open, democratic and transparent petition process;
Amendment 42 #
2020/2044(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasizes the importance of a continuous public debate on the Union’s fields of activity aimed at informing citizens about their citizenship rights, the scope of the Union’s competences and the different levels of decision-making, in order to reduce the number of inadmissible petitions;
Amendment 48 #
2020/2044(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls for a more focused and active press and communications service and a more active social media presence, making the work of the committee more responsive to public concerns, by also highlighting those cases and success stories, in which an issue raised by a petitioner was solved with the support of the PETI Committee;
Amendment 94 #
2020/2044(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Points to the important ongoing work by the Committee on Petitions to ensure the protection of animal welfare in the EU, as demonstrated by the significant number of petitions on this topic discussed in its meetings in 2019; draws attention to the public hearing on the ‘Revaluation of the wolf population in the EU’, which the Committee on Petitions held on 5 December 2019 jointly with the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and in association with the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, in order to give voice to citizens’ concerns about the legal framework for the protection of the wolf as well as the impact of the wolf, and other large carnivores, such as brown bear population on the environment and rural communities; emphasizes that in the framework of the Habitats Directive large carnivores belong to the protected species in most of the Member States; calls on the Member States to make better use of the tools under the existing EU legislation to address possible conflicts concerning the conservation of protected large carnivores; invites the Commission to present as soon as possible an updated EU guidance on species protection rules in order to achieve a satisfactory coexistence between people and large carnivores in affected areas;
Amendment 97 #
2020/2044(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses that the ECI is an important instrument for active citizenship and public participation; welcomes the adoption on 17 April 2019 of the new rules for the ECI, which bring a number of structural and technical improvements to make this instrument more user-friendly and accessible as well as to facilitate increased participation of EU citizens in the democratic process of the Union; notes the significant number of new ECIs registered by the Commission in 2019, which shows that citizens are seizing the opportunity to use participatory instruments to have a say in policymaking and lawmaking processes; regrets that so far none of the successful ECIs ended with a legislative proposal by the Commission; encourages the Commission to approach ECIs as openly and responsively as possible in order to make this instrument a real success of European participatory democracy in the eyes of the citizens;
Amendment 103 #
2020/2044(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Recalls that the Petitions Web Portal is an essential tool for ensuring a smooth, efficient and transparent petition process; welcomes, in this regard, its alignment with the ‘look and feel’ of the European Parliament’s website (Europarl), which has made the portal more responsive and accessible for citizens; stresses that efforts must be continued to make the portal more accessible to persons with disabilities; suggests ensuring more visibility for the Petitions Web Portal at the European Parliament’s website; is of the opinion that the right to petition is directly linked to the institution’s activities and deserves a visible and easily accessible place at the EP’s website;
Amendment 10 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 14 a (new)
Citation 14 a (new)
- having regard to Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA,
Amendment 17 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 21
Citation 21
— having regard to the Commission staff working document of 17 October 2014 entitled ‘Mid-term report on the implementation of the EU strategy towards the eradication of trafficking in human beings’ (SWD(2014)0318) and to the first (COM(2016)0267)), second (COM(2018)0777) and third COM(2020) 661 progress reports thereon,
Amendment 20 #
2020/2029(INI)
- having regard to the Commission’s 2020 study on the economic, social and human cost of human trafficking and its 2020 Study on reviewing the functioning of Member States’ National and Transnational Referral Mechanisms,
Amendment 21 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 21 a (new)
Citation 21 a (new)
- having regard to the Commission’s study of 2016 on the gender dimension of trafficking in human beings;
Amendment 22 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 21 b (new)
Citation 21 b (new)
- having regard to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals 5.2 for eliminating all forms of violence against women and girls, including for sexual exploitation
Amendment 31 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 29 a (new)
Citation 29 a (new)
- having regard to the Europol report 'The challenges of countering human trafficking in the digital era',
Amendment 32 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 29 b (new)
Citation 29 b (new)
- having regard to Europol's 2017 Serious and organised crime threat assessment (SOCTA),
Amendment 33 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 29 c (new)
Citation 29 c (new)
- having regard to the 4th annual report of the European Migrant Smuggling Centre of Europol (2020),
Amendment 34 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 29 d (new)
Citation 29 d (new)
- having regard to the 2018 Joint Statement of Commitment to working together against trafficking in human beings signed by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), EU Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol), EU Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound), EU Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL), European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (eu-LISA), European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) and the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE),
Amendment 35 #
2020/2029(INI)
- having regard to the Report of the Agency on Fundamental Rights of the EU entitled 'Severe labour exploitation: workers moving within or into the European Union',
Amendment 46 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas trafficking in human beings (THB) constitutes modern-day slavery and is a profound violation of fundamental rights, as outlined in Article 5(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Amendment 48 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the number of registered victims of THB has grown in the Commission's last study period (2017 and 2018) compared to the previous one; whereas, the actual number of victims is most likely considerably higher than reported data, as many victims remain undetected1a; _________________ 1aThe European Commission's Third report on the progress made in the fight against trafficking in human beings (2020) as required under Article 20 of Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims
Amendment 61 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas according to the Commission1a nearly three quarters of all victims in 2017 and 2018 in the EU were female (women and girls), who were predominantly trafficked for sexual exploitation; whereas children account for a considerable number of victims of THB; _________________ 1ahttps://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/eu- policy/third-report-progress-made-fight- against-trafficking-human-beings_en
Amendment 67 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)
Recital A c (new)
Ac. whereas severe labour exploitation occurs in many economic sectors in the EU and affects diverse groups of cross- border workers, both EU and non-EU citizens; whereas, as recommended by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights1a, such practices should be addressed among others through a comprehensive system of targeted inspections of working conditions; _________________ 1aSevere labour exploitation: workers moving within or into the European Union http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/s evere-labour-exploitation-workers- moving-within-or-european-union
Amendment 71 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A d (new)
Recital A d (new)
Ad. whereas Europol warns that the impact of the pandemic could further increase the numbers of victims and decrease the likelihood for traffickers to be detected by law enforcement and that an economic recession in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis could also result in dangerous consequences in the area of THB1a; _________________ 1a https://www.europol.europa.eu/publicatio ns-documents/challenges-of-countering- human-trafficking-in-digital-era
Amendment 75 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A e (new)
Recital A e (new)
Ae. whereas according to Europol1a the use of digital technologies has broadened criminals’ ability to traffic human beings for different types of exploitation, including sexual and labour exploitation, the removal of organs, illegal adoption of children and forced marriages; whereas new technologies are exploited by traffickers during every phase of sexual exploitation, from the recruitment and advertisement of victims, to blackmailing them with photos and videos and controlling their movements; whereas these new tools offer increased anonymity for traffickers and pose difficulties for law enforcement to detect them; _________________ 1a https://www.europol.europa.eu/publicatio ns-documents/challenges-of-countering- human-trafficking-in-digital-era
Amendment 81 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A f (new)
Recital A f (new)
Af. whereas THB is a highly international and cross-border crime, posing challenges with regard to detection, investigation, evidence collection, jurisdiction, extradition and mutual legal assistance;
Amendment 83 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A g (new)
Recital A g (new)
Ag. whereas the effective detection of THB victims continues to be a challenge in most Member States owing to various reasons, such as lack of language abilities of victims in a foreign environment and their reluctance to report to police or limited law enforcement capacities; whereas the identification of child victims is often made more challenging because they do not understand they are victims;
Amendment 99 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Commends the good work done by the former EU Anti-Trafficking Coordinator (EU ATC) in coordinating the EU’s response to THB and developing knowledge and findings on the various aspects of THB, including research into the gender dimension and the particular vulnerability of children;
Amendment 103 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Calls on Member States to provide for the stable funding and adequate staff needed to detect the victims first line and to ensure consistent financing for all NRM activities;
Amendment 105 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the importance of the funding ofsignificant role EU funds play in financing various aspects of the fight against human trafficking; Stresses the importance of the funding through the Daphne Fund, the European Social Fund +, the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) and Internal Security Fund (ISF) programmes to continue to be used for projects tackling THB, as well as using other available instruments;
Amendment 117 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Deplores that data on trafficking in human beings is not being systematically collected and publicly shared on a regular basis; Highlights that the lack of consistent and detailed data continues to hamper the adequate assessment of the scale and trends in THB; calls on the Member States to improve the collection of more up-to-date data disaggregated by type of trafficking, age and gender and including internally trafficked people, by compiling statistical information in cooperation with civil society;
Amendment 118 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights that the lack of consistent and detailed data continues to hamper thedata collection can still improve to adequately assessment of trends in THB; calls on the Member States to collecenhance data collection aiming at more up-to-date data disaggregated by age and gender and including internally trafficked people, by compiling statistical information in cooperation with civil societyinstitutional actors involved, civil society organisations, as well as with the contribution of the European Institute for Gender Equality(EIGE), including trafficking data on the violence surveys;
Amendment 127 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses in that sense the need to improve reporting of trafficking cases and subsequent data collection and coordination among data sources at Member State and at EU level to gain a better understanding of the phenomenon and its various components
Amendment 128 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Asks for more gender-specific measures and child-sensitive policy instruments, training and guidance for stakeholders, actors and authorities in charge, at various stages of the process, such as the identification of victims, the referral and assistance procedures related to victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation,
Amendment 138 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to monitor the use of digital technologies for THB as the predominant tools used to recruit trafficking victimempower law enforcement authorities fighting human traffickers so they are able to respond to the new technological challenges in terms of technical knowledge, dedicated human resources, as well as of an improvement in the legislative tools that can be used in judicial proceedings and in the prosecution of traffickers;
Amendment 146 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls for the update of the existing legislative and policy framework in order to promote information exchange and cooperation between law enforcement authorities and the private sector, including internet service providers and social media companies; calls on the Commission and Member States to regulate third party responsibility for technology companies hosting exploitative materials in order to ensure that their platforms are not being abused for THB purposes;
Amendment 161 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Highlights that the early identification of victims remains one of the main challenges to implementation, and is one of the most crucial in terms of enabling victims to exercise their rights; calls on the Member States to give more actors responsibility for identifying victims of THB at all stages of the process, including law enforcement officers, civil society representatives, immigration and asylum officials, labour inspectors and social workers or healthcare staff;
Amendment 164 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Calls on all Member States to ensure that early expert legal intervention and advice is provided to potential victims of THB at the earliest possible moment, including accessible information about their legal rights and options;
Amendment 173 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on all Member States to effectively guarantee the rights of victims and to support them with a gender- and child sensitive approach while ensuring complementarity with the Victims’ Rights Directive; notes that the Anti-Trafficking Directive prohibits the criminalisation of victims of THB;
Amendment 183 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Calls on all Member States to strengthen the implementation of the Victims Rights Directive, and victims’ access to justice and support, with a specific focus on the provision aimed at victims of gender based violence;
Amendment 187 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Highlights that while the full impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is not yet measureable, it is nevertheless clear that the crisis disproportionately affects the most vulnerable victims of THB, especially women and children; points out that due to the increased use of the Internet, social media and on-line advertisements – it is to be expected that the number of victims of trafficking exploited on-line would rise sharply; calls on the MS for more effective and coherent actions targeting on-line exploitation, with the support of relevant EU agencies, such as Europol;
Amendment 190 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Highlights that while the full impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is not yet measureable, it is nevertheless clear that the crisis disproportionately affects the most vulnerable victims of THB, especially women and childrensuch as omen and children, at all stages of the trafficking process: exacerbating risks and vulnerability to trafficking, such as through the shift to the use of technologies and sexual exploitation online, causing delay in identification of victims, hindering and delaying access to justice, assistance and support;
Amendment 204 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Points out the need for aNotes that all Member States have in place a National Referral Mechanism (NRM) and that a wide range of instruments for transnational cooperation that con-tribute to the referral of victims of THB; points out the challenges in the coordination of different actors, combined with those posed by the limited trust of the victims, both of which negatively affect effective referral; stresses the need for a fully-functioning, coherent and coordinated National Referral Mechanism (NRM); underlines that good cooperation between the police and non- governmental organisations (NGOs) cannot be a substitute for a fully fledged NRM defining the roles and responsibilities of all relevant actors16 ; _________________ 16 The recommendations by the Council of Europe’s Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human beings (GRETA) include ensuring the application of the NRM to asylum seekers and persons in immigration detention.
Amendment 209 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Points out the need for a coherent and transnationally coordinated National Referral Mechanism (NRM); underlines that good cooperation between the police and non- governmental organisations (NGOs) cannot be a substitute for a fully fledged NRM defining the roles and responsibilities of all relevant actors16 ; _________________ 16 The recommendations by the Council of Europe’s Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human beings (GRETA) include ensuring the application of the NRM to asylum seekers and persons in immigration detention.
Amendment 216 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Commission to monitor and assess the situation of compensation to victims in the Member States in terms of access, enforcement and actual payments, and to come forward with specific measures to ensure better access to compensation;tackle shortcomings.
Amendment 217 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Points out that all three Progress Reports of the Commission have pointed out the vulnerability of the Roma communities, especially of women and children to all forms of trafficking and exploitation; points out that the estimated representation of Roma among trafficked persons in a number of countries from Eastern Europe in a study financed through the Daphne III programme1a was several times higher than the proportion of Roma among the general population; calls on the Commission and the Member States to design specific measures fighting trafficking through the national Roma integration strategies for 2020-2030; calls on the Commission and the Member States to collect statistical data on victims of trafficking based on ethnic background; _________________ 1a Breaking the Silence, Report by the European Roma Rights Centre and People in Need file://ep.parl.union.eu/MEP/UserData/04/ ivirag/Desktop/REPORT%20- %20Breaking%20the%20Silence.pdf
Amendment 221 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Early identification is important and should duly take into account the specifities of high-risk sectors and groups such as women and girls victims through adequate information, training and expertise for the officials involved.
Amendment 226 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 c (new)
Paragraph 11 c (new)
11c. Underlines the importance for Member States to additionally stablish mechanisms, assist and support victims, calls therefore for a gender sensitive approach for the minimum standards foreseen in the Directive for support and protection of victims.
Amendment 240 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Urges the Member States to adopt specific measures to address violence against women and gender inequalities as the root causes of traffickingpart of the fight against trafficking; specially through education, information, and awareness raising campaigns complemented with an exchange of best practices; recommends that the Commission strengthen and develop the gender dimension in the monitoring of the implementation of EU anti-trafficking legislation;
Amendment 254 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, to examine how the demand for sexual services drives trafficking, as traffickers tend to convey their victims to countries where prostitution is regulated and lawfully practiced, making it much easier for traffickers to use a legal environment in order to exploit their victims17 ; stresses that the use of legal businesses to cover the exploitative activities is quite common for human traffickers; recalls that in some EU Member States where prostitution is legal, suspects were able to exploit children alongside adult victims18 ; _________________ 17Europol, Situation Report ‘Trafficking in Human Beings in the EU’, 18 February 2016. 18Europol, Situation Report ‘Criminal networks involved in the trafficking and exploitation of underage victims in the EU’, 18 October 2018.
Amendment 268 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Urges the Member States to focus on the recurring and emerging patterns of THB for sexual exploitation, such as the increasing exploitation of children and the use of the ‘lover boy’ method as the most frequent means of recruiting victims by using online technologies; notes that the increased use of technology by criminal networks engaged in human trafficking has significantly transformed their traditional modus operandi, especially in some stages of the trafficking process;
Amendment 270 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Urges the Member States to focus on the recurring and emerging patterns of THB for sexual exploitation, such as the increasing exploitation of children and the use of for example, among others, the ‘lover boy’ method as the most frequent means of recruiting victims by using online technologies, through developing online safety skills and cyber literacy, and fight this challenge in cooperation with relevant actors and private sector;
Amendment 287 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Highlights the importance of gender- and child sensitive training programmes for officials attending victims to enhance the early identification of those who are victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation and encourages Member States to adopt measures to support victims, such as exit programmes, social and professional reintegration or sexual health services;
Amendment 295 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Encourages the Member States that within their sexuality education programmes they include age-appropriate material with the aim of preventing all forms of violence against women and girls, including trafficking and sexual exploitation, and to promote healthy attitudes of respect and equality in all relationship interactions;
Amendment 299 #
Amendment 300 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17b. Strongly regrets that according to the Third report of the Commission, several Member States and civil society organisations report an increase in trafficking for labour exploitation;
Amendment 302 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 c (new)
Paragraph 17 c (new)
17c. Deplores that Member States also reported that children have also increasingly fallen victim to trafficking for labour exploitation and calls for urgent action by national labour inspectorates to detect and put an end to such practices;
Amendment 303 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 d (new)
Paragraph 17 d (new)
17d. Calls on the European Labour Authority to address the issue of severe labour exploitation as a matter of priority and to support Member States with capacity building in view of better identifying and sanctioning severe labour exploitation practices through targeted inspections;
Amendment 304 #
Amendment 305 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 e (new)
Paragraph 17 e (new)
17e. Notes that according to the Third Report of the Commission1a, trafficking for other forms of exploitation accounted for 18% of the victims, involving activities in the area of forced begging, forced criminalities, the selling of babies, organ removal, illegal adoption, financial exploitation through fraud and trafficking in human beings through surrogacy; _________________ 1aThe European Commission's Third report on the progress made in the fight against trafficking in human beings (2020) as required under Article 20 of Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, COM(2020) 661
Amendment 306 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 f (new)
Paragraph 17 f (new)
17f. Points out that many of the victims of forced begging and forced criminality often come from marginalised Roma communities and are often children;
Amendment 307 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 g (new)
Paragraph 17 g (new)
17g. Is of the opinion that passively ignoring forced begging practices contributes to the maintaining of profit flows for criminal rings and amplifies a phenomenon of exploitation of vulnerable people and children;
Amendment 308 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 h (new)
Paragraph 17 h (new)
Amendment 318 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Emphasises that migration flows can increase the risk for migrants of becoming victimsthe exploitation of migration flows by criminal organisations can increase the risk of trafficking within the EU20 ; points out that there has been a sharp increase in the number of women and girls trafficked through the Central Mediterranean route for sexual exploitation in the EU21 ; _________________ 20Second progress report, COM(2018)0777; Europol, European Migrant Smuggling Centre (EMSC), 4th Annual Report, 2020; Europol, Situation Report ‘Trafficking in Human Beings in the EU‘, 18 February 2016. 21 Second progress report, COM(2018)0777, p. 3.
Amendment 321 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Amendment 324 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Stresses the importance of prevention, and fight against women and children smuggling, through cooperation with third countries either of origin or of transit, together with the protection of the victims of trafficking, ensuring comprehensive support, reintegration and rehabilitation programs;
Amendment 325 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Reiterates that asylum seekers, refugees and migrants are particularly vulnerable to trafficking and that special attention should be given to the trafficking of women, children and other vulnerable groups; highlights that there are vulnerabilities and risks at the different stages in the migration process prior to migration itself, en route to the EU, at the destination and on return22 ; and provide them with adequate resources and shelters and access to protected and adequately equipped facilities as well as with related help and information services; therefore reiterates the need to improve cross- border collaboration and exchange among law enforcement and child protection authorities as well as developing fast family tracing and alternative care arrangements for unaccompanied minors; _________________ 22 European implementation assessment – ‘Implementation of Directive 2011/36/EU : Migration and gender issues’, Directorate- General for Parliamentary Research, Ex- Post Evaluation Unit, 15 September 2020, p. 50.
Amendment 340 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls on the Member States to ensure a coherent application of the provisions set out in the Dublin III Regulation, the Anti-Trafficking Directive and the Residence Permit Directive to prevent the practice employed in some Member States of transferring victims of human trafficking to the country where they were exploited when they first arrived, thereby leaving them more exposed to the risk of being re-trafficked;
Amendment 354 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Calls on the Member States to provide adequate resources for specialised safe facilities for children and female suspected victims of trafficking;
Amendment 367 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. NotesGiven that the migration policies of Member States, geared towards fighting irregular migration, can have a ‘chilling effect’ among vulnerable migrants and give perpetrators additionalirregular migrants in the EU represent a large pool of potential victims susceptible to being exploited by traffickers through the leverage to exploit victims with antheir irregular status24 ;, calls on the Member States to decouple migration enforcement actions from law enforcement activitiesstrictly enforce their irregular migration countering actions to prevent such abuses taking place; _________________ 24 Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), Insecure justice? Residence permits for victims of crime in Europe, May 2020.
Amendment 370 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Stresses that close cooperation and engagement with third countries is key to preventing human trafficking, and dismantling human trafficking and smuggling criminal organizations;
Amendment 372 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 b (new)
Paragraph 24 b (new)
24b. Calls for increased attention to the emerging trend of exploitative sham marriages predominantly targeting susceptible women from Eastern Europe, who would often be lured with false promises of accommodation or financial support, or of fake long-term job offers1a; Points out that, according to the Third Progress Report of the Commission, such victims are often reported as victims to other forms of trafficking, including sexual exploitation and/or labour exploitation; points out that according to Europol this increase in the number of sham marriages is likely related to the migration crisis and an increase in the number of irregular migrants seeking to transition to legal residence status after failed asylum applications1b; _________________ 1ahttps://www.brusselstimes.com/brussels- behind-the-scenes/130968/the-heartbreak- of-europes-sham-marriages/ 1bEuropol's 2017 Serious and organised crime threat assessment (SOCTA)
Amendment 383 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Calls on the Member States to focus on identifying child victims and helping them to avail themselves of their rights; emphasises the need for guardians, including temporary guardians as an emergency measure, to be appointed immediately for child victims;unaccompanied child victims, and stresses the importance of a child friendly justice and specialist services,
Amendment 386 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Calls on the Member States to fully implement Directive 2011/93/EU on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography26 , and to reinforce police and judicial cooperation to prevent and combat sexual exploitation at the EU level; calls MS to cooperate with EU agencies, in particular with Europol and its dedicated entities, EMSC and EC3, and Eurojust to step up information exchange and support and cross border investigations; _________________ 26 OJ L 335, 17.12.2011, p. 1.
Amendment 402 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28a. Notes the use of new means such as the Internet and social media to recruit and attract potential victims and draws attention to child pornography, calling on special attention to the Internet platforms to develop adequate tools; calls for the new Digital Services Act to address this use of cyberviolence technologies.
Amendment 409 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 b (new)
Paragraph 28 b (new)
28b. Calls therefore the competent authorities to consider the use of large- scale IT systems, including the Visa Information System, the Schengen Information System (SIS II) and Eurodac for prevention investigation and/or prosecution of serious crime including cases of trafficking in human beings.
Amendment 410 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 c (new)
Paragraph 28 c (new)
28c. Notes that the traffickers have frequently used reception centres to identify potential victims and to arrange for them to be transported to places of exploitation, therefore the relevant public authorities and other competent actors in the Member States must be particularly vigilant and monitor and safeguard these centres, carrying out exhaustive surveillance especially on the most vulnerable, such as children.
Amendment 411 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 5
Subheading 5
Efficiency of criminal justice systems and criminalisation of the use of services of victims
Amendment 412 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Amendment 413 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Notes the low number of prosecutions and convictions for the crime of trafficking; urges the Member States to take measures to improve the investigation of trafficking cases and to put in place strong criminal sanctions for crimes of human trafficking; highlights that special attention should be paid to under-reported and under-investigated areas, especially seasonal and temporary nature employment in the low-skilled and low- paid sectors, such as, labour exploitation in the agricultural sector;
Amendment 433 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Calls on the Member States to adopt clear provisions on the non- prosecution or non-punishment of THB victims and on decoupling protection from cooperation with law enforcement agencies;, to counter impunity through a coordinated approach between the relevant EU agencies in partnership with Member States, EU institutions and other partners, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of investigations and prosecutions.
Amendment 434 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Calls on the Member States to adopt clear provisions on the non- prosecution or non-punishment of THB victims and on decoupling protection from cooperation with law enforcement agencies;
Amendment 447 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 b (new)
Paragraph 32 b (new)
32b. Recalls that training of practitioners and officials is crucial to early identify potential victims and prevent crime; calls therefore on the Member States to fully apply art. 18.3 of the Directive 2011/36/EU and to share best practices in particular when creating gender-sensitive training programmes for persons coming in contact with victims of THB in an official capacity, including police officers, border officers, judges, magistrates, lawyers, front-line medical staff and social workers; stresses that training should include detection of victims, the formal identification process and appropriate, gender-specific assistance for victims.
Amendment 448 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)
Paragraph 32 a (new)
32a. Is of the opinion that given the predominantly international nature of THB crimes, law enforcement and prosecution must be capable to act efficiently at the same level; calls therefore on the effective use of European platforms run by agencies such as Europol and Eurojust in terms of jurisdiction selection, evidence collection, extradition, and mutual legal assistance;
Amendment 452 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Recalls the role of EU agencies in the early identification of victims and the fight against THB; calls for more resources for the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Agencies to enable their staff to be trained and capacity-building instruments to be developed in the area of detecting victims, including the appointment of gender- trained agency officers, especially in the Member States faced with increased mixed migratory flowstrafficking; calls on the Commission to develop guidelines to mainstream gender expertise in the activities of law enforcement authorities across the EU; calls in that regard, for the Member States to increase cross-border cooperation and collaboration with the relevant EU agencies such as Eurojust, Europol, GRA, Frontex, CEPLO and the EASO.
Amendment 454 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Recalls the role of EU agencies in the early identification of victims and the fight against THB; calls for more resources for the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Agencies to enable their staff to be trained and capacity-building instruments to be developed in the area of detecting victims, including the appointment of gender- trained agency officers, especially in the Member States faced with increased mixed migratory flows; calls on the Commission to develop guidelines to mainstream gender expertise in the activities of law enforcement authorities across the EUagency officers trained in gender and child sensitive approaches;
Amendment 458 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
Paragraph 33 a (new)
33a. Points out the vital role Eurojust plays in the cooperation and coordination of complex investigations and prosecutions among judicial authorities in Member States, including through the European Arrest Warrant and the European Investigation Order as well as through the use of Joint Investigative Teams; encourages national authorities to involve the agency in all cross-border trafficking cases in view of protecting all victims, and of prosecuting and dismantling the whole trafficking chain; calls for adequate resources for the agency to fulfil its duties; calls on the Member States to ensure more and timely referrals of THB cases to Eurojust in order to enhance the coordination of judicial investigations and prosecutions between Member States and with Third countries; encourages the increased use of Joint Investigation Teams with the support of Eurojust and Europol, as this judicial cooperation tool has proven to be particularly effective in the fight against THB;
Amendment 462 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 b (new)
Paragraph 33 b (new)
33b. Calls on CEPOL to provide international training for investigators in order to ensure standardised approaches and transnational interoperability;
Amendment 463 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 c (new)
Paragraph 33 c (new)
33c. Welcomes the conclusion by JHA agencies of the Joint Statement of Commitment to working together against trafficking in human beings; Calls on these agencies to further coordinate their efforts and share their knowledge in the area of the fight against THB;
Amendment 464 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 7 a (new)
Subheading 7 a (new)
Stresses the importance of the EU as well as international cooperation to eradicate trafficking through the synergy of various existing internal and external policies such as the Global Strategy for the EU Foreign and Security Policy, the Action Plan of Human Rights and Democracy 2020-2024, the Joint Communication "Towards a comprehensive strategy with Africa", the EU Western Balkans strategy and the European neighbourhood policy as well as through relevant information campaigns in the countries involved and calls on the Commission to take this into account in its upcoming Gender Action Plan III;
Amendment 472 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Calls on the Commission to amend the Anti-Trafficking Directive with a view to updating its provisions, including the establishment of specific measures for the prevention and prosecution of trafficking for sexual exploitation as the largest area of THB, to address the use of online technologies in both the proliferation and the prevention of THB, to improve measures for prevention and the early identification of victims, and to strengthen a horizontal gender and child sensitive perspective across all forms of trafficking, as well as to ensure that Member States explicitly criminalise the knowing use of all services which involve exploitationprovided by victims of trafficking;
Amendment 478 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)
Paragraph 34 a (new)
34a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to address as well new other forms of trafficking mostly involving women and girls (sham marriages/illegal adoptions/organs trafficking/surrogacy);
Amendment 486 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Emphasises the importance of a coherent approach to improve the identification of potential victims in the context of migration flows and in the hotspots, of improving access to asylum procedures and of ensuringand in particular the need to further strengthen their complementarity with the procedures related to trafficking; ordination between asylum authorities, law enforcement and prosecution services; recalls on the Commission to assess the implementation of the Anti-Trafficking Directive and to come forward with proposals to revise itimportance of improving access to asylum procedures and of ensuring their complementarity with the procedures related to trafficking;
Amendment 492 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to monitor and assess the risk for the persons beingtake urgent measures against criminal groups active in migrant smuggling and human trafficking, given the high likelihood of smuggled ofpersons becoming victims of trafficking, with a particular focus on the situation ofand to assess the risk faced by irregular migrants and especially unaccompanied minors and women; underlines, in this context, the need for more legal and safe routes for migraeffective border protection in order to prevent the subsequent exploitation of vulnerable people with irregular statuspeople who illegally cross borders and who are unaware of the risks associated with smuggling;
Amendment 500 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 a (new)
Paragraph 36 a (new)
36a. Calls on the Commission and on the Member States to organise information campaigns reaching out to potential victims and informing them about assistance, protection and rights across all EU countries and to closely cooperate on awareness-raising campaigns with those third countries which are the main external sources of trafficking in the EU;
Amendment 503 #
2020/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Calls on the Commission to include in the new strategy on trafficking in human beings clear steps as regards the appointment of the EU ATCensure the continuity of the EU Anti-Trafficking Coordinator’s work by appointing a full- time EU Anti-Trafficking Coordinator;
Amendment 17 #
2020/2023(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Points out that the automated exchange of DNA data with UK under the Prüm Framework was launched only in 2019 and that the Council is about to adoptdecide upon the adoption of an implementing decision which would allow the UK to take part in automated exchanges of dactyloscopic data; points out in this regard that under the special consultation procedure for the ex-third pillar acts on 13 May 2020 the Parliament rejected the Council’s draft decision due to concerns over full reciprocity for fingerprint data exchange, over data protection guarantees, as well as over the very short time of its application; reminds the negotiators that, if adopted, the Council decisions authorising these automated data exchanges will expire at the end of the transition period; stresses the need for a timely agreement on new arrangements for the future relationship, given the importance of information exchange in the fight against serious and organised cross- border crime and terrorism; considers that the future relationship should not be predetermined by the rules applied during the transition period; believes that the agreement should be based on the principle of full reciprocity; strongly urges the UK, therefore, to reconsider its position not to disclose data of suspected persons, failing which, exchanges under Prüm between the EU and the UK will have to remain limited;
Amendment 32 #
2020/2023(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Reiterates its call to clarify the future practical cooperation between the UK authorities and the EU agencies in the field of Justice and Home Affairs, taking into account the status of the UK as a non- Schengen third country. and a key partner in the fight against terrorism and organised crime; stresses that close cooperation in the area of policing and criminal justice in the form of information exchange and joint teams would be mutually beneficial for both sides; urges the negotiating parties to strive towards close strategic and operational cooperation with Europol and Eurojust in particular, while respecting the technical and legal limits of such cooperation;
Amendment 8 #
2020/2011(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas 43 % of Roma are in some form of paid employment1 ; whereas 50% of Roma between the age of 6 and 24 do not attend school and 63 % of young Roma (aged 16-24) are not in education, employment or training (NEET)2 ; whereas the increasing share of Roma NEETs was an area where the situation had deteriorated in 2016 compared to 20113 ; _________________ 1European Commission, 2019 Report on National Roma Integration Strategies: Key Conclusions, p. 3. 2Report on the implementation of national Roma integration strategies – 2019, COM(2019)0406, p. 4. 3 Roma inclusion measures reported under the EU framework for NRIS, SWD(2019) 320 final, PART 1/2, p. 18.
Amendment 11 #
2020/2011(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas Roma are struggling to find stable employment as they do not fit job requirements because of their often limited chances of developing their skills and competences;
Amendment 21 #
2020/2011(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas Roma are born into an extreme generational poverty, one third of Roma households do not have tap water, just over half have an indoor flush toilet or shower, and 78 % of Roma live in overcrowded housing4 ; _________________ 4European Commission, 2019 Report on National Roma Integration Strategies: Key Conclusions, p. 6.
Amendment 30 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas Roma and Sinti represent Europe's largest ethnic minority; whereas a significant proportion of people with Romani background in Europe live in marginalextremely precarious conditions in both rural and urban areas, and in very poor socio- economic circumstances25 ; __________________ 25 FRA, Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey, Roma – Selected findings, 2016.
Amendment 34 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas according to selected findings on Roma from the FRA’s survey EU-MIDIS II, some 80 % of Roma surveyed live below their country’s at- risk-of-poverty threshold; every third Roma lives in housing without tap water and one in 10 in housing without electricity; every third Roma child lives in a household where someone went to bed hungry at least once in the previous month; 63 % of Roma aged 16-24 are not employed, in education or training; only one out of two Roma children attend pre- school or kindergarten, and a very small proportion continue school after compulsory education, 50 % of Roma between the ages of six and 24 not attending school;
Amendment 38 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas a large number of Roma still live in informal, unhygienic and irregular settlements in miserable living conditions; whereas many do not possess identification documents and lack medical insurance; whereas many suffer of extremely high rates of illiteracy and early school leaving;
Amendment 50 #
2020/2011(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Calls on the more attention paid to those Member States that have a sizable Roma population and history of rather ineffective measures. The Commission should monitor and better support these Member States and their policies and measures;
Amendment 56 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas, while improving the situation of Roma is the primary responsibility of the Member States, the European Union can provide the necessary impetus, structure and coordination to move away from the institutional and political inertia that often hampers the improvement of the situation of Roma in Member States;
Amendment 60 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas the creation of the first European Roma strategy was an immense achievement, as it put the necessity to improve the situation of Roma on the European policy agenda, created vital institutional structures and networks and put pressure on Member States to develop national strategies to address their shortcomings;
Amendment 61 #
2020/2011(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Highlights that the most critical points to address in the area of Roma employment are effective transition from education to the open labour market, tackling negative stereotypes that are often the biggest obstacles to find employment, tackling discrimination by employers, matching labour demand with labour supply, and the growing rates of Roma youth not in education;
Amendment 66 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)
Recital B c (new)
Bc. whereas over the past years important experience and knowledge has been accumulated related to the implementation of national Roma strategies, such as the need for more embeddedness of such strategies into national, regional and local sectoral policies, the need for a more efficient use of EU financing, especially for long-term integration projects; whereas all lessons learnt should be reflected in the new “EU initiative on Roma equality and inclusion up to 2030” to be presented by the Commission;
Amendment 87 #
2020/2011(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines the need for an urgent and thorough commitment by the relevant state authorities to the desegregation of Roma pupils in schools and to securing the same quality and inclusive mainstream learning as the non-Roma pupils, as Roma children are often educated in segregated environments, while the misdiagnosis of Roma children as having special educational needs is still a common discriminatory practice;
Amendment 88 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas a Directive for the Equality and Inclusion of People with Romani Background, developed on the basis of more realistic quantitative and qualitative data, specifically disaggregated for Roma, a legislative act with a binding character on the European Union and its Member States, is needed and must be proposed by the Commission;
Amendment 92 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas adequate funding must be allocated for the implementation of post- 2020 National Inclusion Strategies for People with Romani Background from the local, regional and national budgets of the Member States; whereas the EU and the Member States must ensure that the funds are allocated are properly spent and not misusedfor objectives and projects that have the biggest potential long-term impact on the situation of the Roma;
Amendment 95 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. Whereas approximately half of the Roma in Europe live outside the European Union; whereas their situation remains particularly problematic in most of the candidate, potential candidate and neighbourhood countries; whereas the European Union can have a strong impact on their situation through the accession negotiations as well as through the provision of financial assistance;
Amendment 111 #
2020/2011(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Calls on the Commission to facilitate an exchange of best practices between Member States and to monitor the progress;
Amendment 115 #
2020/2011(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Calls on the Member States to make the greatest effort in order to sensitise public opinion concerning Roma inclusion;
Amendment 137 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers thatit imperative for the Commission musto develop a proposal for a post-2020 directive for equality and inclusion of people with Romani background in Europe putting inclusive education, the fight against poverty and anti-gypsyism at the forefront; stresses that the new proposal must include clear and binding objectives, measures and targets for the Member States, a clear timeline and clear and binding progress requirements, as well as success indicators and adequate funding for its implementation; emphasises the need for a robust monitoring and oversight mechanism to ensure effective implementation and appropriate use of funds; notes that equal participation in all domains of public life, political participation, and the language, arts, culture, history and environment of people with Romani background should be explicitly mentioned in the proposal for post-2020 EU public policy for people with Romani background, as additional measures to the four main priority areas of education, employment, housing and healthcare;
Amendment 152 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission to develop a proposal for a post-2020 EU directive for the equality and inclusion of people with Romani background, giving priority to (i) achieving a positive impactthe biggest impact on the most marginalized people of Romani background; (ii) a rights-based approach, including a plan to eliminate social and economic inequalities; (iii) developing a vision for the future proposal, including specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time- bound objectives to protect and improve the inclusion of people with Romani background; and (iv) eliminating inequalities, especially for children from their earliest years;
Amendment 166 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Stresses that inclusive education from early childhood must be a key component of the new proposal, as education is the primary means to break the generational vicious circle of exclusion and poverty;
Amendment 185 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the link between EU mainstream financial and policy instruments, particularly the European Structural and Investment Funds, and inclusion priorities for people with Romani background, as part of the next multiannual financial framework; calls on the Commission to make the adoption of national programmes financed out of ESIF funds, and in particular out of the ESF, conditional upon the integration of Commission and Council recommendations regarding the situation of Roma;
Amendment 190 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls on the Commission that with regard to Member States with a significant number of Roma to include in the Country Specific recommendations an assessment of the progress in achieving the objectives from the national strategies;
Amendment 198 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Is of the opinion that the proposal for the post-2020 strategy should also include an external component concerning accession candidate and potential candidate countries as well as neighbourhood countries through which the EU could support these countries in developing comprehensive long-term strategies for Roma inclusion and integration and to offer financial support in the areas such as education, health and social services, housing and employment;
Amendment 213 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Calls on the Member States to give the highest priority to alleviating extreme forms of poverty, especially hunger, malnutrition and severe housing deprivation among Roma;
Amendment 219 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Is of the opinion that these strategies should not be conceived as isolated documents, but should instead be well embedded in horizontal central and local policies and the activities of line ministries;
Amendment 221 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Points out that the implementation of Roma integration policies are strongly dependent on the political will from Member States; calls on national governments to put their Roma inclusion national strategies high on their agendas; calls on national parliaments to actively follow the actions of their governments in this regard;
Amendment 223 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8c. Calls on the Member States to place at the heart of their national documents comprehensive, committed and well-funded long-term education strategies that fully addresses all the main factors and pre-conditions defining the precarious situation of Roma, such as educational, economic, social and cultural factors, including racism and discrimination; is of the view that these education strategies should be based on a broad involvement of education professionals, central and local government authorities, civil society, Roma communities and all interested citizens, while drawing on from best practices across Europe;
Amendment 224 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 d (new)
Paragraph 8 d (new)
8d. Considers that education reforms must comprehensively address the reasons behind the alarming early school drop-out rate of Roma children and ensure that Roma children benefit of the same educational opportunities as their non- Roma peers; points out that this must involve the full recognition of the fact that Roma children do not have the same learning possibilities at home as their peers do, which makes the availability of additional active measures and supportive tutoring for Roma children necessary in order to break out from the self- perpetuating cycle of low education; points out that more attention has to be paid to the involvement of parents to support their children’s education and to give these parents the support they need; is of the opinion that the provision of free meals in school and childcare establishments would encourage parents keeping their children in school; calls on Member States to make full use of the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived in this regard; believes that for children who have abandoned school and/or are illiterate and lack basic skills, new opportunities should be designed to continue their education;
Amendment 225 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 e (new)
Paragraph 8 e (new)
8e. Calls on Member States to put in place special training programmes for teachers to in order to equip them to better handle discrimination issues among children as well as to pay greater attention to the physical and emotional wellbeing of Roma children;
Amendment 226 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 f (new)
Paragraph 8 f (new)
8f. Calls on national governments to ensure better access of Roma to the labour market, including through active adult education and vocational education policies targeting adults with low skills, transforming practices of working in the grey economy into legal work-contracts protecting Roma workers and ensuring them long-term work prospects and encouraging stronger engagement of businesses; calls on Member States to promote the employment opportunities in the civil service for Roma;
Amendment 233 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Points out that beyond the strict enforcement of anti-discrimination legislation, sensitizing public opinion about the particular situation of Roma through media and school curricula and activities is of particular importance in order for majority populations to overcome their prejudices and be more empathic in their actions and communication;
Amendment 257 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Member States to strengthen the participation of people with Romani background in policy-making, moving from a paternalistic to a non- paternalistic approach as well as to promote Roma voter education and turnout;
Amendment 262 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Member States not to rely exclusively on EU financial support in order to improve the situation of the Roma; calls on the Member States to indicate what level of funding would be needed to carry out the proposed measures for inclusion of people with Romani background and to state the amount of money available for such measures from the national and from the EU budgets;
Amendment 267 #
2020/2011(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the Member States to develop more efficient and strengthefinancing measures that target the people in need monitoring mechanisms to ensure that the funds allocated are properly spent and not misusedin the most direct and efficient way possible and which rely on strengthened monitoring and evaluation mechanisms;
Amendment 89 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Title 1
Title 1
Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on adequate framework for promoting levels of minimum wages in the European Union
Amendment 128 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Guideline 5 of Council Decision 2020/ 1512/EU on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States37 calls on Member States to ensure an effective involvement ofthe collaboration and/or cooperation with the social partners in wage-setting, providing for fair wages that enable a decent standard of living and allowing for an adequate responsiveness of wages to productivity levels and developments, with a view to upward convergence. The Guideline also calls on Member States to promote social dialogue and collective bargaining on wage setting. It also calls on Member States and the social partners to ensure that all workers have adequate and fair wages by benefitting from collective agreements or adequate statutory minimum wages, and taking into account their impact on competitiveness, job creation and in-work poverty. The Annual Sustainable Growth Strategy 202138 states that Member States should adopt measures to ensure fair working conditions. In addition, the Annual Sustainable Growth Strategy 202039 recalled that in the context of growing social divides, it is important to ensure that each worker earns an adequate wage. Several Country Specific Recommendations have also been issued to some Member States in the field of minimum wages. However, individual countries may be little inclined to improve their minimum wage settings because of the perception that this could negatively affect their external cost competitiveness. __________________ 37 Council Decision 2020/1512/EU of 13 October 2020 on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (OJ L 344, 19.10.2020, p. 22–28). 38 Commission Communication COM(2020) 575 final. 39 Commission Communication COM(2019) 650 final.
Amendment 138 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Better working and living conditions, including through adequate minimum wages, benefit both workers and businesses in the Union and are a prerequisite for achieving inclusive and sustainable growth. Addressing large differences in the coverage and adequacy of minimum wage protection contributes to improving the fairness of the EU labour market and promote economic, social progress and upward convergence. Competition in the Single Market should be based on high social standards, innovation and productivity improvements ensuring a level playing field.
Amendment 147 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) When set at adequate levelsever levels are set, minimum wages protect the income of disadvantaged workers, help ensure a decent living, and limit the fall in income during bad times, as recognised in Convention 131 of the International Labour Organisation on the establishment of a system of minimum wage fixing. Minimum wages contribute to sustaining domestic demand, strengthen incentives to work, reduce wage inequalities and in- work poverty.
Amendment 178 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Minimum wage protection set out by collective agreements in low-paid occupations is adequate in most cases; statutory minimum wages are low compared to other wages in the economy in several Member States. In 2018, the statutory minimum wage did not provide sufficient income for a single minimum- wage earner to reach the at-risk-of-poverty threshold in nine Member States. In addition, the use of reduced minimum wage rates (variations) and deductions from statutory minimum wages negatively affect their adequacy.
Amendment 198 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) While strong collective bargaining at sector or cross-industry level contributes to ensuring adequate minimum wage protection, traditional collective bargaining structures have been eroding during the last decades, in part due to structural shifts in the economy towards less unionised sectors and to the decline in trade union membership related to the increase of atypical and new forms of work.
Amendment 213 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) The Commission has consulted management and labour in a two-stage process with regard to possible action to address the challenges related to adequate minimum wages protection in the Union, in accordance with Article 154 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. There was no agreement among the social partners to enter into negotiations with regard to those matters. It is, however, important to take action at Union level to ensure that workers in the Union are protected by adequate minimum wages, taking into account the outcomes of the social partners’ consultation.
Amendment 257 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) Well-functioning collective bargaining on wage setting is an important means to ensure that workers are protected by adequate minimum wages. In the Member States with statutory minimum wages, collective bargaining supports general wage developments and therefore contributes to improving the adequacy of minimum wages. In the Member States where minimum wage protection is provided exclusively by collective bargaining, their level as well as the share of protected workers are directly determined by the functioning of the collective bargaining system and collective bargaining coverage. Strong and well- functioning collective bargaining together with a high coverage of sectorial or cross- industry collective agreements strengthen the adequacy and the coverage of minimum wages.
Amendment 275 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) In a context of declining collective bargaining coverage, it is essentialrecommended that the Member States promote collective bargaining to enhance workers’ access to minimum wage protection provided by collective agreements. Member States with a high collective bargaining coverage tend to have a low share of low-wage workers and high minimum wages. Member States with a small share of low wage earners have a collective bargaining coverage rate above 70%. Similarly, the majority of the Member States with high levels of minimum wages relative to the median wage have a collective bargaining coverage above 70%. While all Member States should be encouraged to promote collective bargaining, those who do not reach this level of coverage should,while being in consultation and/or agreement with the social partners, provide for or, where it already exists, strengthen a framework of facilitative procedures and institutional arrangements enabling the conditions for collective bargaining. Such framework should be established by law or by tripartite agreement.
Amendment 278 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Sound rules, procedures and practice for setting and updating statutory minimum wages are necessary to deliver adequate minimum wages, while safeguarding jobs and the competitiveness of firms including small and medium-sized enterprises. They include a number of elements to preserve the adequacy of statutory minimum wages, including criteria and indicators to assess adequacy, regular and timely updates, the existence of consultative bodies and the involvement of social partners. A timely and effective involvement of the latterA timely and effective collaboration and/or cooperation with the social partners is another element of good governance that allows for an informed and inclusive decision-making process.
Amendment 292 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) Minimum wages are considered adequatefair if they are fair in relation to the wage distribution in the country and if they provide a decent standard of living. The adequacylevels of statutory minimum wages isare determined in view of the national socio- economic conditions, including employment growth, competitiveness as well as regional and sectoral levels and developments. Their adequacy should be assessed at least in relation to their purchasing power, to the productivity developments and to their relation to the gross wage levels, distribution and growth. The use of indicators commonly used at international level, such as 60% of the gross median wage and 50% of the gross average wage, can help guide the assessment of minimum wage adequacy in relation to the gross level of wages.
Amendment 326 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) To promote adequacy of framework for minimum wages for all groups of workers, variations and deductions from statutory minimum wages should be limited to a minimumnon- discriminatory and proportionate, while ensuring that social partners are duly consulted in their definition. Some deductions to statutory minimum wages may bare justified by a legitimate aim, including overstated amounts paid or deductions ordered by a judicial authority. Others, such as deductions related to the equipment necessary to perform a job or deductions of allowances in kind, such as accommodation, may be unjustified or disproportionate.
Amendment 337 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) An effective enforcement system, including controls and field inspections, is necessary to ensure the functioning of national statutory minimum wage frameworks. To strengthen the effectiveness of enforcement authorities, a close collaboration and /or cooperation with the social partners is also neerecommended, including to address critical challenges such as those related to sub- contracting, bogus self-employment or non-recorded overtime. Moreover, workers should have easily access to appropriate information on applicable statutory minimum wages to ensure an adequate high degree of transparency and predictability as regards their working conditions.
Amendment 348 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Reliable monitoring and data collection are keyimportant to ensure the effective protection of minimum wages. The Commission should report every year to the European Parliament and to the Council its assessment of levels and developments in the adequacy and coverage of minimum wages on the basis of annual data and information to be provided by Member States. In addition, progress should be monitored in the framework of the process of economic and employment policy coordination at Union level. In that context, the Employment Committee should examine every year the situation in the Member States on the basis of the reports produced by the Commission and other multilateral surveillance tools such as benchmarking.
Amendment 359 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) The reforms and measures adopted by the Member States to promote adequate minimum wage protection of workers, while being steps in the right direction, have not been comprehensive and systematic. Moreover, individual countries may be little inclined to improve the adequacy and coverage of minimum wages because of the perception that this could negatively affect their external cost competitiveness. Since the objectives of this Directive cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can rather, by reason of their scale and effects, 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 the European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.
Amendment 371 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) This Directive lays down minimum requirementsa framework, thus leaving untouched Member States' prerogative to introduce and maintain more favourable provisions. Rights acquired under the existing national legal framework should continue to apply, unless more favourable provisions are introduced by this Directive. The implementation of this Directive cannot be used to reduce existing rights for workers, nor can it constitute valid grounds for reducing the general level of protection afforded to workers in the field covered by this Directive.
Amendment 392 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. With a view to improving working and living conditions in the Union, this Directive establishes a framework for promoting:
Amendment 404 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) setting adequate levels of minimum wages;
Amendment 452 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2
(2) ‘statutory minimum wage’ means a minimum wage set by law, or other binding legal provisions, with the exclusion of those set by a collective agreement made universally applicable;
Amendment 473 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 4
(4) ‘collective agreement’ means all agreements in writing regarding working conditions and terms of employment concluded by the social partners as an outcome of collective bargaining;
Amendment 474 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Amendment 482 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – title
Article 4 – title
Amendment 488 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. With the aim to increase the collective bargaining coverage Member States that set minimum wages only through collective agreements shall take, in consultation with the social partners and in accordance with national laws and practices, at least the following measures:
Amendment 502 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) promote the building and strengthening of the capacity of the social partners to engage in collective bargaining on wage setting, in particular, at sector or cross-industry level;
Amendment 520 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Amendment 550 #
Amendment 563 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. Member States with statutory minimum wages shall takeestablish the necessary measures to ensure that theframework for setting and updating of statutory minimum wages ar. Such setting and updating shall be guided by criteria set to promote andequacy with the aim to achieve decent working and living conditions, social cohesion and upward convergence. Member States shall define those criteria in accordance with their national practices, either in relevant national legislation, in decisions of the competent bodies or in tripartite agreements. The criteria shall be defined in a stable and clear way.
Amendment 572 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The national criteria referred to in paragraph 1 shallmay include at leastsome of the following elements, whose relevance may be decided by Member States in accordance with their prevailing national socio-economic conditions:
Amendment 580 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) the purchasing power of statutory minimum wages, taking into account the cost of living and the contribution of taxes and social benefits;
Amendment 601 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) labour productivity levels and developments.
Amendment 616 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Amendment 641 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 4
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure the regular and timely updates of statutory minimum wages in order to preserve their adequacy.
Amendment 658 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 5
Article 5 – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall establishnsure that consultative bodies are in place to advise the competent authorities on issues related to statutory minimum wages.
Amendment 674 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. Where Member States may allow for different rates of statutory minimum wage for specific groups of workers. Member States shall keep these variations to a minimum, and or for deductions by law that reduce the remuneration paid to a level below that of the relevant statutory minimum wage, they shall ensure that anythese variation iss and deductions are non- discriminatory, proportionate, limited in time if relevant, and objectively and reasonably and justified by a legitimate aim.
Amendment 681 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Amendment 708 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the selection and application of criteria and indicative reference values referred to in Article 5 (1) (2) and (32) for the determination of statutory minimum wage levels;
Amendment 721 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) the collection of data and the carrying out of studies for the information of statutory minimum wage setting authoritisupporting the consultation processes for setting the statutory minimum wage with information, data and analyses;
Amendment 730 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Member States shall, in consultation and/or cooperation with social partners, take the following measures, where appropriate to enhance the access of workers to statutory minimum wage protection as appropriate:
Amendment 746 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point 2
(2) develop guidance for enforcement authorities to proactively target and pursue non-compliant businesseemployers;
Amendment 761 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
In accordance with Directive 2014/24/EU, Directive 2014/25/EU and Directive 2014/23/EU, Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that in the performance of public procurement or concession contracts economic operators comply with the wages set out by collective agreement, and their subcontractors, comply with the applicable obligations regarding wages in the field of labour law established by Union law, national law, collective agreements or by international labour law provisions for the relevant sector and geographical area and with the statutory minimum wages where they exist.
Amendment 769 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Amendment 788 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point a – point ii
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point a – point ii
Amendment 794 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point a – point iii
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point a – point iii
Amendment 798 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point a – point iv
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point a – point iv
Amendment 814 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 823 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 828 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Amendment 841 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Amendment 868 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Amendment 889 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive or the respective provisions already in force. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Amendment 896 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Member States may entrust the social partners with the implementation of this Directive, where the social partners jointly request to do so. In so doing, the Member States shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the results soughet by this Directive are guaranteedcomplied with at all times.
Amendment 911 #
2020/0310(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3
Article 16 – paragraph 3
3. This Directive is without prejudice to any other rights conferred on workers by other legal acts of the Union.
Amendment 170 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Title 1
Title 1
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on asylum and migration management and amending Council Directive (EC) 2003/109 and the proposed Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Fund] (Text with EEA relevance)
Amendment 177 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The Union, in constituting an area of freedom, security and justice, should ensure the absence of internal border controls for persons and, with full respect to national competences, frame a common policy on asylum, immigration and managementthe effective protection of the external borders of the Union, based on solidarity between Member States, which is fair towards third- country nationals.
Amendment 183 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) To this end, a comprehensive approach is required with the objective of reinforcing mutual trust between Member States which should bring together policy in the areas of asylum and migration management and towards relations with relevant third countries, recognising that the effectiveness of such an approach depends on all components being jointly addressed and in an integrated manner. The primary objective of the Union should be to prevent migratory flows. For this, the cornerstone of the policy should be the effective protection of external borders. This is a prerequisite for any workable and sustainable migration policy in the Union.
Amendment 197 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) This Regulation should contribute to that comprehensive approach by setting out a common framework for the actions of the Union and of the Member States in the field of asylum and migration management policies, by elaborating on the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility in accordance with Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Member States should therefore take all necessary measures, inter alia, to provide access to international protection and adequate reception conditions to those in need, to enable the effective application of the rules on determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection, to swiftly return illegally staying third- country nationals, to prevent irregularllegal migration and unauthorised movements between them, and to provide support to other Member States in the form of solidarity contributions, as their contribution to the comprehensive approach.
Amendment 208 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The common framework should bring together the management of the Common European Asylum System and that of migration policy. The objective of migration policy should be to ensure the efficient management of migration flows, the fair treatment of third-country nationals residing legally in Member Stateprincipally to reduce and prevent migration flows by eliminating pull factors and by effectively protecting the external borders and the prevention of, and enhanced measures to combat, illegal migration and migrant smuggling.
Amendment 213 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) The common framework is needed in order to effectively addressprevent the increasing inflows and to address the phenomenon of mixed arrivals of persons in need of international protection and those who are not and in recognition that the challenge of irregularllegal arrivals of migrants in the Union should not have to be assumed by individual Member States alone, but by the Union as a whole. To ensure that Member States have the necessary tools to effectively managface this challenge in addition to applicants for international protection, irregular migrants should also fall within the scope of this Regulation. The scope of this Regulation should also include beneficiaries of international protection, resettled or admitted persons as well as persons granted immediate protecmigrants illegally crossing the borders should also fall within the scope of this Regulation.
Amendment 222 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) In order to reflect the whole of government approach and ensure coherence and effectiveness of the actions and measures taken by the Union and its Member States acting within their respective competencies, there is a need for integrated policy-making in the field of asylum and migration management, including both its internal and external components, which is part of the comprehensive approach.
Amendment 227 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) Member States should have sufficient human and financial resources and infrastructure to effectively implement asylum and migration management policies and should ensure appropriate coordination between the relevant national authorities as well as with the national authorities of the other Member States.
Amendment 229 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
Amendment 249 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Bearing in mind the importance of ensuring that the Union is prepared and able to adjust to the developing and evolving realities of asylum and migration managementflows, the Commission should annually adopt a Migration Management Report setting out the likely evolution of the migratory situation and the preparedness of the Union and the Member States to respond and adapt to it. The Report should build upon the inputs of Member States and should also include the results of the reporting on monitoring foreseen in the national strategies and should propose improvements where weaknesses are apparent.
Amendment 256 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) In order to ensure that the necessary tools are in place to assist Member States in dealing with challenges that may arise due to the presence on their territory of third-country nationals that are vulnerable applicants for international protection, regardless of how they crossed the external borders, the Report should also indicate whether the said Member States are faced with such challenges. Those Member States should also be able to rely on the use of the ‘solidarity pool’ for the relocation of vulnerable persons.
Amendment 278 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) An effective return policy is an essential element of a well-functioning system of Union asylum and migration managementsystem in the Union , whereby those who do not have the right to stay on Union territory should be swiftly returned. Given that a significant share of applications for international protection may be considered unfounded, it is necessary to reinforce the effectiveness of the return policy. By increasing the efficiency of returns and reducing the gaps between asylum and return procedures, the pressure on the asylum system would decrease, facilitating the application of the rules on determining the Member State responsible for examining those applications as well as contributing to effective access to international protection for those in need.
Amendment 294 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) In order to ensure a fair sharing of responsibility and a balance of effort between Member States, a solidarity mechanism should be established which is effective and ensures that applicants have swift access to the procedures for granting international protection. Such a mechanism should provide for different types of solidarity measures and should be flexible and able to adapt to the evolving nature of the migratory challenges facing a Member State. The mechanism should be based on voluntary choice, tailored to the individual capabilities of the Member States, taking into account their national specificities.
Amendment 304 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
Amendment 313 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
Amendment 327 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
Amendment 338 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
Amendment 347 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
Amendment 353 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
Amendment 367 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
Amendment 383 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) The solidarity mechanism should also address situations of migratory pressure in particular for those Member States which due to their geographical location are exposed to or likely to be exposed to migratory pressure. For this purpose, the Council, based upon the proposal of the Commission, should adopt a report identifying whether a Member State is under migratory pressure and setting out the measures that could support that Member State in addressing the situation of migratory pressure.
Amendment 393 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) When assessing whether a Member State is under migratory pressure the Commission in its proposal for a report, based on a broad qualitative assessment, should take account of a broad range of factors, including the number of asylum applicants, irregularllegal border crossings, return decisions issued and enforced, and relations with relevant third countries. The solidarity response should be designed on a case-by-case basis in order to be tailor- made to the needs of the Member State in question and building on the national specificities and individual capabilities of contributing Member States.
Amendment 400 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25 a (new)
Recital 25 a (new)
(25a) When it comes to solidarity, Member States should be able to choose the form of solidarity through which they wish to contribute. The border protection efforts of Member States should be considered as solidarity contributions. Relocation as well as return sponsorship should remain only voluntary instruments of solidarity. Capacity building contributions, operational support as well as measures taken in the external dimension of migration should be taken into account as solidarity contributions.
Amendment 408 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) Only persons who are more likely to have a right to stay in the Union shouldalready granted international protection can be relocated. Therefore, the scope of relocation of applicants for international protection should be limited to those who are not subject to the border procedure set out in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedure Regulation]were already granted international protection. Furthermore, relocation can only be a voluntary measure based on the explicit agreement of Member States.
Amendment 415 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) The solidarity mechanism should include measures to promote a fair sharing of responsibility and a balance of effort between Member States also in the area of return. Through return sponsorship, a Member State should commit to support a Member State under migratory pressure in carrying out the necessary activities to return illegally staying third-country nationals, bearing in mind that the benefitting Member State remains responsible for carrying out the return while the individuals are present on its territory. Where such activities have been unsuccessful after a period of 8 months, the sponsoring Member States should transfer these persons in line with the procedures set out in this Regulation and apply Directive 2008/115/EC; if relevant, Member States may recognise the return decision issued by the benefitting Member State in application of Council Directive 2001/4039 Return sponsorship can never result in becoming a delayed form of mandatory relocation. Return sponsorship should form part of the common EU system of returns, including operational support provided through the European Border and Coast Guard Agency and the application of the coordination mechanism to promote effective cooperation with third countries in the area of return and readmission. _________________ 39Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals, OJ L 149, 2.6.2001, p. 34.
Amendment 430 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) Member States should notify the type of solidarity contributions that they will take through the completion of a solidarity response plan. Where Member States are themselves benefitting Member States under pressure, they should not be obliged to make solidarity contributions to other Member States. At the same time, where a Member State has incurred a heavy migratory burden in previous years, due to a high number of applications for international protection it should be possible for a Member State to request a reduction of its share of the solidarity contribution to Member States under migratory pressure where such contribution consists of relocation or return sponsorship. That reduction should be shared proportionately among the other Member States taking such measures.
Amendment 441 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) Where the Migration Management Report identifies needs in a Member State under migratory pressure in the field of capacity measures in asylum, reception and return or in the external dimension, contributing Member States should be able to make contributions to these needs instead of relocation or return sponsorship. In order to ensure that such contributions are in proportion to the share of the contributing Member State the Commission should be able to increase or decrease of such contributions in the implementing act. Where the indications from Member States to take measures in the field of capacity or the external dimension would lead to a shortfall greater than 30% of the required number of persons to be relocated or subject to return sponsorship, the Commission should be able to adjust the contributions of these Member States in order to ensure that they contribute half of their share to relocation or return sponsorship.
Amendment 453 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) In order to ensure a comprehensive and effective solidarity response and in order to give clarity to Member States receiving support, the Commission should adopt an implementing act specifying the contributions to be made by each Member State. Such contributions should always be based on the type of contributions indicated by the Member State concerned in the solidarity response plan, except where that Member State failed to submit one. In such cases, the measures set out in the implementing act for the Member State concerned should be determined by the CommissioContributions should always be based on the type of contributions indicated by the Member State concerned in the solidarity response plan.
Amendment 458 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
Amendment 466 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) A Member State should be able to take, at its own initiative or at the request of another Member State, any other solidarity measures on a voluntary basis to assist that Member State in addressing the migratory situation or to prevent migratory pressure. Those contributions should include measures aimed at strengthening the capacity of the Member State under pressure or at responding to migratory trends through cooperation with third countries. In addition, such solidarity measures should include relocation of third-country nationals that are in the border procedure as well as illegally staying third-country nationals. In order to incentivise voluntary solidarity, where Member States make voluntary contributions in the form of relocation or return sponsorship, those contributions should be taken into account in the implementing act provided for in respect of situations of migratory pressure.
Amendment 498 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) This Regulation should be based on the principles underlying Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council41 while developing the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility as part of the common framework. To that end, a new solidarity mechanism should enable a strengthened preparedness of Member States to managface migration challenges, to address situations where Member States are faced with migratory pressure and to facilitate regular solidarity support among Member States. _________________ 41Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 31.
Amendment 509 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
Recital 38
Amendment 520 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) At the same time, and given the importance of facilitating the full integration of beneficiaries of international protection in the Member State of residence, the prospect of obtaining long-term resident status in a shorter period of time should be provided for. Beneficiaries of international protection should be able to obtain long- term resident status in the Member State which granted them international protection after threfive years of legal and continuous residence in that Member State. As regards other conditions to obtain the status, beneficiaries of international protection should be required to fulfil the same conditions as other third-country nationals. Council Directive 2003/109/EC42 should therefore be amended accordingly. _________________ 42Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, OJ L 016, 23.1.2004, p. 44.
Amendment 540 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 43
Recital 43
(43) In accordance with the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration of Member States when applying this Regulation. In assessing the best interests of the child, Member States should, in particular, take due account of the minor’s well-being and social development, safety and security considerations and the views of the minor in accordance with his or her age and maturity, including his or her background. In addition, specific procedural guarantees for unaccompanied minors should be laid down on account of their particular vulnerability. However, special attention should be made to ensure that such special guarantees are not abused.
Amendment 542 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44
Recital 44
(44) In accordance with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, respect for family life should be a primary consideration of Member States when applying this Regulation. However, special attention should be taken that the provisions ensuring the respect for family life are not abused.
Amendment 563 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 47
Recital 47
(47) The definition of a family member in this Regulation should include the sibling or siblings of the applicant. Reuniting siblings is of particular importance for improving the chances of integration of applicants and hence reducing unauthorised movements. The scope of the definition of family member should also reflect the reality of current migratory trends, according to which applicants often arrive to the territory of the Member States after a prolonged period of time in transit. The definition should therefore include families formed outside the country of origin, but before their arrival on the territory of the Member State. This limited and targeted enlargement of the scope of the definition is expected to reduce the incentive for some unauthorised movements of asylum seekers within the EU only when the applicant is a minor under the age of 14.
Amendment 590 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 50
Recital 50
Amendment 594 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 51
Recital 51
Amendment 612 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 53
Recital 53
(53) In order to ensure that the procedures set out in this Regulation are respected and to prevent obstacles to the efficient application of this Regulation, in particular in order to avoid absconding and unauthorised movements between Member States, it is necessary to establish clear obligations to be complied with by the applicant in the context of the procedure, of which he or she should be duly informed in a timely manner. Violation of those legal obligations should lead to appropriate and proportionate procedural consequences for the applicant, including the rejection of his or her application, and to appropriate and proportionate consequences in terms of his or her reception conditions. In line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Member State where such an applicant is present should in any case ensure that the immediate material needs of that person are covered.
Amendment 646 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58
Recital 58
(58) In order to ensure the speedy determination of responsibility, the deadlines for making and replying to requests to take charge, for making take back notificationrequests, as well as for making and deciding on appeals, should be streamlined and shortened.
Amendment 666 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 62
Recital 62
(62) In order to ensure a clear and efficient relocWhen Member States decide to voluntarily relocate beneficiaries of international proceduretection, specific rules for a benefitting and a contributing Member State should be set out. The rules and safeguards relating to transfers set out in this Regulation should apply to transfers for the purpose of voluntary relocation except where they are not relevant for such a procedure.
Amendment 674 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 63
Recital 63
(63) To support Member States who undertake relocation as aany solidarity measure, financial support from the Union budget should be provided. In Border to incentivise Member States to give priority to the relocation of unaccompanied minors a higher incentive contribution should be providedprotection efforts of Member States, including the financing of physical barriers at external borders should be supported financially from the Union budget.
Amendment 682 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 64
Recital 64
(64) The application of this Regulation can be facilitated, and its effectiveness increased, by bilateral arrangements between Member States for improving communication between competent departments, reducing time limits for procedures or simplifying the processing of take charge requests or take back notificationrequests, or establishing procedures for the performance of transfers.
Amendment 706 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 72
Recital 72
(72) The examination procedure should be used for the adoption of a standard form for the exchange of relevant information on unaccompanied minors; of uniform conditions for the consultation and exchange of information on minors and dependent persons; of uniform conditions on the preparation and submission of take charge requests and take back notificationrequests; of two lists of relevant elements of proof and circumstantial evidence, and the periodical revision thereof; of a laissez passer; of uniform conditions for the consultation and exchange of information regarding transfers; of a standard form for the exchange of data before a transfer; of a common health certificate; of uniform conditions and practical arrangements for the exchange of information on a person’s health data before a transfer, and of secure electronic transmission channels for the transmission of requests.
Amendment 710 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 73
Recital 73
Amendment 724 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 78
Recital 78
(78) Since the objective of this Regulation, namely the establishment of criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, and the establishment of a solidarity mechanism to support Member States in addressing a situation of migratory pressure, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of this Regulation, 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 (TEU). When doing so, the Union shall respect the national competences of Member States. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation doesshall not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.
Amendment 742 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) sets out a common framework for the management of asylum and migration in the Union;
Amendment 782 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – introductory part
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – introductory part
(g) ‘family members’ means, insofar as the family already existed in the country of origin before the applicant or the family member arrived on the territory of the Member States, the following members of the applicant’s family who are present on the territory of the Member States:
Amendment 809 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – point v
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g – point v
(v) the sibling or siblings of the applicant; provided that the applicant is a minor below the age of 14;
Amendment 833 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point n
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point n
Amendment 836 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point o
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point o
Amendment 842 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point p
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point p
(p) ‘absconding’ means the action by which an applicant person does not remain available to the competent administrative or judicial authorities, such as by leaving the territory of the Member State without authorisation from the competent authorities for reasons which are not beyond the applicant’s controlfailure to notify absence from a particular accommodation centre, or assigned area or residence;
Amendment 851 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point r
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point r
(r) ‘benefitting Member State’ means the Member State benefitting from the solidarity measures in situations of migratory pressure or for disembarkations following search and rescue operations as set out in Chapters I-III of Part IV of this Regulation;,
Amendment 868 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point u
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point u
(u) ‘relocation’ means the transfer of a third-country national or a stateless persperson who was already granted international protection from the territory of a benefitting Member State to the territory of a contributing Member State with the explicit consent of the contributing Member State;
Amendment 900 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part II – title
Part II – title
II COMMON FRAMEWORK FOR ASYLUM AND MIGRATION MANAGEMENT
Amendment 903 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – title
Article 3 – title
Comprehensive approach to asylum and migration management
Amendment 909 #
2020/0279(COD)
The Union and the Member States shall take actions in the field of asylum and migration management on the basis of a comprehensive approach and with full respect to national competences. That comprehensive approach shall address the entirety of the migratory routes that affect asylum and migration managementflows to the European Union, and shall consist of the following components:
Amendment 918 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) mutually-beneficial partnerships and close cooperation with relevant third countries, including on legal pathways for third-country nationals in need of international protection and for those otherwise admitted to reside legally in the Member States addressing the root causes of irregularllegal migration, supporting partners hosting large numbers of migrants and refugees in need of protection and building their capacities in border, asylum and migration management, preventing and combatting irregularllegal migration and migrant smuggling, and enhancing cooperation on readmission;
Amendment 926 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) close cooperation and mutual partnership among Union institutions and bodies, Member States and international organisations with full respect to national competences;
Amendment 940 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) effective management and prevention of irregularllegal migration;
Amendment 943 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) effective managementprotection of the Union’s external borders, based on the European integrated border management, including search and rescue operations, and ensuring adequate Union funding to the protection of the EU’s external borders, also covering the additional costs of physical barriers;
Amendment 950 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point f
Amendment 967 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point h
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point h
(h) determination of the Member State responsible for the examination of an application for international protection, based on shared responsibility and rules and mechanisms fora fair balance between responsibility and solidarity;
Amendment 990 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point l
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point l
(l) measures aimed at reducing and tackling the enabling factors of irregularllegal migration to and illegal stay in the Union, including illegal employment;
Amendment 1006 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. The Union and Member States shall ensure coherence of asylum and migration management policies, including both the internal and external components of those policies with full respect to national competences.
Amendment 1014 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. The Union and Member States acting within their respective competencies shall be responsible for the implementation of the asylum and migration management policies.
Amendment 1018 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. Member States, with the support of Union Agencies, shall ensure that they have the capacity to effectively implement asylum and migration management policies, taking into account the comprehensive approach referred to in Article 3, including the necessary human and financial resources and infrastructure.
Amendment 1028 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. In implementing their obligations, the Member States shall observe the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility and shall take into account the shared interest in the effective functioning of the Union’s asylum and migration management policies. Member States shall:
Amendment 1039 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) establish and maintain national asylum and migration management systems that provide access to international protection procedures, grant such protection to those who are in need and ensure the swift return of those who are illegally staying;
Amendment 1052 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) take all measures necessary and proportionate to reduce and prevent irregularllegal migration to the territories of the Member States, in close cooperation and partnership with relevant third countries, including as regards the prevention and fight against migrant smuggling;
Amendment 1063 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) provide support to other Member States in the form of flexible solidarity contributions tailored to the individual capabilities of the Member States, taking into account their national specificities and on the basis of needs set out in Chapters I-III of Part IV;
Amendment 1085 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Amendment 1092 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Amendment 1128 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall adopt a Migration Management Report each year setting out the anticipated evolution of the migratory situation and the preparedness of the Union and the Member States. In the case of migratory flows generated by search and rescue operations, the Commission shall consult the concerned Member States and the Report shall set out the total number of projected disembarkations in the short term and the solidarity response that would be required to contribute to the needs of the Member States of disembarkation through relocation and through measures in the field of capacity building, operational support and measures in the field of the external dimension with regard to external and internal factors influencing migratory flows. The Commission shall build on the inputs by Member States when drawing up the report. The Report shall also indicate whether particular Member States are faced with capacity challenges due to the presence of third- country nationals who are vulnerable and include the results of the reporting on monitoring listed in paragraph 3 including the information gathered within the framework of the Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint and propose improvements where appropriate.
Amendment 1131 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 5
Article 6 – paragraph 5
5. The Member States shall establish the national strategies by [one year after the entry into force of this Regulation] at the latest. The first European Asylum and Migration Management Strategy shall be adopted by [18 months after the entry into force of this Regulation] at the latest and the first Migration Management Report shall be issued by [one year after the entry into force of this Regulation] at the latest.
Amendment 1192 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3
Article 8 – paragraph 3
Amendment 1207 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
Article 8 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. If a security check provided for in Article 11 of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Screening Regulation] has not been carried out, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was registered shall examine whether there are reasonable grounds to consider the applicant a danger to national security or public order of that Member State or the internal security of the EU as a whole as soon as possible after the registration of the application, before applying the criteria for determining the Member State responsible pursuant to Chapter II or the clauses set out in Chapter III of Part III.
Amendment 1211 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
If a security check provided for in Article 11 of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Screening Regulation] has been carried out, but the first Member State in which the application for international protection was registered has justified reasons to examine whether there are reasonable grounds to consider the applicant a danger to national security or public order of that Member State or to the internal security of the EU as a whole, that Member State shall carry out the examination as soon as possible after the registration of the application, before applying the criteria for determining the Member State responsible pursuant to Chapter II or the clauses set out in Chapter III of Part III.
Amendment 1244 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 3
3. The applicant shall fully cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States in matters covered by this Regulation, in particular by submitting as soon as possible and at the latest during the interview referred to in Article 12, all the elements and information available to him or her relevant for determining the Member State responsible. Where the applicant is not in a position at the time of the interview to submit evidence to substantiate the elements and information provided, the competent authority may set a time limit within the period referred to in Article 29(1) for submitting such evidence. The applicant shall fully cooperate in the recording of his or her biometric data.
Amendment 1270 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. In case the applicant does not cooperate with the authorities, thereby unduly delaying the procedure, his or her application should be rejected.
Amendment 1284 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) that the right to apply for international protection does not encompass a choice by the applicant in relation to either the Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection or the Member State of relocation;
Amendment 1288 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) of the objectives of this Regulation and the consequences of making another application in a different Member State as well as the consequences of leaving the Member State where he or she is required to be present pursuant to Article 9(4), in particular that the applicant shall only be entitled to the reception conditions as set out in Article 10(1), as well as of the consequences of non-cooperation with the authorities;
Amendment 1307 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
(ea) of the obligation for the applicant to provide his or her biometric data;
Amendment 1334 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point l
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point l
Amendment 1418 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. The representative of an unaccompanied minor shall be involved in the process of establishing the Member State responsible under this Regulation. The representative shall assist the unaccompanied minor to provide information relevant to the assessment of his or her best interests in accordance with paragraph 4, including the exercise of the right to be heard, and shall support his or her engagement with other actors, such as family tracing organisations, where appropriate for that purpose.
Amendment 1552 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 4
Article 19 – paragraph 4
4. Where the applicant is in possession of one or more residence documents which expired less than 6 months before the application was registered or one or more visas which expired less than threewo years before the application was registered, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall apply.
Amendment 1558 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20
Article 20
Amendment 1578 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 3
Article 21 – paragraph 3
Amendment 1643 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 1646 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 1657 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Where a Member State issues a residence document to the applicant, decides to apply Article 25, or does not transfer the person concerned to the Member State responsible within the time limits set out in Article 35, that Member State shall become the Member State responsible and the obligations laid down in Article 26 shall be transferred to that Member State. Where applicable, it shall inform the Member State previously responsible, the Member State conducting a procedure for determining the Member State responsible or the Member State which has been requested to take charge of the applicant or has received a take back notificationrequest, using the electronic communication network set up under Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003.
Amendment 1660 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The first subparagraph shall not apply if the person has already been granted international protection by the responsible Member State or if the person's status is under review by the responsible Member State.
Amendment 1671 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1
Article 28 – paragraph 1
1. The Member State where an application for international protection is first registered pursuant to Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedure Regulation] or, where applicable, the Member State of relocation shall start the process of determining the Member State responsible without delay.
Amendment 1678 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 2
Article 28 – paragraph 2
2. The Member State where an application is first registered or, where applicable, the Member State of relocation shall continue the process of determining the Member State responsible if the applicant leaves the territory of that Member State without authorisation or is otherwise not available to the competent authorities of that Member State.
Amendment 1731 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 8
Article 30 – paragraph 8
8. Where the requested Member State does not object to the request within the one-month period set out in paragraph 1 by a reply which gives full and detailed reasonssubstantiated reasons based on all circumstances of the case, or where applicable within the two- week period set out in paragraphs 2 and 7, this shall be tantamount to accepting the request, and entail the obligation to take charge of the person, including the obligation to provide for proper arrangements for arrival.
Amendment 1737 #
2020/0279(COD)
III Procedures for take back notificationsrequests (This amendment applies through the whole text.)
Amendment 1751 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1
Article 31 – paragraph 1
1. In a situation referred to in Article 26(1), point (b), (c) or (d) the Member State where the person is present shall make a take back notificationrequest without delay and in any event within two weeks after receiving the Eurodac hit.
Amendment 1758 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 3
Article 31 – paragraph 3
3. The notifirequested Member State shall confirm receipt of the notificationrequest to the Member State which made the notificationrequest within one week, unless the notifirequested Member State can demonstrate within that time limit that its responsibility has ceased pursuant to Article 27. The requested Member State shall have the right to reply to the request and explain its reasons.
Amendment 1783 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1
Article 32 – paragraph 1
1. The determining Member State whose take charge request as regards the applicant referred to in Article 26(1), point (a) was accepted or who made a take back notificationrequest as regards persons referred to in Article 26(1), point (b), (c) and (d) shall take a transfer decision at the latest within one week10 days of the acceptance or notification.
Amendment 1809 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The applicant or another person as referred to in Article 26(1), point (b), (c) and (d) shall have the right to an effective remedy, in the form of an appeal or a review, in fact and in law, against a transfer decision, before a court or tribunal.
Amendment 1819 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 2
Article 33 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall provide for a period of two week3 days after the notification of a transfer decision within which the person concerned may exercise his or her right to an effective remedy pursuant to paragraph 1.
Amendment 1824 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 33 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The person concerned shall have the right to request, within a reasonable period of time3 days from the notification of the transfer decision, a court or tribunal to suspend the implementation of the transfer decision pending the outcome of his or her appeal or review. Member States shall ensure that an effective remedy is in place by suspending the transfer until the decision on the first suspension request is taken. Any decision on whether to suspend the implementation of the transfer decision shall be taken within one month of the date when that request reached the competent court or tribunal.
Amendment 1882 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 34 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Where an applicant or another person referred to in Article 26(1), point (b), (c) or (d) is detained pursuant to this Article, the period for submitting a take charge request or a take back notificationrequest shall not exceed two weeksone month from the registration of the application. Where a person is detained at a later stage than the registration of the application, the period for submitting a take charge request or a take back notificationrequest shall not exceed one2 weeks from the date on which the person was placed in detention. The Member State carrying out the procedure in accordance with this Regulation shall ask for an urgent reply on a take charge request. Such reply shall be given within one2 weeks of receipt of the take charge request. Failure to reply within the one2-weeks period shall be tantamount to accepting the take charge request and shall entail the obligation to take charge of the person, including the obligation to provide for proper arrangements for arrival.
Amendment 1885 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – introductory part
Article 34 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – introductory part
Where a person is detained pursuant to this Article, the transfer of that person from the requesting or notifying Member State to the Member State responsible shall be carried out as soon as practically possible, and at the latest within foursix weeks of:
Amendment 1890 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Article 34 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 1898 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 4
Article 34 – paragraph 4
4. Where a person is detained pursuant to this Article, the detention shall be ordered in writing by the administrative and judicial authorities. The detention order shall state the reasons in fact and in law on which it is based.
Amendment 1910 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The transfer of an applicant or of another person as referred to in Article 26(1), point (b), (c) and (d), from the requesting or notifying Member State to the Member State responsible shall be carried out in accordance with the national law of the requesting or notifying Member State, after consultation between the Member States concerned, as soon as practically possible, and at the latest within six months of the acceptance of the take charge request or of the confirmation of the take back notification by another Member State or of the final decision on an appeal or review of a transfer decision where there is a suspensive effect in accordance with Article 33(3). That time limit may be extended up to a maximum of one year if the transfer cannot be carried out due to imprisonment of the person concerned.
Amendment 1911 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 2012 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. SThe form of solidarity contributions for the benefit of a Member State under migratory pressure or subject to disembarkations following search and rescue operations shallshould be based on the free and voluntary choice of each Member State taking into account their national specificities. Solidarity contributions for the benefit of a Member State may consist of the following types:
Amendment 2026 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) relocation of applicants who are not subject to the border procedure for the examination of an application for international protection established by Article 41 of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedure Regulatmeasures taken for the effective protection of the external borders of the European Union];
Amendment 2041 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) voluntary relocation of beneficiaries of international protection who have been granted international protection less than three years prior to adoption of an implementing act pursuant to Article 53(1)the implementation of the solidarity contribution;
Amendment 2048 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) capacity-building measurecontributions in the field of asylum, reception and return, operational support and measures aimed at responding to migratory trends affecting the benefitting Member State through cooperation with third countries.;
Amendment 2052 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) operational support to the benefitting Member State such as the joint processing of cases, support in asylum management and reception capacities, border protection, countering human smuggling and trafficking, return and readmission, communication and information;
Amendment 2056 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point d b (new)
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point d b (new)
(db) measures taken in the external dimension of migration, especially through cooperation with third countries and taking help to territories in need;
Amendment 2057 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point d c (new)
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point d c (new)
(dc) any other form of solidarity agreed by the contributing and benefitting Member State.
Amendment 2069 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 2
Article 45 – paragraph 2
Amendment 2085 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46
Article 46
Article 46 deleted Solidarity Forum shall comprise all Member States. The Commission shall convene and preside the Solidarity Forum in order to ensure the smooth functioning of this Part.
Amendment 2101 #
Amendment 2138 #
Amendment 2183 #
Amendment 2215 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 2
Article 50 – paragraph 2
2. The Asylum Agency and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency shall assist the Commission in drawing up the assessment of migratory pressure. The Member State concerned should also be involved in and be duly informed of all stages of such assessment. The Commission shall inform the European Parliament, the Council and the Member States, without delay, that it is undertaking an assessment.
Amendment 2244 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point h
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point h
(h) the number of persons apprehended in connection with an irregularllegal crossing of the external land, sea or air border;
Amendment 2253 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point k a (new)
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point k a (new)
(ka) the actions taken by the Member State to protect the external borders, in particular the financial and human expenditures for the protection of external borders;
Amendment 2257 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point k b (new)
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point k b (new)
(kb) a comparison of actions and expenditures for the protection of external borders by Member States at each external border section.
Amendment 2277 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The Commission shall submit the proposal for a report on migratory pressure to the European Parliament and to the Council within one month after the Commission informed them that it was carrying out an assessment pursuant to Article 50(2). The Commission shall communicate the proposal for a report on migratory pressure to the European Parliament.
Amendment 2280 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 2
Article 51 – paragraph 2
2. In the report, the Commission shall state whether it considers that the Member State concerned is under migratory pressure. The Council shall adopt the report on migratory pressure.
Amendment 2284 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Where the Commissionuncil concludes that the Member State concerned is under migratory pressure, the report of the Council shall identify:
Amendment 2293 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – point b – point i
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – point b – point i
(i) measures and actions that the Member State under migratory pressure should take in the field of migration management, and, in particular in the field of asylum and return;
Amendment 2296 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – point b – point ii
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – point b – point ii
(ii) measures referred to in Article 45(1), points (a), (b) and (c) to be taken by other Member States;
Amendment 2297 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – point b – point iii
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – point b – point iii
Amendment 2300 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 4
Article 51 – paragraph 4
4. Where the Commission considers that a rapid response is required due to a developing situation in a Member State, it shall submit its reportproposal for a report to the Council within two weeks at the latest from the date on which it informed the European Parliament, the Council and the Member States pursuant to Article 50(2) that it was carrying out an assessment.
Amendment 2310 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1
Article 52 – paragraph 1
1. Where the report referred to in Article 51 indicates that a Member State is under migratory pressure, the other Member States which are not themselves benefitting Member States under pressure, shall contribute by means of the solidarity contributions referred to in Article 45(1), points (a), (b) and (c). Member States shall prioritise the relocation of unaccompanied minors.
Amendment 2318 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 2
Article 52 – paragraph 2
Amendment 2326 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 52 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Within two weeks from the adoption of the report referred to in Article 51, Member States shall submit to the Commission a Solidarity Response Plan by completing the form in Annex II. The Solidarity Response Plan shall indicate the type of contributions from among those set out in Article 51(3)(b)(ii) or, where relevant, the measures set out in Article 51(3)(b)(iii45(1) that Member States propose to take. Where Member States propose more than one type of contribution set out in Article 51(3)(b)(ii),45(1) they shall indicate the share of each.
Amendment 2334 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 52 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Where Member States indicate measures set out in Article 51(3)(b)(iii45(1) in the Solidarity Response Plan they shall also indicate the detailed arrangements and the time-frame for their implementation.
Amendment 2340 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 4
Article 52 – paragraph 4
4. Where the Commissionuncil considers that the solidarity contributions indicated in the Solidarity Response Plans do not correspond to the needs identified in the report on migratory pressure provided for in Article 51, it shall convene the Solidarity Foruma special Council meeting. In such cases, the Commissionuncil shall invite Member States to adjust the type ofir contributions in their Solidarity Response Plans in the course of the Solidarity Forum by submitting revised Solidarity Response Plans.
Amendment 2343 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 5
Article 52 – paragraph 5
Amendment 2350 #
2020/0279(COD)
Amendment 2376 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54
Article 54
Amendment 2409 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 2
Article 55 – paragraph 2
Amendment 2414 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 3
Article 55 – paragraph 3
Amendment 2437 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 2
Article 56 – paragraph 2
2. Any Member State may, at any time, in response to a request for solidarity support by a Member State, or on its own initiative, including in agreement with another Member State, make contributions by means of the measures referred to in Article 45 for the benefit of the Member State concerned and with its agreement. Contributions referred to in article 45, point (d) shall be in accordance with the objectives of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Migration Fund].
Amendment 2445 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 57 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The procedure set out in this Article shall apply to: persons referred to in Article 45(1) point (c). Relocation under this Article should always be voluntary by the relocating Member State and may only concern persons who were already granted international protection. In the event of a security risk at any stage of the relocation process, the Member State of relocation may at any time refuse to relocate of that person.
Amendment 2453 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 2
Article 57 – paragraph 2
2. Before applying the procedure set out in this Article, the benefitting Member State shall ensure that there are no reasonable grounds to consider the person concerned a danger to national security or public order of that Member State. If there are reasonable grounds to consider the person a danger to national security or public order, the benefitting Member State shall not apply the procedure set out in this Article and shall, where applicable, exclude the person from the list referred to in Article 49(2).
Amendment 2463 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 57 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Where rRelocation is to be applied, the benefitting Member State shall identify the persons who could be relocated. Where the person concerned is an applicant for ormay only apply if the concerned person is already a beneficiary ofor international protection, that Member State shall take into account, wher. Where relocation is to be applicabled, the existence of meaningful links between the person concerned and the Member State of relocation. Where thebenefitting Member State shall identifiedy the person to be relocated is a beneficiary for international protection, ts who could be relocated. The person concerned shall be relocated only after the contributing Member State as well as that person consented to the relocation in writing.
Amendment 2465 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 57 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 2468 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 57 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 2480 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 4
Article 57 – paragraph 4
Amendment 2488 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 6
Article 57 – paragraph 6
6. The Member State of relocation shall examine the information transmitted by the benefitting Member State pursuant to paragraph 5, and verify that there are no reasonable grounds to consider the person concerned a danger to its national security or public order. as well as for the whole of the EU. For this, the Member State may carry out a personal interview prior to relocation if any security concern occurs regarding the person concerned.
Amendment 2513 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 2
Article 58 – paragraph 2
Amendment 2519 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 3
Article 58 – paragraph 3
Amendment 2524 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 4
Article 58 – paragraph 4
4. Where the Member State of relocation hasHaving relocated a beneficiary for international protection voluntarily, the Member State of relocation shall automatically grant international protection status respecting the respective status granted by the benefitting Member State.
Amendment 2528 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 5
Article 58 – paragraph 5
Amendment 2541 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 1
Article 61 – paragraph 1
Funding support following relocation pursuant to Chapters I and II of Part IV shall be implemented in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Fund]should be made available from the Union budget for all forms of solidarity contributions by Member States, including the financing of physical barriers at the external borders of the EU.
Amendment 2568 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 71 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Directive 2003/109/EC
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
With regard to beneficiaries of international protection, the required period of legal and continuous residence shall be threfive years.
Amendment 2590 #
2020/0279(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point 2 Regulation (EU) 2021/1147
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point 2 Regulation (EU) 2021/1147
3a. A Member State shall receive a significant contribution amounting at least to the half of the total costs to cover the protection of external borders of the Union, including the financing of physical barriers at the external borders of the Union. (Article 72 of the Commission proposal contains amendments to the text of the proposal for a regulation establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund (COM(2018)0471). That regulation was subsequently adopted as Regulation (EU) 2021/1147 and several of its provisions were renumbered. Therefore, Article 17 of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Fund], as referred to in Article 72 of the Commission proposal, corresponds to Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1147.)
Amendment 155 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The rules governing border control of persons crossing the external borders of the Member States of the Union are laid down in Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Schengen Borders Code)21 as adopted under Article 77(2)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). To further develop the Union’s policy with a view to carrying out checks on persons and efficiently monitoring the crossing of external borders referred to in the first paragraph of Article 77 TFEU, additional measures should address situations where third-country nationals manage to avoid border checks at the external borders, or where third-country nationals are disembarked following search and rescue operations as well as where third- country nationals request international protection at a border crossing point without fulfilling entry conditions. The present regulation complements and specifies Regulation (EU) 2016/399 with regard to those three sets of situations. _________________ 21 Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), OJ L 77, 23.3.2016, p.1.
Amendment 166 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) It is essential to ensure that in those three sets of situations, the third country nationals are screened, in order to facilitate a proper identification and to allow for them being referred efficiently to the relevant procedures which, depending on the circumstances, can be procedures for international protection or procedures respecting Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (the “Return Directive”)22 . The screening should seamlessly complement the checks carried out at the external border or compensate for the fact that those checks have been circumvented by the third country nationals when crossing the external border. _________________ 22 Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98.
Amendment 190 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) In order to ensure a swift handling of third-country nationals who try to avoid border checks or who request international protection at a border crossing point without fulfilling the entry conditions or who are disembarked following a search and rescue operation, it is necessary to provide a stronger framework for cooperation between the different national authorities responsible for border control, the protection of public health, the examination of the need for international protection and the application of return procedures.
Amendment 203 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) This Regulation should apply to third-country nationals and stateless persons who are apprehended in connection with the unauthorised crossings of the external border of a Member State by land, sea or air, except third country nationals for whom the Member State is not required to take the biometric data pursuant to Article 14(1) and (3) of the Eurodac Regulation for reasons other than their age, as well as to persons who have been disembarked following search and rescue operations, regardless of whether they apply or not for international protection. This Regulation should also apply to those who seek international protection at the border crossing points or in transit zones without fulfilling the entry conditions
Amendment 242 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) In accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, the fulfilment of entry conditions and the authorisation of entry are expressed in an entry stamp in a travel document. The absence of such entry stamp or the absence of a travel document may therefore be considered as an indication that the holder does not fulfil the entry conditions. With the start of the operation of the Entry/Exit System leading to substitution of the stamps with an entry in the electronic system, that presumption will become more reliable. Member States should therefore apply the screening to third-country nationals who are already within the territory and who are unable to prove that they fulfilled the conditions of entry into the territory of the Member States. The screening of such third-country nationals is necessary in order to compensate for the fact that they presumably managed to evade entry checks upon arrival in the Schengen area and therefore could have not been either refused entry or referred to the appropriate procedure following screening. Applying the screening could also help in ascertaining, through the consultation of the databases referred to in this Regulation, that the persons concerned do not pose a threat to internal security. Throughout the screening, these persons should be regarded as if they had not entered the territory of the Member State similarily to those persons under the screening procedure at the external borders. By the end of the screening within the territory, the third- country nationals concerned should be subject to a return procedure or, where they apply for international protection, to the appropriate asylum procedure. Submitting the same third- country national to repeated screenings should be avoided to the utmost extent possible.
Amendment 247 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) The screening should be completed as soon as possible, and should not exceed 5 days where it is conducted at the external border and 3 days where it is conducted within the territory of a Member State14 days. Any extension of the 514 days’ time limit should be reserved for exceptional situations at the external borders, such as where the capacities of the Member State to handle screenings are exceeded for reasons beyond its control such as crisis situations referred to in Article 1 of Regulation XXX/XXX [crisis proposal] or if it is impossible to conclude the screening or the security, vulnerability and the age determination procedure within that time-limit.
Amendment 267 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) In order to ensure compliance with EU and international law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, during the screening, each Member State should establish a monitoring mechanism and put in place adequate safeguards for the independence thereof. The monitoring mechanism should cover in particular the respect for fundamental rights in relation to the screening, as well as the respect for the applicable national rules regarding detention and compliance with the principle of non-refoulement as referred to in Article 3(b) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399. The Fundamental Rights Agency should establish general guidance as to the establishment and the independent functioning of such monitoring mechanism. Member States should furthermore be allowed to request the support of the Fundamental Rights Agency for developing their national monitoring mechanism. Member States should also be allowed to seek advice from the Fundamental Rights Agency with regard to establishing the methodology for this monitoring mechanism and with regard to appropriate training measures. Member States should also be allowed to invite relevant and competent national, international and non-governmental organisations and bodies to participate in the monitoring. The independent monitoring mechanism should be without prejudice to the monitoring of fundamental rights provided by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency’s fundamental rights monitors provided for in Regulation (EU) 2019/1896. Tthe Member States should investigate allegations of the breach of the fundamental rights during the screening, including by ensuring that complaints are dealt with expeditiously and in an appropriate way.
Amendment 329 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) As the screening concerns persons present at the external border without fulfilling entry conditions, or disembarked after a search and rescue operation, the security checks as part of the screening should be at least of a similar level as the checks performed in respect of third country nationals that apply on beforehand for an authorisation to enter the Union for a short stay, whether they are under a visa obligation or not.
Amendment 358 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
This Regulation establishes the screening at the external borders of the Member States of all third-country nationals who have crossed the external border in an unauthorised manner, and of those who have applied for international protection during border checks without fulfilling entry conditions, as well as those disembarked after a search and rescue operation, before they are referred to the appropriate procedure.
Amendment 387 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 a (new)
5 a. ‘vulnerable persons’ means minors, unaccompanied minors, disabled people, elderly people, pregnant women, single parents with minor children and persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence as referred to in Article 3(9) of Directive ((EU) 2008/115;
Amendment 407 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 430 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. During the screening, the persons referred to in Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not be authorised to enter the territory of a Member State. This should apply accordingly to persons referred to in Article 5.
Amendment 434 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Persons referred to in paragraph 1 may be detained for the purpose of preventing entry into the territory of the Member State.
Amendment 443 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Member States shall apply the screening to third-country nationals found within their territory where there is no indication that they have crossed an external border to enter the territory of the Member States in an authorised manner. These third-country nationals shall be regarded as if they had not entered the territory of the Member State, and Article 4 shall apply accordingly.
Amendment 464 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. In the cases referred to in Article 3 and 5, the screening shall be carried out without delay and shall in any case be completed within 514 days from the apprehension in the external border area, the disembarkation in the territory of the Member State concerned or the presentation at the border crossing point. In exceptional circumstances, such as where a disproportionate number of third-country nationals needs to be subject to the screening at the same time, making it impossible in practice to conclude the screening or where it is impossible to conclude the security, vulnerability and the age determination procedure within that time- limit, the period of 514 days may be extended by a maximum of an additional 514 days.
Amendment 472 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 5
Article 6 – paragraph 5
Amendment 516 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Each Member State shall establishprovide for an independent monitoring mechanism.
Amendment 521 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – indent 1
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – indent 1
Amendment 530 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – indent 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – indent 2
Amendment 536 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – indent 3
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – indent 3
Amendment 549 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 555 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 567 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 619 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3
Article 8 – paragraph 3
3. The information provided during the screening shall be given in a language which the third-country national understands or is reasonably supposed to understand. The information shall be given in writing and, in exceptional circumstances, where necessary, orally using interpretation services. It shall be provided in an appropriate manner taking into account the age and the gender of the person.
Amendment 623 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4
Article 8 – paragraph 4
Amendment 636 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. Third-country nationals submitted to the screening referred to in Article 3 and 5 shall be subject to a preliminary medical examination with a view to identifying any needs for immediate health care or isolation on public health grounds, unless, based on the circumstances concerning the general state of the individual third-country nationals concerned and the grounds for directing them to the screening, the relevant competent authorities are satisfied that no preliminary medical screening is necessary. In that case, they shall inform those persons accordingly. Where it is deemed necessary based on the preliminary examination, third-country nationals submitted to the screening referred to in Article 3 and 5 shall be subject to a health check.
Amendment 652 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4
Article 9 – paragraph 4
4. Where it is deemed necessary based on the circumstancesubstantiated doubts, third-country nationals submitted to the screening referred to in Article 3 and 5 shall be subject to a preliminary medical examination, notably to identify any medical condition requiring immediate care, special assistance or isolationn age assessment or other procedures in accordance with national legislation in order to verify their vulnerabilities.
Amendment 710 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(a a) the result of the age determination procedure;
Amendment 729 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) information on assistance provided by a person or a criminaln organisation in relation to unauthorised crossing of the border, and any related information in cases of suspected smuggling.
Amendment 744 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
The third country nationals referred to in Article 3(1) point (a) and (b) and Article 5 of this Regulation who
Amendment 774 #
2020/0278(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 4
Article 14 – paragraph 4
Amendment 109 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) The comprehensive approach should bring together policies in the areas of asylum, and migration management, returns, external border protection and partnership with relevant third countries, recognising that the effectiveness of the overall approach depends on all components being jointly addressed and in an integrated manner. The comprehensive approach should ensure that the Union has at its disposal specific rules to effectively manageprevent a migration including the triggering of a compulsory solidarity mechanism and that all the necessary measures are put in place to prevent crisis to happecrisis to happen, principally with the effective protection of external borders and effective action in the external dimension of migration.
Amendment 155 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) The solidarity mechanism for situations of migratory pressure as set out in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management] should be adaptpplied based ton the specific needs of situations of crisis by extendprinciple of flexible solidarity. Member States should be able to choose the form of solidarity through which they wish to contribute. The border protection efforts of Member States and their efforts ing the personal scope of the solidarity measures provided for in that Regulaexternal dimension of migration should be considered as solidarity instruments. Relocation as well as return sponsorship should remain only voluntary instruments of solidarity. Capacity building contributions and setting shorter deadlines well as measures taken in the external dimension of migration should be taken into account as solidarity contributions.
Amendment 160 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
Amendment 173 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
Amendment 190 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12 a (new)
Recital 12 a (new)
(12a) In a crisis situation, Member States should be able to put in place and maintain a system where submitting an asylum application is only possible in the consulates of safe third countries and where those arriving at the external border sections wishing to submit an application there, but arrive via a safe third country, would be redirected to the consulate of that Member State in the neighbouring safe third country.
Amendment 245 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) The return crisis management procedure should facilitate, in a situation of crisis, the return of illegally staying third- country nationals whose applications were rejected in the context of a crisis asylum management procedure and who have no right to remain and are not allowed to remain, by providing the competent national authorities with the necessary tools and sufficient time-frame to carry out return procedures with due diligence. To be able to respond to situations of crisis in an effective manner, the return crisis management procedure should apply also to applicants, third-country nationals and stateless persons subject to the border procedure referred to in Article 41 of the of proposed Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Procedures Regulation], whose applications were rejected before the adoption of a CommissionEuropean Council decision declaring that a Member State is confronted with a situation of crisis, and who have no right to remain and are not allowed to remain after such a decision.
Amendment 257 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) In order to allow for the proper management of a crisis situation and ensure a proper adaptation of the relevant rules on the asylum and return procedure, the Commission should, by way of an implementing decision,uncil, in full compliance with the decision of the European Council declaring a situation of crisis and setting out the exact range of measures to be applied in such situation, may authorise concerned Member States, upon their reasoned request, to apply relevant derogatory rules. Such an implementing decision could authorise one or more requesting Member States to derogate from the relevant rules.
Amendment 266 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) The Commissionuncil should examine a reasoned request submitted by a Member State while taking into account substantiated information gathered pursuant to Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum Agency Regulation] and Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council24 and the Migration Management report referred to in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management]. _________________ 24 Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624, OJ L 295, 14.11.2019, p. 1.
Amendment 273 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) In order to provide Member States with additional time needed to deal with the situation of crisis and at the same time ensure an effective and as quick as possible access to the relevant procedures and rights, the Commission shoulduncil, in full compliance with the decision of the European Council declaring a situation of crisis and setting out the exact range of measures to be applied in such situation, may authorise the application of the asylum crisis management procedure and the return crisis management procedure for a period of six months, which could be extended up to a period not exceeding one year. After the expiry of the relevant period, the extended deadlines provided for in the asylum and return crisis management procedures should not be applied to new applications for international protection.
Amendment 280 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) For the same reasons, the Commission shoulduncil, in full compliance with the decision of the European Council declaring a situation of crisis and setting out the exact range of measures to be applied in such situation, may authorise the application of derogatory rules as regards the registration deadline for a period not exceeding four weeks, which should be renewable upon a new reasoned request submitted by the Member State concerned. The total period of application should nonetheless not exceed twelve weeks.
Amendment 372 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) To support Member States who undertake relocation as aany solidarity measure, financial support from the EU budget should be provided.
Amendment 381 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 387 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 393 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
Amendment 410 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Upon the request of a Member State, the European Council may declare that a Member State is confronted with a situation of crisis and set out the exact range of measures to be applied in such situation.
Amendment 419 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) an exceptional situation of mass influx of third-country nationals or stateless persons arriving irregularllegally in a Member State or disembarked on its territory following search and rescue operations, being of such a scale, in proportion to the population and GDP of the Member State concerned, and nature, that it renders the Member State’s asylum, reception or return system non-functional and can have serious consequences for the functioning the Common European Asylum System or the Common Framework as set out in Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management], or
Amendment 443 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. For the purpose of providing solidarity contributions for the benefit of a Member State in situations of crisis as set out in Article 1(2)(a), Part IV of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Management] shall apply mutatis mutandis, with the exception of Article 45(1), point (d), Art. The form of solidarity contributions should be based on the free choicle 47, Article 48, Article 49, Article 51(3)(b)(iii) and (4), Article 52(2) and (5) and Article 53(2), second andof each contributing Member State, tailored to their individual capabilities and taking into account theird subparagraph national specificities.
Amendment 451 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 5
Article 2 – paragraph 5
Amendment 459 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 6
Article 2 – paragraph 6
Amendment 462 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 7
Article 2 – paragraph 7
Amendment 486 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Where a Member State considers that it is facing a crisis situation as referred to in Article 1(2), that Member State shall submit a reasoned request to the Commissionuncil for the purpose of applying the rules laid down in Articles 4, 5 or 6 as necessary. (This amendment applies throughout Article 3)
Amendment 504 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 6
Article 3 – paragraph 6
Amendment 515 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 a (new)
Article 3 a (new)
Article 3 a Applications in safe third countries 1. In a crisis situation, Member States may put in place and maintain a system where submitting an asylum application is only possible in the consulates of safe third countries. 2. Those arriving at the external border of a Member State to submit an asylum application there, and who arrive via a safe third country, may be redirected to the consulate of the Member State in the neighbouring safe third country.
Amendment 607 #
2020/0277(COD)
Amendment 668 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – title
Article 11 – title
Adoption of implementing actCouncil decisions
Amendment 672 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall adopt implementinguncil may adopt acts in respect of authorising the application of the derogatory procedural rules referred to in Articles 4, 5 and 6, and triggering the granting of immediate protection status in accordance with Article 10. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 12(2).
Amendment 680 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2
Article 11 – paragraph 2
2. On duly justified imperative grounds of urgency, due to the situation of crisis as defined in Article 1(2) in a Member State, the Commission shalluncil may adopt immediately applicable implementing acts in respect of authorising the application of the derogatory procedural rules referred to in Articles 4, 5 and 6, and triggering the granting of immediate protection status in accordance with Article 10. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 12(3).
Amendment 683 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Any decision made by the Council should always fully respect the decision of the European Council determining the situation of crisis and the exact range of measures set out by the European Council to be applied in such situation.
Amendment 690 #
2020/0277(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12
Article 12
Amendment 71 #
2020/0112R(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point iii – paragraph 1
Paragraph 4 – point iii – paragraph 1
Amendment 111 #
2020/0112R(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Calls on the Commission to propose that future multiannual frameworks of FRA refer to the protection and promotion of minorities, including national and linguistic minorities, in line with article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
Amendment 41 #
2019/2207(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that the withdrawal of the UK from the EU creates opportunities for further unification of the criminal justice area; recalls that the Political Declaration on the future relationship states that the UK and EU ‘will provide for comprehensive, close, balanced and reciprocal law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters’; points out that in case the EU and the UK will fail to reach a new extradition agreement within an overall partnership agreement by the end of the transition period, the parties will have to revert to the 1957 European Convention on Extradition of the Council of Europe, which entails much slower processes of political and diplomatic nature, rather than technical ones; insists that any agreement between the EU and UK in the field of criminal justice cooperation must be underpinned, inter alia, by their commitments on fundamental rights, including the continued commitment by the UK to respect the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as well as by the role of the ECJ in this matter.
Amendment 67 #
2019/2207(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas facilitation and coordination by Eurojust has proven a useful tool for mutual recognitionEurojust plays an essential role in the facilitation and coordination of the execution of EAWs; whereas the assistance of Eurojust is increasingly requested in the execution of EAWs, significantly increasing its workload; whereas only in 2019 Eurojust facilitated the execution of EAWs related to new 703 cases and 574 ongoing cases; whereas the mandate of Eurojust is independent of the EPPO;
Amendment 156 #
2019/2207(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission to ensure adequate funding for Eurojust and EJN for facilitating and coordinating the EAW; notdeplores that the Commission’s budgetary plans for Eurojust would have led to a stagnation in financing despite an increased workload; points out that it is essential that the budget of Eurojust matches its tasks and priorities in order to enable it to fulfil its mandate;
Amendment 194 #
2019/2207(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)
Paragraph 29 a (new)
29 a. Reiterates its call1a for Member States to improve deficient prison conditions; calls on the European Commission to fully exploit the possibility of financing the modernisation of detention facilities from the EU Structural Funds; recalls in this regard that in its 2018 conclusions on 'promoting mutual recognition by enhancing mutual trust'1b the Council also invited the Commission to promote the use of EU funds to support the Member States to address the problem of deficient detention conditions; _________________ 1aEuropean Parliament resolution of 5October 2017 on prison systems and conditions, P8_TA(2017)0385 1bCouncil conclusions on mutual recognition in criminal matters- 'Promoting mutual recognition by enhancing mutual trust', OJ C 449 of 13 December 2018
Amendment 234 #
2019/2207(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38 a (new)
Paragraph 38 a (new)
38 a. Points out that in case the EU and the UK will fail to reach a new extradition agreement within an overall partnership agreement by the end of the transition period, the parties will have to revert to the 1957 European Convention on Extradition of the Council of Europe, which entails much slower processes of political and diplomatic nature, rather than technical ones;
Amendment 235 #
2019/2207(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38 b (new)
Paragraph 38 b (new)
Amendment 2 #
2019/2199(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses the importance of the use of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights by Member States at a national level by national courts and through inclusion in legislative procedures; regrets that there has only been a limited attempt at promoting the application of its provisions, even though it, when implementing EU law and regrets the uneven application by Member States of its provisions; reminds that the expectations of EU citizens regarding the protection of their fundamental rights, as demonstrated by petitions, go beyond the field of application of the Charter; considers that a better promotion of the Charter is needed in order to render its provisions more effective and to promote its an obligation stated in Article 51 of the Charteruse by legislators and judges as positive source of interpretation even in cases that do not fall within the scope of EU law;
Amendment 3 #
2019/2199(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights that Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights states that the Member States must ‘respect the rights, observe the principles and promote the application thereof’; regrets that, according to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), some Member States do not appear to be making sufficient efforts to promote awareness, or the implementation, of Charter provisions; underlines that a better promotion of the Charter is needed in order to render its provisions more effective and possibly to encourage its use by national legislators and judges as a positive source of interpretation even in cases that do not necessarily fall within the scope of EU law;
Amendment 19 #
2019/2199(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines that an independent judiciary is the cornerstone of the rule of law and of the right to effective legal protection2 ; recommends a departure from the existing approach of tackling rule of law cases in individual countries in an ad hoc manner, and calls for the development of criteria and contextual assessments to guide Member States in recognising and tackling any possible rule of law issues in a regular and comparative manner; considers that it would be desirable to arrive to a shared culture of the rule of law in the 27 Member States and in the Union institutions through the use of common definitions, standards and benchmarks; points out that the principle of rule of law applies not only to the quality of legislative processes, but also to the de- facto and non-discriminatory application of already existing legislation. _________________ 2Article 19 TEU, Article 67(4) TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter.
Amendment 20 #
2019/2199(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes with concern that a number of Member States have not fully or correctly implemented the Council Framework Decision of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law1 and its minimum standards on offences of denying, condoning and grossly trivialising certain crimes; highlights that citizens belonging to vulnerable groups remain the main target of such actions; considers that hate speech and xenophobia should have no place in any aspect of social life, including sport events; _________________ 1 OJ L 328 of 6.12.2008, p. 55-58.
Amendment 21 #
2019/2199(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Is concerned by the recurrent petitions, which show that EU citizens still encounter discrimination in the exercise of their fundamental rights, particularly in the field of linguistic rights, minority rights and the right to property; believes that the EU institutions and the Member States should do more to tackle all types of discrimination;
Amendment 36 #
2019/2199(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Recalls that respect of diversity is the founding principle of the EU and in order to preserve this diversity supportive actions should be promoted on both, Member State and EU level; believes that a strengthened promotion of use of regional and minority languages is one of the answers for tackling language discrimination;
Amendment 39 #
2019/2199(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to further implement the principles of the Pillar of Social Rights to ensure social fundamental rights at EU and national level, such as the integration of persons with disabilities, just and fair working conditions, social benefits and social assistance;
Amendment 50 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 23 a (new)
Citation 23 a (new)
– having regard to its resolution of 13 November 2018 on minimum standards for minorities in the EU1a, __________________ 1a Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0447
Amendment 51 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 23 b (new)
Citation 23 b (new)
– having regard to its resolution of 7 February 2018 on protection and non- discrimination with regard to minorities in the EU Member States1a, __________________ 1a Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0032
Amendment 66 #
2019/2199(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Council to urgently conclude the EU ratification of the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violaence against women and domestic violence, on the basis of a broad accession, without any limitation; calls on as well the remaining Member States to ratify and implement the Convention; expresses its concerns that severalncourages the Member States who have incorrectly, or only partially,not implemented the convention to do so; calls on the Commission to review the implementing legislation.;
Amendment 72 #
2019/2199(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls for a concerted EU action in the field of European and international child protection; stresses the need to intensify cross-border cooperation among Member States and EU institutions to find adequate and prompt solutions in child abduction cases; believes that the EU has a role in the promotion of the rights of the child including at international level;
Amendment 340 #
2019/2199(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Regrets that so far the EU has not been able to sanction or prevent discriminative practices having a negative impact on the languages and cultures of persons belonging to autochthonous national or linguistic minorities; calls on member States to ensure mother tongue use in education, public services, healthcare and in the justice system for such minorities; reiterates its call on the EU institutions to lay down a comprehensive EU system for the protection of its autochthonous national and linguistic minorities with a functioning monitoring mechanism;
Amendment 2 #
2019/2198(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that the EU institutions have an obligation to implement Article 15(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and to adopt a legal instrument on access to documents in line with the democratic principles expressed in Article 10(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and with the rights of EU citizens enshrined in Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; highlights that Article 15(3) of the TFEU envisages enhanced institutional scope; believes that an updated legal regime would have the potential of taking into account technological developments, experience with the application of the Regulation 1049/2001 and relevant jurisprudence;
Amendment 5 #
2019/2198(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines the fact that Article 10(3) of the TEU grants EU citizens the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union and stipulates that decisions must be taken as openly and closely as possible to the citizen; insists that all institutions must strive to implement these principles; stresses that as an integral part of the EU legislature, the Council is bound by the same transparency obligations as the other institutions of the EU; calls therefore on the Council to live up to these obligations;
Amendment 12 #
2019/2198(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls its resolution of 17 January 2019 on the Ombudsman’s strategic inquiry OI/2/2017 on the transparency of legislative discussions in the preparatory bodies of the Council of the EU and urges the Council to improve its rules and procedures as regards legislative transparency, including accessibility and classification of legislative documents, thereby allowing for legitimate scrutiny not only by the citizens, but also by the national parliaments; considers that the Council should record systematically the identity of Member State governments, when they express their positions in Council preparatory bodies and provide for a proactive regime of publication of its documents in a user-friendly and searchable format;
Amendment 21 #
2019/2198(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for the EU legislators to comply with the judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 (case T-540/15) on access to the documents of the trilogues, thereby further strengthening the culture of transparency in the EU’s legislative work; underlines that a high level of transparency of the legislative process is an essential element for holding decision- makers in all EU institutions accountable;
Amendment 26 #
2019/2198(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Urges the EU institutions to implement without delay the commitment they undertook in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making to create a single interinstitutional database of legislative documents, allowing for the transparency of the various steps in the legislative process and providing EU citizens with clearer understanding of the EU legislative procedures;
Amendment 31 #
2019/2198(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Welcomes the adoption of the Regulation (EU) 2019/788, on European Citizens’ Initiative which shall promote enhanced participation of the EU citizens in democratic life and expects the Commission to apply highest standards of transparency to the actions aiming to implement requests expressed in successful initiatives (in line with Article 15(2) and 15(3) of the Regulation);
Amendment 3 #
2019/2132(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses the need to continuously improve the mechanisms designed to ensure that rule-making is in full compliance with the Treaties, notably the principles of conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality, as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and with the principle of sincere cooperation as set out in Article 13 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU);
Amendment 7 #
2019/2132(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Underlines that the norms of the European Union need to be formulated in a clear, understandable way, respecting the principle of legal clarity, transparency and the principle of legal certainty, stresses that European Union law needs to clearly define the rights and obligations that the addressees of the norms, especially the European Union institutions and the Member States need to follow;
Amendment 13 #
2019/2132(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Highlights the crucial role of national parliaments in the pre-legislative scrutiny of draft EU laws and in their correct implementation by the Member States; notes that the existing forms of cooperation with national parliaments - like inter-parliamentary delegations, or procedures involving national parliaments in information-exchange regarding law- making and application - could be improved, calls for discussing possibilities for enhancing cooperation in the field of the application of the principles of subsidiarity and in defining the role of the principle of proportionality during decision-making and the application of norms during the Conference on the Future of Europe;
Amendment 17 #
2019/2132(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Notes the importance of avoiding unnecessary complexity and reducing administrative burdens for citizens and businesses alike, calls for the need to provide all necessary help to avoid over- regulation when transposing and applying European Union law;
Amendment 18 #
2019/2132(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Recognizes that after the number of infringement procedures decreased between 2016-2018 the number of procedures increased again from 2018 to 2019, emphasizes the importance of proper dialogues between the European Commission and Member States at the pre-litigation stage; underlines that Member States need to be able to properly transpose European Union law into their own legal system, calls for appropriate timing in legislative procedures to provide sufficient time needed for transposition;
Amendment 19 #
2019/2132(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2 c. Stresses that the proper application of European Union law and the fulfilment of the obligations arising therefrom are the joint responsibility of the Member States and the institutions and bodies of the European Union, with regard to obligations stemming from the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Amendment 21 #
2019/2132(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls for improvements to the EU law-making process, which relies on transparency and accountability in legislative drafting, together with civil society participation, where appropriate; echoes that the effectiveness of the EU’s legal acts –which hinges on the correctness and timeliness of their implementation – forms the cornerstone of legal certainty and better application;
Amendment 23 #
2019/2132(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises that proper transposition and implementation of EUuropean Union law, on the basis of Article 197 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), is of the utmost importance; calls for appropriate ex post impact assessment of EU law, including sustainability impact assessments; and for appropriate ex ante assessment beforehand during legislative procedures, in line with the pledge of the European Parliament and the Council to carry out impact assessments in relation to their substantial amendments to the Commission's proposal when they consider this to be appropriate and necessary for the legislative process;
Amendment 32 #
2019/2132(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Urges the Commission to enhance public debate on its annual report on the monitoring of the application of EU law and to further support Member States in transposing and implementing EU legislation through institutional and administrative capacity-building initiatives; suggests to examine the role of non legally binding guidance documents that aim to assist the Member States in the implementation process;
Amendment 41 #
2019/2132(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recalls the need to fully safeguard the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to ensure the uniform interpretation and application of EU law in the context of Brexit andimplementation of the Withdrawal Agreement and with regards to the future relationship with the UK.
Amendment 4 #
2019/2098(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Deplores the 21 % reduction in the budget of Eurojust compared to 2017 despite the increased amount of cases handled; is extremely concerned that in the context of Eurojust’s constantly growing workload, and the emergence of newly emerging threats to Union internal security, such as terrorism, cybercrime and migrant smuggling, the decrease in financing proposed by the Commission in the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework would hamper Eurojust in fulfilling its role and would weaken an essential element of the Union's security chain;
Amendment 3 #
2019/2074(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 92 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40
Recital 40
(40-a) All the procedural steps relating to the implementation of this regulation should be designed and applied in a way that is in line with fundamental rights, including the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment as prescribed for in Articles 3 ECHR and 4 Charter, the right to asylum as enshrined in Article 18 Charter and the principle of non- refoulement in Article 19 Charter.
Amendment 98 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40a
Recital 40a
(40a) ‘ The purpose of the border procedure for asylum and return should be to quickly assess at the external borders whether applications are unfounded or inadmissiblefor international protection and to swiftly return those with no right to stay, while ensuring that those with well-founded claims are channelentitled into the regular procedure and providedprotection have quick access to international protection. Member States should therefore be able to require applicants for international protection to stay at the external border or in a transit zone in order to assess the admissibility of applications. In well-defined circumstances,pplications. Member States should be able to provide for the examination of the merits of an application in the border procedure and, in the event of rejection of the application, for the return of the third- country nationals and stateless persons concerned at the external borders.
Amendment 102 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40b
Recital 40b
(40b) Member State should assess all applications in a border procedure where the applicant is a danger to national security or public order, where the applicant has misled the authorities by presenting false information or documents or by withholding relevant information or documents with respect to his or her identity or nationality that could have had a negative impact on the decision and where it is likely that the application is unfounded because the applicant is of a nationality for whom decisions granting international protection is lower than 20% of the total number of decisions for that third country. In other cases, such as when the applicant is from a safe country of origin or a safe third country, the use of the border procedure should be optional for the Member Statesithout allowing entry into the territory of the Member State during the procedure.
Amendment 115 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40c
Recital 40c
(40c) When applyingIn the border procedure, for the examination of an application for international protection, Member States should ensure that the necessary arrangements are made to accommodate the applicants at or close to the external border or transit zones, in accordance with Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Reception Conditions Directive]. Member States may process the applications at a different location at the external border than that where the asylum application is made by transferring applicants to a specific location at or in the proximity of the external border of that Member States where appropriate facilities exist. Member States may also transfer those illegally staying nationals who were apprehended on the territory of the Member States to such appropriate facilities in order to conduct the border procedure. Member States should retain discretion in deciding at which specific locations at the external borders such facilities should be set up. However, Member States should seek to limit the need for transferring applicants for this purpose, and therefore aim at setting up such facilities with sufficient capacity at border crossing points, or sections of the external border, where the majority of the number of applications for international protection are made, also taking into account the length of the external border and the number of border crossing points or transit zones. They should notify the Commission of the specific locations at the external border, transit zones or proximity of the external border where the border procedures will be carried out. In cases where the border procedure is applied and the capacity of the locations at or in proximity of the external border as notified by a Member State is temporarily exceeded, Member States may process those applications at another location within its territory, for the shortest time possible.
Amendment 123 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40d
Recital 40d
Amendment 134 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40e
Recital 40e
(40e) The duration of the border procedure for examination of applications for international protection should be as short as possible while at the same time guaranteeing a complete and fair examination of the claims. It should in any event not exceed 125 weeks. This deadline should be understood as a stand-alone deadline for the asylum border procedure, encompassing both the decision on the examination of the application as well as the decision of the first level of appeal, if applicable. Within this period, Member States are entitled to set the deadline in national law both for the administrative and for the appeal stage, but should set them in a way so as to ensure that the examination procedure is concluded and that subsequently, if relevant, the decision on the first level of appeal is issued within this maximum 125 week. After that period, if the Member State nevertheless failed to take the relevant decisions, the applicant should in principle be authorised to enter the territoryEntry into the territory should not be authorised without a positive decision ofn the Member State. Entry into the territory should however not be authoriseapplication and where the applicant has no right to remain, where he or she has not requested to be allowed to remain for the purpose of an appeal procedure, or where a court or tribunal has decided that he or she should not be allowed to remain pending the outcome of an appeal procedure. In such cases, to ensure continuity between the asylum procedure and the return procedure, the return procedure should also be carried out in the context of a border procedure for a period not exceeding 12 week4 months. This period should be counted starting from the moment in which the applicant, third- country national or stateless person no longer has a right to remain or is no longer allowed to remain.
Amendment 158 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40i
Recital 40i
(40i) Where an applicant, third-country national or stateless person who was detained during the border procedure for the examination of their application for international protection no longer has a right to remain and has not been allowed to remain, Member States should be able to continue the detention for the purpose of preventing entry into the territory and carrying out the return procedure, respecting the guarantees and conditions for detention laid down in Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive]. An applicant, third-country national or stateless person who was not detained during the border procedure for the examination of an application for international protection, and who no longer has a right to remain and has not been allowed to remain, could also be detained for the purpose of preventing entry into the territory of the Member State, if there is a risk of absconding, if he or she avoids or hampers return, or if he or she poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security. Detention should be for as short a period as possible and should not exceed the maximum duration of the border procedure for carrying out return. When the illegally staying third-country national does not return or is not removed within that period and the border procedure for carrying out return ceases to apply, the provisions of the [recast Return Directive] should apply. TWhe maximum period of detention set by Article 15 of that Directive should include the period of detention applied during the border procedure for carrying our returnn the return decision cannot be enforced within 4 months, the third country national may further be detained in accordance with Article 18 [recast Return Directive].
Amendment 161 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40j
Recital 40j
Amendment 167 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44a
Recital 44a
(44a) ‘'An applicant who lodges a subsequent application at the last minute merely in order to delay or frustrate his or her removal should not be authorised to remain pending the finalisation of the decision declaring the application inadmissible in cases where it is immediately clear to the determining authority that no new elements have been presented and there is no risk of refoulement and provided that the application is made within one year of the decision by the determining authority on the first application. The determining authority shall issue a decision under national law confirming that these criteria are fulfilled in order for the applicant not to be authorised to remain. ’
Amendment 174 #
2016/0224(COD)
(65) ‘For a'An applicant has to be able to exercise his or her right to an effective remedy against a decision rejecting an application for international protection, all effects of the return decision should be automatically suspended for as long as the applicant has the right to remain or has been allowed to remain on the territory of a Member State. To improve the effectiveness of procedures at the external border, while ensuring the respect of the right to an effective remedy, appeals against decisions taken in the context of the border procedure should take place only before a single level of jurisdiction of a court or tribunal.
Amendment 180 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 66
Recital 66
(66) Applicants should, in principle, have the right to remain on the territory of a Member State until the time-limit for lodging an appeal before a court or tribunal of first instance expires, and, where such a right is exercised within the set time-limit, pending the outcome of the appeal. It is only in the limited cases set out in this Regulation, wWhere applications are likely to be unfounded, that the applicant should not have an automatic right to remain for the purpose of the appeal.
Amendment 220 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – point a – paragraph 1 – point i
Article 40 – point a – paragraph 1 – point i
(i) ‘the applicant is of a nationality or, in the case of stateless persons, a former habitual resident of a third country for which the proportion of decisions by the determining authority granting international protection is, according to the latest available yearly Union-wide average Eurostat data, 250% or lower, unless a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant Eurostat data or the applicant belongs to a category of persons for whom the proportion of 250% or lower cannot be considered as representative for their protection needs;’
Amendment 226 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – point b – paragraph 5 – point c
Article 40 – point b – paragraph 5 – point c
(c) ‘the applicant is of a nationality or, in the case of stateless persons, a former habitual residence of a third country for which the proportion of decisions granting international protection by the determining authority is, according to the latest available yearly Union-wide average Eurostat data, 250% or lower, unless a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant Eurostat data or the applicant belongs to a category of persons for whom the proportion of 250% or lower cannot be considered as representative for their protection needs;’
Amendment 231 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Following the screening procedure carried out in accordance with Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX [Screening Regulation], and provided that the applicant has not yet been authorised to enter Member States’ territory, a Member State mayshall examine an application in a border procedure where that application has been made by a third-country national or stateless person who does not fulfil the conditions for entry in the territory of a Member State as set out in Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399. The border procedure mayshall take place: in all cases.
Amendment 233 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 236 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 241 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 245 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 248 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 41 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. If an unaccompanied minor is under the age of 14, the border procedure shall not apply.
Amendment 251 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 41 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. WhereIn a border procedure is applied, decisions may be taken on the following:
Amendment 257 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 41 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) the merits of an application in an accelerated examination procedure in the cases referred to in Article 40(1).
Amendment 258 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 3
Article 41 – paragraph 3
Amendment 268 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 4
Article 41 – paragraph 4
Amendment 284 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 5
Article 41 – paragraph 5
Amendment 303 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 6
Article 41 – paragraph 6
6. Applicants subject to the border procedure shall not be authorised to enter the territory of the Member State, without prejudice to paragraphs 9 and 11.
Amendment 307 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 7
Article 41 – paragraph 7
7. When applying the border procedure, Member States may carry out the procedure for determining the Member State responsible for examining the application as laid down in Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX [Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management], without prejudice tothe timeframe for establishing the Member State responsible shall not be part of the deadlines establishedlaid down in paragraph 11.
Amendment 312 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 8
Article 41 – paragraph 8
Amendment 315 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 9
Article 41 – paragraph 9
Amendment 335 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 9 a (new)
Article 41 – paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Without prejudice to the legal situation of non-entry, for serious illnesses where it is not possible to provide appropriate medical care at the border, the applicant could be transferred to the territory of the Member States to receive such medical care.
Amendment 339 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 10
Article 41 – paragraph 10
10. By way of derogation from Article 28 of this Regulation, applications subject to a border procedure shall be lodged no later than fivone days from registration for the first time or, following a relocation in accordance with Article [x] of Regulation EU (No) XXX/XXX [Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management], five daysone day from when the applicant arrives in the Member State responsible following a transfer pursuant to Article 56(1), point (e), of that Regulation.
Amendment 342 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 11 – subparagraph 1
Article 41 – paragraph 11 – subparagraph 1
11. The border procedure shall be as short as possible while at the same time enabling a complete and fair examination of the claims. It shall encompass the decision referred to in paragraph 2 and 3 and any decision on an appeal if applicable and shall be completed within 125 weeks from when the application is registered. Following that period, the applicant shall be authorised to enter the Member State’s territory except when Article 41a(1) is applicable.
Amendment 351 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 11 – subparagraph 2
Article 41 – paragraph 11 – subparagraph 2
By way of derogation from the time limits set in Articles 34, 40(2) and 55, Member States shall lay down provisions on the duration of the examination procedure and of the appeal procedure which ensure that, in case of an appeal against a decision rejecting an application in the framework of the border procedure, the decision on such appeal is issued within 125 weeks from when the application is registered.
Amendment 353 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
12. By way of derogation from paragraph 11 of this Article, tThe applicant shall not be authorised to enter the Member State’s territory where:until a positive decision on the merits of the application is rendered granting international protection to the applicant.
Amendment 358 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Amendment 361 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Amendment 366 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Amendment 374 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 13
Article 41 – paragraph 13
13. During the examination of applications subject to ain the border procedure, the applicants shall be kept at or in proximity to the external border or transit zones. Each Member State shall notify to the Commission, [twosix months after the date of the application of this Regulation] at the latest, the locations where the border procedure will be carried out, at the external borders, in the proximity to the external border or transit zones, including when applying paragraph 3 and ensure that the capacity of those locations is sufficient to process the applications covered by that paragraph. Any changes in the identification of the locations at which the border procedure is applied, shall be notified to the Commission twosix months in advance of the changes taking effect in order to ensure that Member States have enough time to identify new locations.
Amendment 388 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 14
Article 41 – paragraph 14
14. In situations where the capacity of the locations notified by Member States pursuant to paragraph 14 is temporarily insufficient to process the applicants covered by paragraph 3, Member States may designate other locations within the territory of the Member State and upon notification to the Commission to accommodate applicants there, on a temporary basis and for the shortest time necessary.
Amendment 407 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 2
Article 41 a – paragraph 2
2. Persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall be kept for a period not exceeding 12 week4 months in locations at or in proximity to the external border or transit zones; where a Member State cannot accommodate them in those locations, it can resort to the use of other locations within its territory. The 12- week4 months period shall start from when the applicant, third-country national or stateless person no longer has a right to remain and is not allowed to remain.
Amendment 411 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 41 a – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. When the return decision cannot be enforced within the maximum period referred to in paragraph 2, Member States shall continue return procedures in accordance with Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive]. Persons referred to in this paragraph shall not be authorised to enter the territory of the Member State.
Amendment 416 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 4
Article 41 a – paragraph 4
4. Without prejudice to the possibility to return voluntarily at any moment, persons referred to in paragraph 1 who have not been detained may be granted a period for voluntary departure not exceeding 15 days.
Amendment 427 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 6
Article 41 a – paragraph 6
6. Persons referred to in paragraph 1 who no longer have a right to remain and are not allowed to remain, and who were not detained during the procedure referred to in Article 41, may be detained for the purpose of preventing entry into the territory of the Member State, if there is a risk of absconding within the meaning of Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive], if they avoid or hamper the preparation of return or the removal process or they pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security.
Amendment 430 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 7
Article 41 a – paragraph 7
7. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible, as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence. The period of detention shall not exceed the period referred to in paragraph 2 and shall be included in the maximum periods of detention set in Article 15 (5) and (6). When the return decision cannot be enforced within the maximum period referred to in paragraph 2, the third-country national may be further detained in accordance with Article 18 of Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive].
Amendment 438 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 8
Article 41 a – paragraph 8
8. Member States that have decided not to apply Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive] pursuant to Article 2(2), point (a) of that Directive, following the rejection of an application in the context of the procedure referred to in Article 41, may issue a refusal of entry in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, and that have decided not to apply Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive] in such cases pursuant to Article 2(2), point (a), of that Directive, shall ensure that the treatment and level of protection of the third-country nationals and stateless persons subject to a refusal of entrytheir national procedures are in accordance with Article 4(4) of Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive] and are equivalent to the ones set out in paragraphs 2, 4 and 7 of this Article.’
Amendment 444 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – subparagraph 2 – point c
Article 43 – subparagraph 2 – point c
(c) a first subsequent application has been lodged within one year of the decision of the determining authority on the first application merely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of a return decision which would result in the applicant’s imminent removal from the Member State, pending the finalisation of the decision declaring that application inadmissible in cases where it is immediately clear to the determining authority that no new elements have been presented in accordance with Article 42(4)’
Amendment 482 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 7 – point a
Article 53 – paragraph 7 – point a
Amendment 485 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 7 – point b
Article 53 – paragraph 7 – point b
(b) between a minimum of two weeks and a maximum of two monthsone week in all other cases.
Amendment 512 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 54 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) a decision which rejects an application as inadmissible pursuant to Article 36(1)(a) [first country of asylum] (b) [safe third country] or (c) [subsequent applications without new elements];
Amendment 517 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 54 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The applicant shall not have the right to remain pursuant to Article 2 in the case of a subsequent application after the termination of the previous procedure with final effect.
Amendment 528 #
2016/0224(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 5 – point a
Article 54 – paragraph 5 – point a
(a) the applicant shall have a time-limit of at least 53 days from the date when the decision is notified to him or her to request to be allowed to remain on the territory pending the outcome of the remedy;