BETA


2005/2532(RSP) Resolution on progress made in 2004 in creating an area of freedom, security and justice AFSJ (Articles 2 and 39 of the EU Treaty TEU)

Progress: Procedure completed

Legal Basis:
RoP 123-p2

Events

2005/06/08
   EP - Text adopted by Parliament, topical subjects
Details

The European Parliament adopted a resolution drafted by Jean-Marie CAVADA (ALDE, FR) by 360 votes in favour to 272 against with 20 abstentions, on progress made in 2004 in creating an area of freedom, security and justice. Parliament pointed out that, apart from the changeover to codecision for some planned measures on illegal immigration, the desired progress on the AFSJ did not take place in spite of significant developments in other areas of Community activity or even intergovernmental cooperation on defence and security policy. Matters have gradually become deadlocked in the European Council. Parliament cited the failure of most Member States to ratify the Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters and the difficulties in putting the European arrest warrant into practice. In order to end this deadlock, some Member States have developed forms of cooperation outside the framework of the treaties, such as the ‘G5’ and ‘quasi decision-making’ bodies such as the FATF on money laundering, the Dublin Group in relation to combating drugs and the Berne Group in relation to exchanges of information, which are all bodies over which there is no democratic scrutiny. All these factors are affecting the political credibility of the Union, and the legitimacy of its actions.

Doing away with the democratic deficit as a matter of urgency and promoting a uniform legal framework within the AFSJ:

Parliament asked the Council to establish a uniform legal framework for AFSJ-related policies, to move judicial and police cooperation into the Community sphere, and to use qualified-majority voting within the Council plus the codecision procedure for all AFSJ-related policies.

It also drew the Council’s attention to the need to ensure that any progress in creating an area of freedom, security and justice is made in the context of sincere cooperation with the European Parliament and in compliance with the principle of democracy. The European Parliament must be involved in the elaboration of European legislation from the outset and not merely once a political agreement has already been reached.

Freedom, security, justice and solidarity:

Parliament felt that AFSJ development measures should be incorporated into the Community sphere, not only from a legal point of view but also in terms of the political objectives to be realised. To that end, the JHA Council ought to open up its proceedings and deliberate with Development, General Affairs and Social Affairs Councils when laying down immigration, integration and readmission policies, and Budget and General Affairs Councils when laying down measures for financial solidarity on certain policies.

Incorporating action to promote fundamental rights:

Parliament restated its firmly held view that establishment of the AFSJ demands an even greater commitment on the part of European and national institutions to promote the highest level of protection of fundamental rights, and made a series of proposals to that end, inter alia, that Parliament should have the same rights as the Council in connection with Commission adoption of implementing measures for Community and Union legislative acts where those acts might affect fundamental rights.

Defining the specific objectives of the EU and its Member States

It called on the Commission to submit to the next European Council meeting a programme for the implementation of the Hague Programme which will, amongst other things, indicate the specific objectives to be achieved in agreement with the Member States during the next five years with regard to reducing crime, protecting i ndividuals and strengthening freedoms.

Justice

It is essential to strengthen Eurojust, with the aim of establishing a European Prosecutor’s Office.

Parliament also expressed the wish that further progress be made in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters, in particular with regard to family law and commercial law.

Policies on migration, asylum and cross-border movement

Parliament called for a genuine European asylum and immigration policy that is fair, equitable and respectful of migrants’ fundamental rights. It rejected the outsourcing of asylum and immigration policies and the establishment of immigration camps or portals outside the European Union.

There is a need for a common immigration policy that is not confined to combating illegal immigration. Parliament urged that a legal immigration policy be implemented. A European migration policy should be accompanied by a European integration policy providing, among other things, for proper integration on the labour market, the right to education and training, access to social and health services, and immigrants’ participation in social, cultural and political life.

Parliament went on to state that it was extremely concerned by the EU’s return policy, in particular joint flights for the removal of immigrants. Readmission agreements with third countries should be based on genuine dialogue and take account of the needs of such countries. This dialogue should allow political cooperation and co-development in order to tackle the causes of migration.

Parliament also reminded the Commission of its obligations towards those in need of protection.

Combating organised crime and terrorism

Parliament considered it regrettable in this connection that:

-there is as yet no genuine European domestic security strategy laying down tangible objectives, where implementing responsibility lies, what outcomes are expected and objective performance assessment criteria,

-in spite of this vagueness as to the objectives to be realised at European level, Member States are insisting on the adoption of blanket measures to gather and access data - both data relating to operations (pursuant to the data availability principle) and data relating to individuals' daily activities (travel, communications).

It went on to call on the Commission to submit a Community legal basis for EUROPOL, and to submit the legal basis for establishing a European list of persons, groups and activities subject to restrictive anti-terrorism measures and a list of persons potentially presenting a public-order risk.

A policy of blanket surveillance, proportionality imperatives and data protection

Parliament felt that constraints on surveillance cannot be brushed aside by simply invoking the new imperatives of the fight against terrorism and organised crime. Rather, that there must be prior agreement on the objectives to be pursued and, consequently, the information which is essential to achieve what is sought must be defined and placed at the disposal of the competent authorities for an appropriate period. Parliament repeated its call to switch from a 'pull' system to a 'push' system for the transmission of data to the US authorities, and harbours the utmost reservations as to the establishment of a European PNR system to be placed under the responsibility of EUROPOL.

Parliament also drew attention to the need to strengthen the security of travel documents. However, the technical solution chosen is of prime importance since it will be the sole means of guaranteeing the effective use of biometrics and the physical protection of data, in particular against unauthorised access.

It took issue once again with the lack of transparency and public debate as to the choice of this type of technology and negotiations both at ICAO technical group level and with the US Administration. Parliament restated its opposition to the use of RFID chips on European citizens' passports, and called on the Commission to examine these technologies in detail before making them mandatory for hundreds of millions of passports.

2005/06/08
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2005/06/08
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted a resolution drafted by Jean-Marie CAVADA (ALDE, FR) by 360 votes in favour to 272 against with 20 abstentions, on progress made in 2004 in creating an area of freedom, security and justice. Parliament pointed out that, apart from the changeover to codecision for some planned measures on illegal immigration, the desired progress on the AFSJ did not take place in spite of significant developments in other areas of Community activity or even intergovernmental cooperation on defence and security policy. Matters have gradually become deadlocked in the European Council. Parliament cited the failure of most Member States to ratify the Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters and the difficulties in putting the European arrest warrant into practice. In order to end this deadlock, some Member States have developed forms of cooperation outside the framework of the treaties, such as the ‘G5’ and ‘quasi decision-making’ bodies such as the FATF on money laundering, the Dublin Group in relation to combating drugs and the Berne Group in relation to exchanges of information, which are all bodies over which there is no democratic scrutiny. All these factors are affecting the political credibility of the Union, and the legitimacy of its actions.

Doing away with the democratic deficit as a matter of urgency and promoting a uniform legal framework within the AFSJ:

Parliament asked the Council to establish a uniform legal framework for AFSJ-related policies, to move judicial and police cooperation into the Community sphere, and to use qualified-majority voting within the Council plus the codecision procedure for all AFSJ-related policies.

It also drew the Council’s attention to the need to ensure that any progress in creating an area of freedom, security and justice is made in the context of sincere cooperation with the European Parliament and in compliance with the principle of democracy. The European Parliament must be involved in the elaboration of European legislation from the outset and not merely once a political agreement has already been reached.

Freedom, security, justice and solidarity:

Parliament felt that AFSJ development measures should be incorporated into the Community sphere, not only from a legal point of view but also in terms of the political objectives to be realised. To that end, the JHA Council ought to open up its proceedings and deliberate with Development, General Affairs and Social Affairs Councils when laying down immigration, integration and readmission policies, and Budget and General Affairs Councils when laying down measures for financial solidarity on certain policies.

Incorporating action to promote fundamental rights:

Parliament restated its firmly held view that establishment of the AFSJ demands an even greater commitment on the part of European and national institutions to promote the highest level of protection of fundamental rights, and made a series of proposals to that end, inter alia, that Parliament should have the same rights as the Council in connection with Commission adoption of implementing measures for Community and Union legislative acts where those acts might affect fundamental rights.

Defining the specific objectives of the EU and its Member States

It called on the Commission to submit to the next European Council meeting a programme for the implementation of the Hague Programme which will, amongst other things, indicate the specific objectives to be achieved in agreement with the Member States during the next five years with regard to reducing crime, protecting i ndividuals and strengthening freedoms.

Justice

It is essential to strengthen Eurojust, with the aim of establishing a European Prosecutor’s Office.

Parliament also expressed the wish that further progress be made in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters, in particular with regard to family law and commercial law.

Policies on migration, asylum and cross-border movement

Parliament called for a genuine European asylum and immigration policy that is fair, equitable and respectful of migrants’ fundamental rights. It rejected the outsourcing of asylum and immigration policies and the establishment of immigration camps or portals outside the European Union.

There is a need for a common immigration policy that is not confined to combating illegal immigration. Parliament urged that a legal immigration policy be implemented. A European migration policy should be accompanied by a European integration policy providing, among other things, for proper integration on the labour market, the right to education and training, access to social and health services, and immigrants’ participation in social, cultural and political life.

Parliament went on to state that it was extremely concerned by the EU’s return policy, in particular joint flights for the removal of immigrants. Readmission agreements with third countries should be based on genuine dialogue and take account of the needs of such countries. This dialogue should allow political cooperation and co-development in order to tackle the causes of migration.

Parliament also reminded the Commission of its obligations towards those in need of protection.

Combating organised crime and terrorism

Parliament considered it regrettable in this connection that:

-there is as yet no genuine European domestic security strategy laying down tangible objectives, where implementing responsibility lies, what outcomes are expected and objective performance assessment criteria,

-in spite of this vagueness as to the objectives to be realised at European level, Member States are insisting on the adoption of blanket measures to gather and access data - both data relating to operations (pursuant to the data availability principle) and data relating to individuals' daily activities (travel, communications).

It went on to call on the Commission to submit a Community legal basis for EUROPOL, and to submit the legal basis for establishing a European list of persons, groups and activities subject to restrictive anti-terrorism measures and a list of persons potentially presenting a public-order risk.

A policy of blanket surveillance, proportionality imperatives and data protection

Parliament felt that constraints on surveillance cannot be brushed aside by simply invoking the new imperatives of the fight against terrorism and organised crime. Rather, that there must be prior agreement on the objectives to be pursued and, consequently, the information which is essential to achieve what is sought must be defined and placed at the disposal of the competent authorities for an appropriate period. Parliament repeated its call to switch from a 'pull' system to a 'push' system for the transmission of data to the US authorities, and harbours the utmost reservations as to the establishment of a European PNR system to be placed under the responsibility of EUROPOL.

Parliament also drew attention to the need to strengthen the security of travel documents. However, the technical solution chosen is of prime importance since it will be the sole means of guaranteeing the effective use of biometrics and the physical protection of data, in particular against unauthorised access.

It took issue once again with the lack of transparency and public debate as to the choice of this type of technology and negotiations both at ICAO technical group level and with the US Administration. Parliament restated its opposition to the use of RFID chips on European citizens' passports, and called on the Commission to examine these technologies in detail before making them mandatory for hundreds of millions of passports.

Documents
2005/06/08
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2005/06/07
   EP - Motion for a resolution
Documents
2005/04/11
   EP - Oral question/interpellation by Parliament
Documents
2005/04/11
   EP - Oral question/interpellation by Parliament
Documents
2005/04/11
   EP - Debate in Parliament

Documents

Votes

B6-0327/2005 - Espace de liberté - par. 13/2

2005/06/08 Outcome: +: 572, -: 68, 0: 11
DE FR IT ES PL HU PT BE EL NL AT SK IE FI LT LV DK CY EE LU SE SI MT CZ GB
Total
86
70
64
48
46
22
22
21
23
26
17
14
13
13
10
8
10
6
6
6
15
5
5
24
71
icon: PSE PSE
177

Ireland PSE

1

Lithuania PSE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Czechia PSE

2
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
243
2

Estonia PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
72

Hungary ALDE

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Denmark ALDE

3

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

2

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
38

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

3

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

3
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
38

France GUE/NGL

2

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Greece GUE/NGL

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
icon: UEN UEN
23

Lithuania UEN

1

Denmark UEN

Abstain (1)

1
icon: NI NI
27

Austria NI

Abstain (1)

3

Slovakia NI

Abstain (2)

3

Czechia NI

Abstain (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
33

Greece IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Ireland IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Czechia IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

B6-0327/2005 - Espace de liberté - par. 13/3

2005/06/08 Outcome: +: 501, -: 149, 0: 10
DE FR ES IT BE HU AT EL PL NL PT SK FI LT SI EE LU MT DK IE CY LV GB SE CZ
Total
87
70
48
64
22
21
17
23
49
26
23
13
14
10
6
6
6
5
10
13
6
9
71
17
24
icon: PSE PSE
180

Lithuania PSE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PSE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Ireland PSE

1

Czechia PSE

2
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
247
2

Estonia PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
73

Hungary ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

3

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Sweden ALDE

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
38

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

3

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

3

Sweden Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1
icon: NI NI
26

Belgium NI

Abstain (1)

3

Austria NI

Abstain (1)

3

Slovakia NI

Abstain (1)

2

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Czechia NI

Abstain (1)

1
icon: UEN UEN
24

Lithuania UEN

1

Denmark UEN

Abstain (1)

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
33

Greece IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Ireland IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Czechia IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
39

France GUE/NGL

3

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

B6-0327/2005 - Espace de liberté - am. 3

2005/06/08 Outcome: -: 319, +: 312, 0: 14
FR ES DK SE PT AT LT BE NL EE FI EL MT CY HU IT LU SI SK CZ LV IE DE GB PL
Total
72
49
10
16
23
17
9
19
22
4
11
23
5
6
21
65
6
5
13
23
8
13
85
70
50
icon: PSE PSE
181

Lithuania PSE

For (1)

1

Estonia PSE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Czechia PSE

2

Ireland PSE

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
40

France GUE/NGL

3

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
56

Denmark ALDE

3

Sweden ALDE

2

Belgium ALDE

2

Netherlands ALDE

2

Estonia ALDE

2

Finland ALDE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Hungary ALDE

1

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Germany ALDE

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
38

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

3

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

3
icon: NI NI
26

Austria NI

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

3

Belgium NI

3

Slovakia NI

2

Czechia NI

Abstain (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

Against (2)

2
icon: UEN UEN
24

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1

Lithuania UEN

Against (1)

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
34

Denmark IND/DEM

1

Sweden IND/DEM

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Greece IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Czechia IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Ireland IND/DEM

Against (1)

1
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
246

Lithuania PPE-DE

2

Estonia PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Malta PPE-DE

Against (2)

2

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Slovenia PPE-DE

4

Latvia PPE-DE

3

B6-0327/2005 - Espace de liberté - par. 29/1

2005/06/08 Outcome: +: 565, -: 92, 0: 9
DE IT FR ES PL HU PT EL NL BE AT SK IE FI LT LV DK SI SE CY LU CZ MT EE GB
Total
87
64
72
50
51
23
23
24
25
22
17
14
13
13
10
9
10
6
16
6
6
24
5
4
72
icon: PSE PSE
183

Ireland PSE

1

Lithuania PSE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PSE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Czechia PSE

2

Estonia PSE

For (1)

1
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
252
2

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

2

Estonia PPE-DE

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
68

Hungary ALDE

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Denmark ALDE

3

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
38

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

3

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

3
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
40

France GUE/NGL

3

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
icon: UEN UEN
24

Lithuania UEN

1

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1
icon: NI NI
28

Belgium NI

3

Austria NI

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

3

Slovakia NI

Abstain (2)

3

Czechia NI

1

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
33

Greece IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Ireland IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Czechia IND/DEM

1

B6-0327/2005 - Espace de liberté - par. 29/2

2005/06/08 Outcome: +: 521, -: 128, 0: 9
DE ES FR IT PL HU EL NL PT BE AT SK FI LT IE SE SI DK LU MT EE CY LV CZ GB
Total
86
48
73
63
50
23
20
26
23
22
17
14
13
10
13
17
6
9
5
5
4
6
9
24
72
icon: PSE PSE
180

Lithuania PSE

For (1)

1

Ireland PSE

1

Slovenia PSE

For (1)

1

Estonia PSE

2

Czechia PSE

2
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
251
2

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

2

Estonia PPE-DE

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
68

Hungary ALDE

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

2

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

For (1)

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
38

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

3

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

3
icon: UEN UEN
24

Lithuania UEN

1

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1
icon: NI NI
27

Belgium NI

3

Austria NI

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

3

Slovakia NI

Abstain (2)

3

Czechia NI

1

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
34

Greece IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Ireland IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Czechia IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
36

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

France GUE/NGL

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

B6-0327/2005 - Espace de liberté - résolution

2005/06/08 Outcome: +: 528, -: 116, 0: 24
DE FR ES IT HU NL PT PL BE EL FI AT SK LT IE LV DK SI CY EE LU MT SE CZ GB
Total
88
72
49
61
23
26
23
51
22
24
14
16
14
10
13
9
10
6
6
6
6
5
17
24
73
icon: PSE PSE
185

Lithuania PSE

For (1)

1

Ireland PSE

1

Slovenia PSE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Czechia PSE

2
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
248
2

Estonia PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
73

Hungary ALDE

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Denmark ALDE

3

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
37

Italy Verts/ALE

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

3

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

3
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
40

France GUE/NGL

3

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

For (1)

3

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
icon: NI NI
27

Belgium NI

3

Austria NI

3

Slovakia NI

3

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

Against (2)

2
icon: UEN UEN
24

Lithuania UEN

Against (1)

1

Latvia UEN

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

4

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
34

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Greece IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Ireland IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Czechia IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B6-2005-164&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-6-2005-0164_EN.html
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B6-2005-165&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-6-2005-0165_EN.html
docs/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B6-2005-327&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-6-2005-0327_EN.html
docs/3
date
2005-06-08T00:00:00
docs
summary
type
Text adopted by Parliament, topical subjects
body
EP
docs/3
date
2005-06-08T00:00:00
docs
summary
type
Text adopted by Parliament, topical subjects
body
EP
events/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2005-227
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2005-0227_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2005-04-11T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20050411&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2005-06-08T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=11952&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2005-227 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T6-0227/2005 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
committees
    docs
    • date: 2005-04-11T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B6-2005-164&language=EN title: B6-0164/2005 type: Oral question/interpellation by Parliament body: EP
    • date: 2005-04-11T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B6-2005-165&language=EN title: B6-0165/2005 type: Oral question/interpellation by Parliament body: EP
    • date: 2005-06-07T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B6-2005-327&language=EN title: B6-0327/2005 type: Motion for a resolution body: EP
    • date: 2005-06-08T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2005-227 title: T6-0227/2005 url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2006:124E:SOM:EN:HTML title: OJ C 124 25.05.2006, p. 0264-0398 E summary: The European Parliament adopted a resolution drafted by Jean-Marie CAVADA (ALDE, FR) by 360 votes in favour to 272 against with 20 abstentions, on progress made in 2004 in creating an area of freedom, security and justice. Parliament pointed out that, apart from the changeover to codecision for some planned measures on illegal immigration, the desired progress on the AFSJ did not take place in spite of significant developments in other areas of Community activity or even intergovernmental cooperation on defence and security policy. Matters have gradually become deadlocked in the European Council. Parliament cited the failure of most Member States to ratify the Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters and the difficulties in putting the European arrest warrant into practice. In order to end this deadlock, some Member States have developed forms of cooperation outside the framework of the treaties, such as the ‘G5’ and ‘quasi decision-making’ bodies such as the FATF on money laundering, the Dublin Group in relation to combating drugs and the Berne Group in relation to exchanges of information, which are all bodies over which there is no democratic scrutiny. All these factors are affecting the political credibility of the Union, and the legitimacy of its actions. Doing away with the democratic deficit as a matter of urgency and promoting a uniform legal framework within the AFSJ: Parliament asked the Council to establish a uniform legal framework for AFSJ-related policies, to move judicial and police cooperation into the Community sphere, and to use qualified-majority voting within the Council plus the codecision procedure for all AFSJ-related policies. It also drew the Council’s attention to the need to ensure that any progress in creating an area of freedom, security and justice is made in the context of sincere cooperation with the European Parliament and in compliance with the principle of democracy. The European Parliament must be involved in the elaboration of European legislation from the outset and not merely once a political agreement has already been reached. Freedom, security, justice and solidarity: Parliament felt that AFSJ development measures should be incorporated into the Community sphere, not only from a legal point of view but also in terms of the political objectives to be realised. To that end, the JHA Council ought to open up its proceedings and deliberate with Development, General Affairs and Social Affairs Councils when laying down immigration, integration and readmission policies, and Budget and General Affairs Councils when laying down measures for financial solidarity on certain policies. Incorporating action to promote fundamental rights: Parliament restated its firmly held view that establishment of the AFSJ demands an even greater commitment on the part of European and national institutions to promote the highest level of protection of fundamental rights, and made a series of proposals to that end, inter alia, that Parliament should have the same rights as the Council in connection with Commission adoption of implementing measures for Community and Union legislative acts where those acts might affect fundamental rights. Defining the specific objectives of the EU and its Member States It called on the Commission to submit to the next European Council meeting a programme for the implementation of the Hague Programme which will, amongst other things, indicate the specific objectives to be achieved in agreement with the Member States during the next five years with regard to reducing crime, protecting i ndividuals and strengthening freedoms. Justice It is essential to strengthen Eurojust, with the aim of establishing a European Prosecutor’s Office. Parliament also expressed the wish that further progress be made in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters, in particular with regard to family law and commercial law. Policies on migration, asylum and cross-border movement Parliament called for a genuine European asylum and immigration policy that is fair, equitable and respectful of migrants’ fundamental rights. It rejected the outsourcing of asylum and immigration policies and the establishment of immigration camps or portals outside the European Union. There is a need for a common immigration policy that is not confined to combating illegal immigration. Parliament urged that a legal immigration policy be implemented. A European migration policy should be accompanied by a European integration policy providing, among other things, for proper integration on the labour market, the right to education and training, access to social and health services, and immigrants’ participation in social, cultural and political life. Parliament went on to state that it was extremely concerned by the EU’s return policy, in particular joint flights for the removal of immigrants. Readmission agreements with third countries should be based on genuine dialogue and take account of the needs of such countries. This dialogue should allow political cooperation and co-development in order to tackle the causes of migration. Parliament also reminded the Commission of its obligations towards those in need of protection. Combating organised crime and terrorism Parliament considered it regrettable in this connection that: -there is as yet no genuine European domestic security strategy laying down tangible objectives, where implementing responsibility lies, what outcomes are expected and objective performance assessment criteria, -in spite of this vagueness as to the objectives to be realised at European level, Member States are insisting on the adoption of blanket measures to gather and access data - both data relating to operations (pursuant to the data availability principle) and data relating to individuals' daily activities (travel, communications). It went on to call on the Commission to submit a Community legal basis for EUROPOL, and to submit the legal basis for establishing a European list of persons, groups and activities subject to restrictive anti-terrorism measures and a list of persons potentially presenting a public-order risk. A policy of blanket surveillance, proportionality imperatives and data protection Parliament felt that constraints on surveillance cannot be brushed aside by simply invoking the new imperatives of the fight against terrorism and organised crime. Rather, that there must be prior agreement on the objectives to be pursued and, consequently, the information which is essential to achieve what is sought must be defined and placed at the disposal of the competent authorities for an appropriate period. Parliament repeated its call to switch from a 'pull' system to a 'push' system for the transmission of data to the US authorities, and harbours the utmost reservations as to the establishment of a European PNR system to be placed under the responsibility of EUROPOL. Parliament also drew attention to the need to strengthen the security of travel documents. However, the technical solution chosen is of prime importance since it will be the sole means of guaranteeing the effective use of biometrics and the physical protection of data, in particular against unauthorised access. It took issue once again with the lack of transparency and public debate as to the choice of this type of technology and negotiations both at ICAO technical group level and with the US Administration. Parliament restated its opposition to the use of RFID chips on European citizens' passports, and called on the Commission to examine these technologies in detail before making them mandatory for hundreds of millions of passports. type: Text adopted by Parliament, topical subjects body: EP
    events
    • date: 2005-04-11T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20050411&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
    • date: 2005-06-08T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=11952&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
    • date: 2005-06-08T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2005-227 title: T6-0227/2005 summary: The European Parliament adopted a resolution drafted by Jean-Marie CAVADA (ALDE, FR) by 360 votes in favour to 272 against with 20 abstentions, on progress made in 2004 in creating an area of freedom, security and justice. Parliament pointed out that, apart from the changeover to codecision for some planned measures on illegal immigration, the desired progress on the AFSJ did not take place in spite of significant developments in other areas of Community activity or even intergovernmental cooperation on defence and security policy. Matters have gradually become deadlocked in the European Council. Parliament cited the failure of most Member States to ratify the Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters and the difficulties in putting the European arrest warrant into practice. In order to end this deadlock, some Member States have developed forms of cooperation outside the framework of the treaties, such as the ‘G5’ and ‘quasi decision-making’ bodies such as the FATF on money laundering, the Dublin Group in relation to combating drugs and the Berne Group in relation to exchanges of information, which are all bodies over which there is no democratic scrutiny. All these factors are affecting the political credibility of the Union, and the legitimacy of its actions. Doing away with the democratic deficit as a matter of urgency and promoting a uniform legal framework within the AFSJ: Parliament asked the Council to establish a uniform legal framework for AFSJ-related policies, to move judicial and police cooperation into the Community sphere, and to use qualified-majority voting within the Council plus the codecision procedure for all AFSJ-related policies. It also drew the Council’s attention to the need to ensure that any progress in creating an area of freedom, security and justice is made in the context of sincere cooperation with the European Parliament and in compliance with the principle of democracy. The European Parliament must be involved in the elaboration of European legislation from the outset and not merely once a political agreement has already been reached. Freedom, security, justice and solidarity: Parliament felt that AFSJ development measures should be incorporated into the Community sphere, not only from a legal point of view but also in terms of the political objectives to be realised. To that end, the JHA Council ought to open up its proceedings and deliberate with Development, General Affairs and Social Affairs Councils when laying down immigration, integration and readmission policies, and Budget and General Affairs Councils when laying down measures for financial solidarity on certain policies. Incorporating action to promote fundamental rights: Parliament restated its firmly held view that establishment of the AFSJ demands an even greater commitment on the part of European and national institutions to promote the highest level of protection of fundamental rights, and made a series of proposals to that end, inter alia, that Parliament should have the same rights as the Council in connection with Commission adoption of implementing measures for Community and Union legislative acts where those acts might affect fundamental rights. Defining the specific objectives of the EU and its Member States It called on the Commission to submit to the next European Council meeting a programme for the implementation of the Hague Programme which will, amongst other things, indicate the specific objectives to be achieved in agreement with the Member States during the next five years with regard to reducing crime, protecting i ndividuals and strengthening freedoms. Justice It is essential to strengthen Eurojust, with the aim of establishing a European Prosecutor’s Office. Parliament also expressed the wish that further progress be made in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters, in particular with regard to family law and commercial law. Policies on migration, asylum and cross-border movement Parliament called for a genuine European asylum and immigration policy that is fair, equitable and respectful of migrants’ fundamental rights. It rejected the outsourcing of asylum and immigration policies and the establishment of immigration camps or portals outside the European Union. There is a need for a common immigration policy that is not confined to combating illegal immigration. Parliament urged that a legal immigration policy be implemented. A European migration policy should be accompanied by a European integration policy providing, among other things, for proper integration on the labour market, the right to education and training, access to social and health services, and immigrants’ participation in social, cultural and political life. Parliament went on to state that it was extremely concerned by the EU’s return policy, in particular joint flights for the removal of immigrants. Readmission agreements with third countries should be based on genuine dialogue and take account of the needs of such countries. This dialogue should allow political cooperation and co-development in order to tackle the causes of migration. Parliament also reminded the Commission of its obligations towards those in need of protection. Combating organised crime and terrorism Parliament considered it regrettable in this connection that: -there is as yet no genuine European domestic security strategy laying down tangible objectives, where implementing responsibility lies, what outcomes are expected and objective performance assessment criteria, -in spite of this vagueness as to the objectives to be realised at European level, Member States are insisting on the adoption of blanket measures to gather and access data - both data relating to operations (pursuant to the data availability principle) and data relating to individuals' daily activities (travel, communications). It went on to call on the Commission to submit a Community legal basis for EUROPOL, and to submit the legal basis for establishing a European list of persons, groups and activities subject to restrictive anti-terrorism measures and a list of persons potentially presenting a public-order risk. A policy of blanket surveillance, proportionality imperatives and data protection Parliament felt that constraints on surveillance cannot be brushed aside by simply invoking the new imperatives of the fight against terrorism and organised crime. Rather, that there must be prior agreement on the objectives to be pursued and, consequently, the information which is essential to achieve what is sought must be defined and placed at the disposal of the competent authorities for an appropriate period. Parliament repeated its call to switch from a 'pull' system to a 'push' system for the transmission of data to the US authorities, and harbours the utmost reservations as to the establishment of a European PNR system to be placed under the responsibility of EUROPOL. Parliament also drew attention to the need to strengthen the security of travel documents. However, the technical solution chosen is of prime importance since it will be the sole means of guaranteeing the effective use of biometrics and the physical protection of data, in particular against unauthorised access. It took issue once again with the lack of transparency and public debate as to the choice of this type of technology and negotiations both at ICAO technical group level and with the US Administration. Parliament restated its opposition to the use of RFID chips on European citizens' passports, and called on the Commission to examine these technologies in detail before making them mandatory for hundreds of millions of passports.
    • date: 2005-06-08T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
    links
    other
      procedure/legal_basis/0
      Rules of Procedure EP 123-p2
      procedure/legal_basis/0
      Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 123-p2
      procedure/subject
      Old
      • 7 Area of freedom, security and justice
      New
      7
      Area of freedom, security and justice
      procedure/subtype
      Old
      Resolution on statements
      New
      Resolution on statement
      activities
      • date: 2005-04-11T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20050411&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
      • date: 2005-06-08T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=11952&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2005-227 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T6-0227/2005 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
      committees
        links
        other
          procedure
          reference
          2005/2532(RSP)
          title
          Resolution on progress made in 2004 in creating an area of freedom, security and justice AFSJ (Articles 2 and 39 of the EU Treaty TEU)
          legal_basis
          Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 123-p2
          stage_reached
          Procedure completed
          subtype
          Resolution on statements
          type
          RSP - Resolutions on topical subjects
          subject
          7 Area of freedom, security and justice