Procedure completed
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opinion | AFET | GOMES Ana (S&D) | |
| Lead | LIBE | BORSELLINO Rita (S&D) | HANKISS Ágnes (PPE), ALFANO Sonia (ALDE) |
Legal Basis RoP 052
Activites
-
2012/05/22
Results of vote in Parliament
- Results of vote in Parliament
-
T7-0207/2012
summary
The European Parliament adopted by 503 votes to 55, with 56 abstentions, a resolution on the European Union’s Internal Security Strategy. Parliament recalls that the Treaty of Lisbon has strongly anchored EU security policy to a specific EU rule of law, laying the foundations for the development of a security agenda closely shared by the EU and the Member States and subject to democratic oversight at European and national level. It reaffirms that the Commission’s communication on the Internal Security Strategy (ISS) for the period 2010-2014 has identified five priority areas in which the EU can provide added value, namely (i) fighting and preventing serious and organised crime, (ii) terrorism, iii) cybercrime, (iv) strengthening the management of the external borders, and (v) building resilience to natural and man-made disasters. While welcoming the results achieved to date, Parliament calls for further security measures in compliance with Union‘s fundamental rights obligations. Respect for fundamental rights and subsidiarity: Parliament emphasises that freedom, security and justice are objectives that must be pursued in parallel, and believes that the implementation of the EU Charter must be the core of any fully-fledged ISS. It recalls that, in order to achieve freedom and justice, security must always be pursued in accordance with the principles of the Treaties, the rule of law and Union‘s fundamental rights obligations. Members underline the importance of coherence and synergies between the internal and external aspects of security, and underscore the importance of ensuring that measures and actions implementing the ISS are in compliance with Union‘s fundamental rights obligations, in particular Articles 2, 6 and 7 TEU, and its external policy objectives as laid down in Article 21 TEU, as well as with international human rights and humanitarian law. Noting that policies in the area of security are a shared competence between the Union and the Member States, Members recall that this is an area in which subsidiarity needs to be respected in the context of a comprehensive and coherent approach. “EU operational cycle”: Parliament notes the progress made by the Member States and the Commission in the context of the EU policy cycle on organised and serious international crime. However, it considers that a clear division of tasks between EU and national levels is necessary. Parliament needs to be part of the process as regards policy guidance, implementation and evaluation of results, and Members call for an in-depth assessment of the European policy cycle to be undertaken in 2013. In their view, moreover, the cycle should be renamed the “EU operational cycle”. In particular, they call on the Member States to regularly assess the complementarity of national plans for countering organised crime with plans which are to be developed at European level. It is essential to provide appropriate financial resources in the 2014-2020 multiannual framework for the implementation of such a strategy. Involvement of Parliament in determining the ISS: considering that the European Parliament is now a fully-fledged institutional actor in the field of security policies, Parliament considers that it has the right to participate actively in determining the features and priorities of the ISS and of the EU Security Model and in evaluating those instruments. In this connection and on the basis of the existing cooperation between the European Parliament and national parliaments, Members endorse the idea of a ‘parliamentary policy cycle’ which would conclude with an annual parliamentary report on the current state of play as regards the ISS. Complementarity between the AFSJ and external policy: Parliament notes that the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) have complementary points and highlights the importance of the appropriate exchange of information, consultation and cooperation with all relevant actors, as also of solutions aimed at anticipating rather than reacting to events. It also stresses that the entire ISS should in the long term concentrate on the clear link between external threats. Key areas of the ISS: Parliament considers that the ISS’s objectives are not exhaustive and that the order of priorities could have been better structured. It underlines, in particular, that the fight against terrorism and organised crime is and must remain a key priority within the ISS. It calls on the Commission and the Council to prioritise the fight against corruption. Members take the view that: the issue of resilience to man-made and natural disasters, including failures of critical infrastructure, must also be addressed; it does not appear fully justified or appropriate to take action in the field of the enforcement of intellectual property rights within the framework of the ISS; organised crime, in all its forms including mafias, constitutes a growing threat to freedom, security and justice for EU citizens and that fighting it must remain a priority, as do money laundering and white-collar crime. Other areas are mentioned such as: (i) the funding of terrorism, (ii) freezing the funds of persons suspected of terrorism, (iii) help to victims of terrorism (Members call on the Commission and the Member States to consider adopting specific legislation in this regard), (iv) the combat of environmental, economic and corporate crime, the impact of which is particularly detrimental to the living conditions of EU citizens, (v) the fight against cybercrime (Members, once again, urge the Member States to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime). Strengthening of cooperation: in Members’ view, enhancing EU police and judicial cooperation, including through Europol and Eurojust as well as through appropriate training, is critical to a proper ISS. This cooperation must involve the competent authorities in the Member States as well as EU institutions and agencies. Parliament believes that, as regards the links between internal and external security, EU cooperation with other international institutions such as NATO and the OSCE should be further promoted. It calls on the Commission and the Member States to make this a priority for the ISS. Justice dimension of the ISS: Parliament regrets the fact that the ISS still lacks a proper “justice dimension”. Mutual trust must be strengthened by progressively developing a European judicial culture based on the diversity of legal systems and on unity through European law. The judicial systems of the Member States should be able to work together coherently and effectively, in accordance with their national legal traditions: believes that the establishment of a set of priorities in the field of judicial cooperation must be seen in the context of the close link between all the dimensions of the Area enshrined in Title V TFEU, namely the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Intelligence and enforcement: Parliament stresses the fight against terrorism is a priority for the ISS, whose objectives and tools must be properly evaluated, as expressed in Parliament’s resolution on ‘the EU Counter-Terrorism Policy. It takes the view that better focusing is needed on targeted law enforcement and on intelligence-driven activities that have proven capacity to prevent terrorist attacks and are carried out in accordance with the principles of necessity, proportionality and respect for fundamental rights. Prevention: the resolution states that all security policy must include a prevention component, which is particularly essential in a period in which economic and social inequalities are growing and thus jeopardise the effectiveness of fundamental rights. Parliament considers it crucial to: develop prevention mechanisms, in particular so as to permit the early detection of signs of violent radicalisation or threats, including threats from violent or militant extremism. It recalls the importance of actions directed at countering violent radicalisation in vulnerable populations and look forward to innovative solutions in this field ; define a wider political strategy that involves the security dimension as well as immigration, asylum and development policies at EU level and policies supporting economic, social and democratic development and promoting human rights in third countries. Cooperation with countries sharing borders with the EU would also be necessary. Review of the ISS: Parliament considers it expedient to undertake a mid-term parliamentary review of the Stockholm Programme before the end of 2013, in order to assess its strategic, legislative and financial priorities. It also believes that a complementary assessment is needed with regard to the relevant European agencies currently being ‘Lisbonised’ (Europol, Eurojust and the European Judicial Network), along with other agencies and bodies. Personal data protection: Members recall that the processing and collection of personal data in the framework of the ISS must in all circumstances comply with the EU’s data protection principles, especially those of necessity, proportionality and legality. Although they welcome the data protection proposals put forward by the Commission on 25 January 2012, they are of the opinion that the proposal for a directive in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and law enforcement must be more ambitious and must provide for stronger safeguards, especially in its provisions on profiling and automated processing. Members reaffirm the need for proper democratic oversight and evaluation of the work of AFSJ agencies, in order to avoid the risk of blurring the divide ‘between policy advice and actual policy-making’ in relation to those agencies. Solidarity clause: lastly, Parliament urges the Vice-President/High Representative and the Commission to present their proposal – planned for 2011 – on the implementation of the solidarity clause, which should not duplicate existing initiatives, but, rather, define the framework for the use and coordination of available EU and national instruments, including the CSDP. It believes that only with the full spectrum of possibilities opened up by the implementation of the solidarity clause among all Member States will the EU be ready to prevent – and react to, in a safe and coordinated manner – any given threat targeting the security of one or more Member States.
- 2012/05/21 Debate in Parliament
-
2012/04/24
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
-
A7-0143/2012
summary
The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the own-initiative report by Rita BORSELLINO (S&D, IT) on the European Union’s Internal Security Strategy. It recalls that the Treaty of Lisbon has strongly anchored EU security policy to a specific EU rule of law, laying the foundations for the development of a security agenda closely shared by the EU and the Member States and subject to democratic oversight at European and national level. Members reaffirm that the Commission’s communication on the Internal Security Strategy (ISS) for the period 2010-2014 has identified five priority areas in which the EU can provide added value, namely i) fighting and preventing serious and organised crime, ii) terrorism, iii) cybercrime, iv) strengthening the management of the external borders, and v) building resilience to natural and man-made disasters. While welcoming the results achieved to date, they call for further security measures in compliance with Union‘s fundamental rights obligations. Respect for fundamental rights and subsidiarity: Members emphasise that freedom, security and justice are objectives that must be pursued in parallel, and believes that the implementation of the EU Charter must be the core of any fully-fledged ISS. They recall that, in order to achieve freedom and justice, security must always be pursued in accordance with the principles of the Treaties, the rule of law and Union‘s fundamental rights obligations. They underline the importance of coherence and synergies between the internal and external aspects of security, and underscore the importance of ensuring that measures and actions implementing the ISS are in compliance with Union‘s fundamental rights obligations, in particular Articles 2, 6 and 7 TEU, and its external policy objectives as laid down in Article 21 TEU, as well as with international human rights and humanitarian law. Noting that policies in the arrea of security are a shared competence between the Union and the Member States, Members recall that this is an area in which subsidiarity needs to be respected in the context of a comprehensive and coherent approach. “EU operational cycle”: Members note the progress made by the Member States and the Commission in the context of the EU policy cycle on organised and serious international crime. However, they consider that a clear division of tasks between EU and national levels is necessary. Parliament needs to be part of the process as regards policy guidance, implementation and evaluation of results, and Members call for an in-depth assessment of the European policy cycle to be undertaken in 2013. In their view, moreover, the cycle should be renamed the “EU operationalcycle”. In particular, they call on the Member States to regularly assess the complementarity of national plans for countering organised crime with plans which are to be developed at European level. It is essential to provide appropriate financial resources in the 2014-2020 multiannual framework for the implementation of such a strategy. Involvement of Parliament in determining the ISS: Members recall that the European Parliament is now a fully-fledged institutional actor in the field of security policies, and is therefore entitled to participate actively in determining the features and priorities of the ISS and of the EU Security Model and in evaluating those instruments. In this connection and on the basis of the existing cooperation between the European Parliament and national parliaments, Members endorse the idea of a ‘parliamentary policy cycle’ which would conclude with an annual parliamentary report on the current state of play as regards the ISS. Complementarity between the AFSJ and external policy: Members note that the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) have complementary points and highlight the importance of the appropriate exchange of information, consultation and cooperation with all relevant actors, as also of solutions aimed at anticipating rather than reacting to events. They also stress that the entire ISS should in the long term concentrate on the clear link between external threats. Key areas of the ISS: Members consider that the ISS’s objectives are not exhaustive and that the order of priorities could have been better structured. They underline, in particular, that the fight against terrorism and organised crime is and must remain a key priority within the ISS. They call on the Commission and the Council to prioritise the fight against corruption. They take the view that: the issue of resilience to man-made and natural disasters, including failures of critical infrastructure, must also be addressed; it does not appear fully justified or appropriate to take action in the field of the enforcement of intellectual property rights within the framework of the ISS; organised crime, in all its forms including mafias, constitutes a growing threat to freedom, security and justice for EU citizens and that fighting it must remain a priority, as do money laundering and white-collar crime. Other areas are mentioned such as: i) the funding of terrorism, ii) freezing the funds of persons suspected of terrorism, iii) help to victims of terrorism (Members call on the Commission and the Member States to consider adopting specific legislation in this regard), iv) the combat of environmental, economic and corporate crime, the impact of which is particularly detrimental to the living conditions of EU citizens, v) the fight against cybercrime (Members, once again, urge the Member States to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime). Strengthening of cooperation: in Members’ view, enhancing EU police and judicial cooperation, including through Europol and Eurojust as well as through appropriate training, is critical to a proper ISS. This cooperation must involve the competent authorities in the Member States as well as EU institutions and agencies. Members call on the Commission and the Member States to make this a priority for the ISS. Justice dimension of the ISS: Members regret the fact that the ISS still lacks a proper “justice dimension”. Mutual trust must be strengthened by progressively developing a European judicial culture based on the diversity of legal systems and on unity through European law. The judicial systems of the Member States should be able to work together coherently and effectively, in accordance with their national legal traditions: believes that the establishment of a set of priorities in the field of judicial cooperation must be seen in the context of the close link between all the dimensions of the Area enshrined in Title V TFEU, namely the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Intelligence and enforcement: Members stress the fight against terrorism is a priority for the ISS, whose objectives and tools must be properly evaluated, as expressed in Parliament’s resolution on ‘the EU Counter-Terrorism Policy. They take the view that better focusing is needed on targeted law enforcement and on intelligence-driven activities that have proven capacity to prevent terrorist attacks and are carried out in accordance with the principles of necessity, proportionality and respect for fundamental rights. Prevention: members consider it crucial to develop prevention mechanisms, in particular so as to permit the early detection of signs of violent radicalisation or threats, including threats from violent or militant extremism. They recall the importance of actions directed at countering violent radicalisation in vulnerable populations and look forward to innovative solutions in this field. It is a question of defining a wider political strategy that involves the security dimension as well as immigration, asylum and development policies at EU level and policies supporting economic, social and democratic development and promoting human rights in third countries. Cooperation with countries sharing borders with the EU would also be necessary. Review of the ISS: Members consider it expedient to undertake a mid-term parliamentary review of the Stockholm Programme before the end of 2013, in order to assess its strategic, legislative and financial priorities. They also believe that a complementary assessment is needed with regard to the relevant European agencies currently being ‘Lisbonised’ (Europol, Eurojust and the European Judicial Network), along with other agencies and bodies. Personal data protection: Members recall that the processing and collection of personal data in the framework of the ISS must in all circumstances comply with the EU’s data protection principles, especially those of necessity, proportionality and legality. Although they welcome the data protection proposals put forward by the Commission on 25 January 2012, they are of the opinion that the proposal for a directive in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and law enforcement must be more ambitious and must provide for stronger safeguards, especially in its provisions on profiling and automated processing. Members reaffirm the need for proper democratic oversight and evaluation of the work of AFSJ agencies, in order to avoid the risk of blurring the divide ‘between policy advice and actual policy-making’ in relation to those agencies. Solidarity clause: lastly, Members urge the Vice-President/High Representative and the Commission to present their proposal – planned for 2011 – on the implementation of the solidarity clause, which should not duplicate existing initiatives, but, rather, define the framework for the use and coordination of available EU and national instruments, including the CSDP. They believe that only with the full spectrum of possibilities opened up by the implementation of the solidarity clause among all Member States will the EU be ready to prevent – and react to, in a safe and coordinated manner – any given threat targeting the security of one or more Member States.
-
A7-0143/2012
summary
-
2012/04/12
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
- #3071
-
2011/02/24
Council Meeting
-
2010/12/16
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0143/2012
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T7-0207/2012
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 132 |
2010/2308(INI)
2012/02/09
LIBE
85 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 1 – having regard, in particular, to Articles 6, 7, 8, 1
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the Lisbon Treaty
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas all security policy must include a prevention component, that this is particularly essential during a period in which economic and social inequalities are growing and jeopardise the effectiveness of fundamental rights;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas the Stockholm Programme emphasised that an EU internal security strategy should be developed in order further to improve security in the Union, thus protecting the lives and safety of EU citizens and effectively combating organised crime, terrorism and other threats, while respecting fundamental rights, the principles of international protection and the rule of law;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas the Commission communication on the I
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas the first Commission annual report on the implementation of the ISS
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the work undertaken in order to set up an ISS
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Emphasises that freedom, security and justice are indivisible objectives and areas of action, given that ‘freedom loses much of its meaning if it cannot be enjoyed in a secure environment and with the full backing of a system of justice in which all Union citizens and residents can have confidence’; in this context, emphasises Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which guarantees everyone the right to liberty and security.
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 2 – having regard, in particular, to Article 2 and Article 3(2) of the Treaty on European Union, and to Chapters 1, 2, 4 and 5 of Title V (Area of Freedom, Security and Justice) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Believes that the ISS still has a security-based approach to the detriment of civil liberties and fundamental rights; deeply regrets the lapse between the declarations made in relation to the respect of values and principles and their taking into account in the formulation of policies; regrets in this regard the regular abuse of privacy and data protection including the conclusion of international agreements relating to sectoral security measures, for example EU PNR agreements with third countries; also emphasises the discrepancy between declared intentions relating to the participation of the various stakeholders, particularly NGOs and the situation in reality;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Stresses that the EU is rooted in the principle of freedom; points out that, in support of that freedom, security must be pursued in accordance with the rule of law and subject to fundamental rights obligations; states that the balance between security and freedom must be seen from this perspective;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Believes that the implementation of the EU Charter
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Believes that the implementation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights must be the core of any fully fledged ISS; recalls that, in order to achieve freedom and justice, security must always be pursued in accordance with the principles of the Treaties, the rule of law and fundamental rights;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4.Takes note of the progress made by the Member States and the Commission in the context of the EU policy cycle on organised crime with a view to implementing the general strategic objectives through actions based on intergovernmental cooperation at operational level; believes, however, that a clear division of tasks between the EU and national levels is necessary, that Parliament needs to be part of the process during the stage when priorities are being established, in the discussion of strategic objectives and in the evaluation of results, and that an in-depth assessment of the European policy cycle should be undertaken in 2013
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Takes note of the progress made by the Member States and the Commission in the context of the EU policy cycle with a view to implementing the general strategic
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Takes note of the progress made by the Member States and the Commission in the context of the EU policy cycle with a view to implementing the general strategic objectives through actions based on intergovernmental cooperation at operational level; believes, however, that a clear division of tasks between the EU and national levels is necessary, that Parliament needs to be part of the process and that an in-depth assessment of the policy cycle should be undertaken in 2013; moreover, considers that in the light of the nature of the cycle this should be renamed "EU operational cycle";
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Takes the view that a comprehensive EU evidence- and knowledge-based analysis of the threats to be addressed is an essential prerequisite for an effective ISS, and
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 5 a (new) Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Takes the view that a comprehensive EU evidence- and knowledge-based analysis of the threats to be addressed based on common standards for threat assessment is an essential prerequisite for an effective ISS, and is concerned that such EU-wide analysis is still lacking at present; highlights the need for additional efforts to improve the coherence of the information and data on which the threat assessments undertaken by EU bodies are based, including additional efforts to ensure transparency as regards the methodology used6;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Recalls that Parliament is now a fully fledged institutional actor in the field of security policies, and is therefore entitled
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Endorses, in this connection and on the basis of the existing cooperation between the European Parliament and national parliaments, the idea of a ‘parliamentary policy cycle’ – which must be finely tuned to, inter alia, the Commission’s annual reporting in this field – ending with an annual parliamentary report on the current state of play as regards the ISS; believes that such a parliamentary policy cycle should be integrated into the current European strategic and operational structure relating to internal security, and should intervene during policy guidance and during the monitoring of the implementation and evaluation of results, in full execution of the provisions of the European Treaties which, since the signing of the Lisbon Treaty, have passed the shared legislative responsibility with regard to cooperation between the police and the judiciary regarding criminal matters on to the European Parliament and to the Council;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Believes that the definition and the implementation of the ISS should
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Believes that the ISS should focus more closely on the indivisible link between the internal and external dimensions of security, and that, in both of these dimensions, EU institutions and agencies active in the JHA field should perform their tasks in full compliance with EU law; calls on the Commission and the Member States also to assess the impact of the ISS on the EU External Security Strategy, including with regard to fundamental rights obligations; hopes, within such a context, for a strengthening of the agreements on judicial cooperation with third countries;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Calls on the Commission to reinforce the synergies between internal and external security by taking concrete measures and by establishing coordination mechanisms between Directorate General Home Affairs, Directorate General Justice and the European External Action Service (EEAS); calls on the Commission to provide expertise to the EU delegations in countries where there are specific issues of interest for the Union in the domain of security and underlines that this should be done by exchanging information and sharing resources with the JHA agencies - Europol, Eurojust, Frontex;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that measures and actions implementing the Internal Security Strategy are in compliance with the Union's fundamental rights obligations laid down in Articles 2, 6 and 7 TEU and external policy aims as spelled out in Article 21 TEU, principles developed by the United Nations, international human rights and humanitarian law, and respect for the concept of human security taking the security of the individual rather than that of the state as point of reference;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Emphasises that the whole ISS, in the long-term, should concentrate more on the clear link between external threats and the lack or inefficient use of strategies and measures which could be a key component in preventing security threats such as targeted development assistance, strategies for reducing poverty or restoration programmes for natural or man-made disasters;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 b (new) 9b. Considers it important in this respect that the compliance of ISS measures with the Union's fundamental rights obligation and the principles of international law is enforced effectively by mechanisms such as unannounced on the spot controls, periodic evaluations by fundamental rights agencies and an obligation to recast the measures in case they are in breach of fundamental rights;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 7 a (new) – having regard to the Commission communication to Parliament and the Council on Strengthening Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Security in the European Union – an EU CBRN Action Plan (COM(2009)273),
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Takes note of the definition of the five key areas for which different concrete actions have been proposed at EU and Member States level; takes the view
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Takes note of the definition of five key areas for which different concrete actions have been proposed at EU and Member State level; takes the view that these objectives are not exhaustive, and that the order of priorities could have been better structured; observes that, while the fight against terrorism and organised crime
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Takes note of the definition of five key areas for which different concrete actions have been proposed at EU and Member State level; takes the view that these objectives are not exhaustive, and that the order of priorities could have been better structured; observes that
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Takes note of the definition of five key areas for which different concrete actions have been proposed at EU and Member State level; takes the view that these objectives are not exhaustive, and that the order of priorities could have been better structured; observes that,
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Takes note of the definition of five key areas for which different concrete actions have been proposed at EU and Member State level; takes the view that these objectives are not exhaustive, and that the order of priorities could have been better structured; observes that, while the fight against terrorism and organised crime is, and must remain, a key priority, it does not seem to be fully justified or appropriate to take action in fields such as
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Believes that
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Believes that organised crime in all its forms, but more particularly that perpetrated by the mafia, constitutes a
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Believes that organised crime in all its forms constitutes a major threat to freedom, security and justice for EU citizens, and calls on the Commission and the Council to prioritise it further in the light of the recommendations set out in its resolution of 25 October 2011 on organised crime in the European Union, on the basis of specific data and information on existing cooperation between the EU and the Member States in the fight against the mafias, money laundering, corruption, white-collar crime and other forms of organised crime;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Calls on the Commission and the Council to prioritise the fight against corruption in the context of the EU security agenda, as well as allocate the appropriate resources, considering that the Stockholm Programme (4.1) lists corruption among the trans-national threats that continue to challenge the internal security of the Union, which require a clear and comprehensive response;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Takes note of the pledge of the Commission to propose a legislative instrument on freezing of assets to combat terrorism and related activities under Article 75 TFEU;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 11 a (new) – having regard to Europol's EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report ('TE-SAT 2011') ,
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Believes that further priority should be given to the fight against environmental, economic and corporate crime, impact of which is particularly detrimental to the living conditions of EU citizens
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12.
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) 12a. Calls upon the Commission and Member States to focus its Internal Security Strategy on the enhancement of proper police and judicial cooperation between the competent authorities of the Member States and the EU's agencies in a spirit of solidarity facilitated by standard request forms and procedures with deadlines and secure communication lines;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) 12a. In the context of the growing number and seriousness of cyberattacks and the consequent damage caused, welcomes the fact that cybercrime is being taken seriously as a threat to internal security and that the protection of the public and of businesses in cyberspace has been prioritised in the ISS; takes the view, however that the combating of cybercrime will only achieve meaningful success if it is integrated in a general cybersecurity strategy and parallel measures are implemented in relation to prevention, technical standardisation and state cyberwar, and if technological developments such as cloud computing are critically discussed; is concerned that such a strategy does not already exist and that proposals such as the harmonisation of penalties for attacks on information systems1 are dealt with on a fragmented basis without reference to a general concept; calls on the Commission to draw up a general strategy on cybersecurity as quickly as possible; __________________ 1 COM(2010)0517
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Reiterates that
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Reiterates that enhancing EU police and judicial cooperation, in particular in the context of Europol and Eurojust, is critical to a proper ISS, and must involve the competent authorities in the Member States as well as EU institutions and agencies, and calls upon the Commission and the Member States to make this a priority for the ISS;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Emphasises in this context that joint solutions must be sought in relation to the use of evidence in order to enhance EU police and judicial cooperation, so that cross-border prosecutions are not impeded, thus benefitting criminals;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14.
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14.Is disappointed, in this connection, that the ISS still lacks a proper ‘justice dimension’, and believes that the establishment of a set of priorities in the field of judicial cooperation must be seen in the context of the close link between all the dimensions of the Area enshrined in Title V TFEU, namely the Area of
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Is disappointed, in this connection, that the ISS
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 11 b (new) – having regard to Europol's EU Organised Crime Threat Assessment ('OCTA 2011'),
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Believes that cooperation with other international institutions responsible for security strategy should be strengthened, in particular with NATO and the OSCE;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Underlines that the fight against terrorism is a priority for the ISS,
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Underlines that the fight against terrorism is a priority for the ISS, the objectives and tools of which must be evaluated properly as indicated in Parliament's resolution of 14 December on ‘the EU Counter-Terrorism Policy: main achievements and future challenges’; outlines that prevention and protection policies must be further prioritised, along with prosecution and response; notes that, in this context, a greater focus on targeted law enforcement and intelligence-driven activities is needed; stresses however that law enforcement and intelligence activities must be carried out in accordance with the principle of necessity, proportionality and respecting fundamental rights, furthermore, the democratic oversight of any intelligence agency shall be ensured;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Is surprised that in its ISS report for 2011, the Commission continues to focus on Islamic terrorism as the main threat when a report by Europol refers to just three attacks linked to this movement out of a total of 249 (mainly by separatist movements) in the European Union in 2010;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Asks the Commission and Member States to consider adopting specific legislation on victims of terrorism to recognise their public character and include more detailed provisions that ensure adequate protection and support, recognition among other rights, long-term emergency assistance, comprehensive reparation, protection of private and family life, protection of dignity and security, the right to knowledge of truth and the right to memory;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16.
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16a. Reminds the Commission that insufficient measures to prevent marginalisation create a serious threat to internal security where the risks of individuals undertaking criminal activity or other actions that reduce the security of society or individuals increase and accumulate – for example, youth unemployment and school drop-outs increase the risk of criminal activity – and therefore calls for an assessment of the impact of marginalisation on internal security in the EU as a whole;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16a. Urges the Commission to thoroughly investigate and map violent extreme rights tendencies in the EU and to take concrete action in combating violent outbursts of this kind;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16a. Regards terrorism as a constantly changing phenomenon, which should be combated with a counter-terrorism policy that responds to such development; welcomes, therefore, the measures adopted in the field of aviation security, relating to both baggage checks and passenger-inspection systems;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 b (new) 16b. Recalls the importance of the European Parliament as regards preventing and combating terrorism and related activities, essentially in relation to the funding of terrorism, within the framework laid down in Article 75 of the TFEU; calls on the Commission to consider, as soon as possible, the definition of administrative measures as regards the freezing of assets to prevent and combat terrorism and related activities;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 14 a (new) – having regard to its resolution of 14 September 2011 on the EU's efforts to combat corruption,1 __________________ 1 (P7_TA(2011)0388)
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17.
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Welcomes the focus on border security in the context of the ISS,
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17.
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Welcomes the focus on border security in the context of the ISS, but believes that border management and human mobility are not merely security issues, but key features of a wider political strategy
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Welcomes the focus on border security in the context of the ISS, but believes that border management and human mobility are not merely security issues, but key features of a wider political strategy involving not only the security dimension, but also – more importantly – immigration, asylum, development and employment policies at EU level as well as policies supporting economic, social and democratic development and promoting human rights in third countries;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Welcomes the focus on border security in the context of the ISS, but believes that
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Notes the Commission Communication of 25 November 2011 on the first annual report on the implementation of the EU ISS1; emphasises that this Communication does little to criticise the action taken in this first year and reiterates the same priorities as in it's initial Communication of November 2010 on the EU ISS in action: five steps towards a more secure Europe2. __________________ 1 COM(2011) 790 2 COM(2010) 673
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Emphasises that close cooperation with the neighbouring states that share borders with the EU is essential for enhanced security at external borders; urgently calls for a joint approach at EU level to the enhancing of security at those border areas particularly affected by illegal immigration and to the intensifying of cooperation with the relevant neighbouring states; in this context particularly emphasises the successes already achieved through the deployment of Frontex in Greece;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Emphasizes the role of smart borders and of Schengen governance which will contribute to strengthening the border security; reiterates the importance of ensuring the coordination of Member States' action regarding the management of the external borders as well as the enhanced cooperation with third countries' border security authorities;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 b (new) 17b. Considers that securing the external EU border should be complemented by programmes and the necessary funding for strengthening the third country borders neighbouring the EU, which should be included in the current framework of the negotiations with the Western Balkans countries and the European Neighbourhood Policy (EUROMED, Eastern Partnership);
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 16 – having regard to the relevant European and national constitutional court jurisprudence dealing with the criteria of proportionality and the need for it to be respected by public authorities in a democratic society,
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 c (new) 17c. Underlines that the gradual introduction of the Integrated Border Management will ensure a uniform and high level control and surveillance of the external borders, facilitate the mobility within the area of freedom of movement, and therefore contribute to safeguarding fundamental rights and deterring irregular migration, trafficking in human beings and organised crime;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Takes the view, therefore, that the ISS should further reflect the vision of the Stockholm Programme, and considers it expedient to undertake a parliamentary ‘mid-term’ review of the Stockholm Programme before the end of 2013 in order to assess its strategic, legislative and financial priorities; also takes the view that a complementary assessment is needed with regard to the relevant European agencies currently being ‘Lisbonised’ (Europol, Eurojust and the European Judicial Network), along with other agencies and bodies; recalls that the actions and operations carried out by the agencies must conform to the mandate defined by the decisions concerning their implementation and operation and respect the democratic values and principles and liberties and fundamental rights of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Recalls that data processing and collection in the
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Recalls that data processing and collection in the
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Recalls that
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Reaffirms, in this connection, the need for proper democratic oversight and evaluation of the work of AFSJ agencies in order to avoid the risk of blurring the divide ‘between policy advice and actual policy-making’ in relation to AFSJ agencies;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas as of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty
source: PE-480.655
2012/03/06
AFET
47 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
1. Recalls that the key common threats identified in the Internal Security Strategy – in particular organised crime, terrorism and
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Highlights the importance of a comprehensive approach to an EU security strategy, based on a holistic concept of human security anchored
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Reiterates the need for the EU to integrate a wide-ranging human security
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Reiterates the need for the EU to integrate a wide-ranging human security perspective into its relationships with third countries, particularly on border management, migration, fighting organised crime and smuggling, state failure and underdevelopment;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Reiterates the need for the EU to integrate a wide-ranging human security perspective into its relationships with third countries, particularly on border management, migration, fighting organised crime, maritime security, state failure and underdevelopment;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Reiterates the need for the EU to integrate a wide-ranging human security perspective into its relationships with third countries, particularly on border management, migration, fighting organised crime and terrorism, state failure and underdevelopment;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. In the aftermath of the Arab Spring, reiterates that the internal security of the EU is inextricably linked to the security situation in its neighbourhood; underlines, in particular, the importance of European Neighbourhood Policy (Union for the Mediterranean, Eastern Partnership, Black Sea Synergy) on EU's external policies, and calls in this regard on the Commission and the EEAS to foster synergies between the EU and its neighbours in order to jointly address our common security challenges;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Acknowledges progress made in internal and external security coordination since the establishment of the EEAS, through regular informal meetings of the PSC and the COSI delegates, working methods for enhanced cooperation on internal and external security, the Council conclusions on internal and external aspects of counter- terrorism policy, the joint Commission- EEAS staff papers on CSDP and FSJ actors and on cyberspace, as well as the establishment of Commission- EEAS Inter-service Groups;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4 b. Takes the view that enhanced cooperation with other international institutions responsible for security strategy such as NATO and the OSCE should be further promoted;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Vice-President/High Representative, the Council and the Commission to strengthen the existing coordination mechanisms between the services and agencies in the area of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) on the one hand, and the European External Action Service (EEAS)
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls nevertheless on the Vice- President/High Representative, the Council and the Commission to strengthen the
Amendment 2 #
3. Highlights the importance of a comprehensive approach to an EU security strategy, based on a holistic concept of human security anchored
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the key common threats identified in the Internal Security Strategy – in particular organised crime, terrorism and cybercrime – have
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Vice-President/High Representative, the Council and the Commission to
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Vice-President/High Representative, the Council and the Commission to strengthen the existing coordination mechanisms between the competent committees, working groups, services and agencies in the area of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) on the one hand, and the European External Action Service (EEAS), including missions and operations under the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) on the other, taking
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a. Invites the Vice-President/High Representative, the Council and the Commission to ensure a swift implementation of the Road Map for strengthening ties between CSDP and FSJ, recently adopted at the meeting of the members of the Political and Security Committee (PSC) and of the members of the Standing Committee on operational cooperation on internal security (COSI);
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a. Stresses the need to ensure an effective and permanent linkage between internal and external dimensions of European security in matters relevant for CFSP activities and priorities, such as global disarmament, non-proliferation, CBRN risks inside and outside the EU, the fight against terrorism and radicalisation inside and outside European borders and cyber-security; thus, takes the view that coordination among both internal and external dimensions of EU security strategy should encompass close and effective articulation between services, bodies, regional and thematic desks, in a transversal way, and the relevant Commission and EEAS services to ensure its effectiveness and coherence in light of CFSP;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5 b. Urges the VP/HR to ensure overall CFSP/CSDP policy consistency by promoting the coordination between the relevant Commission and EEAS services with a view to avoid unnecessary duplication of work and roles, especially in the areas that are directly related to security issues inside and outside the EU;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Urges the Vice-President/High Representative to make sure internal security threats are duly taken into account in EU external action instruments
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Urges the V
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Urges the Vice-President/High Representative to make sure internal security threats, among others those identified by the Council under the EU policy cycle on serious and organised crime, are duly taken into account in EU external action instruments and, where appropriate, adequately addressed through them, including through the launching of CSDP missions and operations;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 Amendment 3 #
4. Reiterates the need for the EU to integrate a wide-ranging human security
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the key common threats identified in the Internal Security Strategy – in particular organised crime, terrorism and
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Emphasises the contribution of CSDP missions
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Emphasises the contribution of CSDP missions and operations to building stable institutions, fighting against organised crime
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Stresses the need for the EEAS to
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Stresses the need for the EEAS to incorporate internal security experts, in particular police and rule of law experts, and, where appropriate, to also post them in EU delegations, as a means of effectively putting into practice the need for better coordination between the internal and external dimensions of EU security strategies; to this end, underlines that exchanging information and sharing resources with the JHA agencies - Europol, Eurojust, Frontex would be extremely beneficial;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Stresses the need for the EEAS to work together with Europol to incorporate internal security experts, in particular police and rule of law experts, and, where appropriate, to also post them in EU delegations, as a means of effectively putting into practice the need for better coordination between the internal and external dimensions of EU security strategies;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8 a. Calls on Member States to transfer to the EEAS the chair of the Council Working Group on External Aspects of Counter-Terrorism (COTER), in a way to ensure greater coherence in the area of counter-terrorism; in this respect, calls also for close cooperation and consultation between the VP/HR and the Counter-Terrorism Coordinator;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Reiterates its call for the strengthening of EU capacities for response to natural and man-made disasters, which may affect human security and critical infrastructure, both inside and outside the EU, and welcomes the Commission's proposals to revise the EU's civil protection legislation to that end;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9 a. Welcomes the Commission's proposal for the establishment of Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) "integrating civilian and military capabilities in tasks ranging from civil protection to humanitarian relief, border management or peace-keeping" ; asks the Commission, the EEAS and the Member States to further develop the planned pre- procurement procedure in order to strengthen the link between internal and external security with substantial and coherent civilian and military capabilities;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10.
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Urges the Vice-President/High Representative and the Commission to present their proposal – planned for 2011 – on the implementation of the solidarity clause, which must not duplicate existing initiatives, but define the framework for the use and coordination of available EU and national instruments, including the CSDP, in situations referred to in Article 222 of the TFEU; recalls that the HR/VP should propose the guidelines for the appropriate implementation of the solidarity clause; is of the view that only with the full spectrum of possibilities opened by the implementation of the Solidarity Clause between all Member States, will the EU stand ready to prevent and react in a safe and coordinated manner to any given threat targeting the security of one or more Member States;
Amendment 4 #
5. Calls nevertheless on the Vice- President/High
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the key common threats identified in the Internal Security Strategy – in particular organised crime, terrorism and cybercrime – have indivisible external and internal dimensions, and that coordinated and coherent action on both fronts is required for any response to be effective; also, critical action for disarmament, non-proliferation, CBRN risks and illicit trafficking, which are primarily addressed in external cooperation instruments, have undeniable implications in internal security;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Calls for a greater monitoring and oversight role for the EP in the framework of the EU's Internal Security Strategy; recalls
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Calls for
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 a (new) 11 a. Takes the view that increased cooperation is needed between Member States and the European information services, which could prove crucial to put in place timely prevention and reaction mechanisms in the event of a threat to the safety and security of the EU or of one of its Member States; in this regard, suggests that the European Parliament should establish a special delegation for democratic oversight of European information services, in articulation with national parliaments;
Amendment 5 #
6. Urges the V
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Calls, therefore, on the Commission to work on a communication setting guidelines on how best to translate the link between the external and internal dimensions of the European Security Strategy and the Internal Security Strategy into cross-cutting objectives and tangible policies; stresses that coherence and complementarity between the internal and external aspects of EU security are crucial for the successful implementation of our security objectives;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Calls, therefore, on the Commission to work on a communication setting guidelines on how best to translate the link between the external and internal dimensions of the European Security Strategy and the Internal Security Strategy
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Stresses that the development of the technologies used for the security purposes at the disposal by the public as well as private sector may actually hinder security when used excessively or for the wrong purposes;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Highlights the importance of a comprehensive approach to an EU security strategy, based on a holistic concept of human security anchored on the promotion of human rights, fundamental rights, rule of law, democracy, peace and stability;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Highlights the importance of a comprehensive approach to an EU security strategy, based on a holistic concept of human security anchored on the promotion of human rights, freedom, democracy, peace and stability;
source: PE-483.827
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
| other/0/dg/title |
Old
Home AffairsNew
Migration and Home Affairs |
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|