Li jmiss 
 Test sħiħ 
It-Tlieta, 25 ta' Ottubru 2016 - Strasburgu Edizzjoni riveduta

4. Is-Sigurtà Interna fl-UE - il-progress li sar fl-implimentazzjoni ta' miżuri ta' sigurtà adottati u l-isfidi fil-ġejjieni (dibattitu)
Vidjow tat-taħditiet

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission zum Thema Innere Sicherheit in der EU – bisherige Fortschritte bei der Umsetzung der erlassenen Sicherheitsmaßnahmen und künftige Herausforderungen (2016/2955(RSP)).


  Ivan Korčok, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, before I start I would like to say how much we are looking forward to cooperating with the Commissioner. It is the first occasion that we have had to meet here in the margins of this important debate. Commissioner, your portfolio is extremely important for the Security Union and we, as a Presidency, are very keen to work together with you.

Honourable Members, many thanks for giving us the opportunity to express the views of the Council on this very important issue. I would like to start by recalling what the honourable Members Hohlmeier and Gonzales Pons have mentioned recently, to the effect that we have managed within the last year ‘remarkable legislative progress’ to prevent and fight terrorism. I think this is very important and should be recognised right at the beginning.

But, of course, the urgency of putting in place measures to prevent and fight terrorism, while maintaining an open and free society, has only increased following the many attacks which have taken place since then. Even if security is, let me say, primarily the Member States’ responsibility, political expectations for the EU and its citizens to deliver and ensure security are very high.

The first point I want to make is on information exchange. The Council is highly committed to implementing the renewed Internal Security Strategy for the years 2015-2020, and one of the most important elements here is improving information exchange and accessibility, especially by ensuring the interoperability of different information systems.

The Council in June endorsed a roadmap on information exchange and information management in the Justice and Home Affairs area, and will regularly review its implementation. It contains 50 practical short and medium-term actions and long-term orientations. Their aim is to make sure that practitioners, such as policemen and border guards, have speedy and effective access to high quality information. A number of actions of the roadmap will be taken forward by the High—Level Expert Group on information systems and interoperability. This group will play an important role in developing a long-term vision for the future architecture of the EU information systems and databases by ensuring their interoperability.

While of course we should never be complacent, I daresay that there has been substantive progress over the past year. Let me give you two examples: (1) via the Europol Information System (EIS) and (2) the Schengen Information System. In the EIS, the number of terrorism-related objects has increased in the third quarter of this year by 20% (to a total of over 13 000) in comparison to the second quarter. The number of searches, and this is important, conducted in the EIS in the third quarter sets a new record, and brings the total number of searches performed this year to more than one million for the first time in the history of the system.

As for the Schengen Information System (SIS), the number of alerts on persons under Article 36 of the SIS II Decision has nearly doubled since 2014, reaching almost 90 000. As regards information sharing by the security services, Europol has created the possibility for counter-terrorism units to communicate bilaterally using the secure information exchange network, SIENA, and is now upgrading it to EU confidential level.

The European Counter Terrorism Centre (ECTC) has been operational since January 2016 and is also contributing to stepping up information-sharing and operational cooperation.

The second point, on radicalisation: this must obviously be addressed, primarily by the Member States, but also, in order to be effective, by coordinated support at European level in accordance with the Treaties. As a follow-up to the Commission communication of June this year, the Education Council that will take place in November will adopt conclusions on preventing radicalisation leading to violent extremism. These conclusions reflect the broad approach that we need to take and highlight also the preventive role of education and youth work. Another important conference will be organised by the Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN), in cooperation with the Commission, and it will also take place in November.

Furthermore, it is crucial to focus on online initiatives and the work of the Europol Internet Referral Unit. Cooperation with service providers has proven successful, and approximately 90% of the content considered illegal was taken down by service providers. We look forward to the new initiatives of the EU Internet Forum to be launched by the Commission in December this year. In order to fight online radicalisation, nevertheless, we need to build the most effective partnership between government and industry.

I would like to mention two more issues very quickly – I am aware of the time limit, but it is important. First, on the victims of terrorism, the recent terrorist attacks have once again reminded us that our emergency services must be prepared for rapid and efficient interventions in very difficult security conditions. This requires enhanced cooperation between different actors at national and EU level, including emergency and security services.

Terrorist attacks are likely to cause a high number of victims requiring very specific medical treatment, not to mention psychological support which has to be provided, not only to survivors, but also to the families of the victims and to the witnesses of the events. I could continue on this but I would like to say we are paying attention also to the consequence management of terrorist attacks. Let me remind you of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism which was adopted in 2013.

Secondly, and this is my last point, on irregular migratory flows, which is also very important in the current context of the migratory crisis, the Council has, in particular via the Integrated Political Crisis Response mechanism, worked intensively with relevant Member States, the Commission and EU agencies, to ensure an adequate response to the possible abuse of refugee and migration routes by terrorists. Of course, the most important points when it comes to the current routes are in Greece and Italy, but there are different types of security checks going on here and they are conducted in the various places on the work floor in these hotspots.

One of the priorities in this area was the recruitment by Europol of national police officers who will be deployed together with Europol officers in the Greek hotspots, and also in Italy, as soon as possible.

Mr President, I took a bit longer than expected, but this is a very complex issue. There are many more important elements that should be mentioned, but this was the most important part, which I wanted to share with you.


  Julian King, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I am very glad to be here this morning to discuss the first of a series of monthly reports on progress towards building an effective and sustainable Security Union. I hope this will become a regular fixture for future plenaries. My colleague Dimitris Avramopoulos would very much like to have been here this morning, but he sends his apologies.

So this first report looks at the period from the Commission’s April 2016 communication, which also launched the Security Union, up until October, and it focuses on home and justice areas in particular. In future, the scope of these reports will be broader, given the cross-cutting nature of the Security Union, which is, as you know, an initiative that encompasses a broad swathe of the Commission’s work. Indeed it brings together more than 20 directorates-general. President Juncker’s idea when he created this role was to drive the delivery of work in this vital area, and I will work with my colleagues across the Commission to make sure that we deliver what we have all signed up to, to plug the gaps, and to make sure that our response keeps pace with the constantly shifting threats we face.

We need to act simultaneously on two fronts. First, to close down the space in which terrorists and criminals operate and to deny them the means they use – money, munitions, movement. This also includes working on prevention of terrorism and working to counter radicalisation. Second, to build our resilience, to strengthen our information systems by making them more joined up, and to reinforce our critical infrastructure, particularly our transport, energy and cyber security, which are too often targeted by terrorists and criminals. As I have said before, all of this only works if it respects our fundamental rights and values. These are the very rights and values that terrorists in particular are setting out to destroy.

In terms of the fight against terrorism, I welcome the commitment of this Parliament to conclude as soon as possible the negotiations on the counter-terrorism directive. I would like also to assure you of my strong support for your efforts to finalise the work on systematic checks on external borders. It is important that we do this, given the risks associated with the possible return of foreign fighters.

As regards the means used to support terrorism, I am glad the co-legislators have started work on the amendments to the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive. The majority of measures in the action plan against the illicit trafficking and use of firearms and explosives have now been implemented or are in hand. The implementing regulation on firearms deactivation entered into force in April this year and will cut substantially access for terrorists to such firearms. But I wanted to add that the co-legislators now urgently need to close the remaining gaps in the trilogue, which I think is taking place today, to reach agreement on the revision of the Firearms Directive, to take military assault weapons off the streets. It is nearly a year since the Paris attacks. The Commission produced its proposals rapidly and they have been thoroughly discussed. Our citizens will simply not understand a continuing delay.

Fighting terrorism also means tackling the causes of terrorism, including radicalisation. We have to fight ideas with ideas. Identifying and taking down terrorist propaganda is vital, as has been said, but developing persuasive counter-narratives that offer a clear alternative vision, backed up by opportunities and incentives, is the only way of tapping into the same idealism which radicalisation exploits. We have to target the people the recruiters are targeting and offer them a different and better path. That means education, employment and inclusion. The Commission is helping – funding work on counter-narratives through the RAN, through targeted use of Erasmus+, the Youth Guarantee, and financial support through the European Social Fund.

Tackling this challenge takes time. I visited Mechelen, near Brussels, earlier earlier this month, a place with similar demographics to Molenbeek – but in the case of Mechelen there are no foreign fighters. This reflects 15 years’ worth of investment led by grassroot initiatives, combining a tough approach on law enforcement with sustained work on prevention and deradicalisation that has given young people a greater sense of self-worth and a greater sense of their community. I am happy that this long-term sustained approach is shared by Parliament, and I am looking forward to contributing to the debate which the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) will hold on combating radicalisation later in November.

As well as taking the fight to terrorists and criminals, we need to build our resilience, to protect our citizens and our society, to strengthen our information systems, as has been mentioned, to reinforce our infrastructure, to reduce vulnerabilities. This means work on the interoperability of our information systems, where will be accelerating the work of the High Level Experts Group to produce an interim report and actions before Christmas. It also means developing a system of robust risk analysis, security research and the systematic cooperation between law enforcement agencies and the private sector.

During my hearing I was very clear about the need to ensure appropriate implementation of what we have already agreed. We have got to deliver what we agreed, however hard and occasionally unglamorous that may be. The Commission is ready to support national authorities with technical assistance, exchange of best practice and, in many cases, financially, but Member States need to do their part. The PNR Directive is a case in point. This is a key instrument in the fight against terrorism, with the transposition deadline of May 2018. Few Member States yet have in place the necessary infrastructure to handle the data. A number have plans and projects underway, but 11 Member States have yet to start work.

In other cases where the deadline for Member States’ transposition has already passed, the Commission will not hesitate to launch infringements – as was the case this September, when for the first time the Commission initiated infringement procedures for non-transposition of elements of the Prüm Network.

Finally, let me stress another recurring theme. We need to make full use of the existing instruments we have at our disposal. Our agencies need to be strengthened and their support should be better used. For example, after the Paris attacks, Europol assigned 60 officers to support the French and Belgian investigations in Taskforce Fraternité. Data provided to Europol by Belgium and France enabled it to come up with 800 intelligence leads and more than 1 600 leads on suspicious financial transactions. Eurojust also played a key role in the aftermath of these attacks in what were legally complex cross-border investigations, and the new Europol regulation that will enter into application in May 2017 offers us new opportunities that we should seize.

I realise I have spoken for too long, but as you can see, this is a broad range of work that we are reporting on, and initiating a monthly reporting cycle should allow us to be able to discuss specific issues in more depth in the future and ensure that all institutions have an updated picture on the state of implementation of these important initiatives. Thank you for your attention and I look forward to hearing your views.


  Monika Hohlmeier, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Ratspräsidentschaft, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich bedanke mich erst einmal dafür, dass man zumindest zum ersten Mal den Eindruck hat, es kommt richtig was in Gang, da, wo wir Jahre vorher diskutiert haben über Informationsaustausch, über die Nutzung des SIS-Systems, dass tatsächlich die entsprechenden Personen oder auch Sachen eingetragen werden. Dass die Mitgliedstaaten sich gegenseitig besser informieren, dass Europol als Koordinationsstelle besser fungieren kann – das scheint Zug um Zug in Gang zu kommen und wird deutlich vollständiger.

Was mich immer wieder noch beschäftigt, ist im Zuge dessen, dass ich die Verhandlungen vielfach beobachte – ich nehme jetzt einmal meine eigene Terrorismusrichtlinie –, die Schwierigkeit, dass Mitgliedstaaten sich auf etwas verpflichten. Wenn ich zum Beispiel den Informationsaustausch nehme und dazu die Verpflichtung der Mitgliedstaaten, relevante Informationen auszutauschen, so sind die Mitgliedstaaten bei der Verpflichtung nach wie vor sehr zurückhaltend.

Wenn ich an die Frage denke, wie wir damit umgehen, dass wir eine Unmenge an Waffen haben, die aus dem ehemaligen sogenannten Jugoslawienkrieg bis in die heutige Zeit hinein in den Terrorismus und den Waffenhandel hineinspielen – und das in unglaublichen Größenordnungen –, dann glaube ich, dass wir nicht nur den Waffenhandel insgesamt beobachten müssen, sondern vor allem auch das Darknet, und verhindern müssen, dass im Rahmen des Darknets Unmenge an Handel betrieben wird, den wir nicht haben wollen.


  Birgit Sippel, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Zur Bekämpfung grenzüberschreitender Kriminalität – einschließlich Terrorismus – braucht die Zusammenarbeit unserer Mitgliedstaaten den Austausch relevanter Informationen. Was hierzu gemeinsam beschlossen wird, muss aber auch überall umgesetzt werden. Ich erinnere – es wurde schon genannt – an den Prüm-Beschluss zum Austausch von Kfz- und DNA-Daten. Die Umsetzung sollte im August 2011 erfolgen. Hier musste die Kommission nun Vertragsverletzungsverfahren gegen 5 Mitgliedstaaten einleiten. Und auch in anderen Bereichen zeigt sich ein Mangel an Umsetzung und Informationsaustausch.

Deshalb ist es dringend notwendig, dass wir den Schwerpunkt unserer Arbeit auf die Anwendung beschlossener Maßnahmen setzen. Doch tatsächlich wird lieber immer Neues gefordert. Beispiel: Europäische Fluggastdatensammlung – wahnsinnig wichtig, oder vielleicht doch nicht. Denn derzeit sind 11 Mitgliedstaaten nicht in der Lage, die Umsetzungsfrist 2018 einzuhalten.

Ich selbst halte diese Richtlinie in ihrer beschlossenen Form für grundrechtswidrig und komme damit auf eine weitere Herausforderung. Die Anschläge von Terroristen zielen auf unsere offenen Gesellschaften, auf Freiheit und Demokratie. Gerade diese aber gilt es, nachhaltig zu stärken und zu verteidigen. Massenhafte Sammlungen von immer mehr Daten setzen potenziell alle Bürger unter Verdacht. Die gleichzeitige Vernachlässigung von Datensicherheit und Datenschutz bietet Angriffsflächen für Kriminelle und gefährdet unsere Grundrechte. Insbesondere beim Thema Interoperabilität von Datensammlungen müssen deren Notwendigkeit und Fragen des Datenschutzes besonders sorgfältig geprüft werden.

Grundsätzlich birgt die Diskussion über immer neue Maßnahmen und immer mehr Überwachung die Gefahr, latent ein Gefühl steter Verunsicherung zu erzeugen. Auch das kann den Boden für rechtsextreme Kräfte – einschließlich Hass, Bedrohungen und Gewalt – nähren. Tatsächlich werden derzeit – wahrscheinlich nicht nur in Deutschland – Politiker und ihre Familien, ehrenamtlich tätige Bürger, Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund, Polizisten und viele andere von rechts massiv bedroht.

Die Tötung eines Polizisten letzte Woche in Bayern ist da nur ein erschreckender Beleg. Die Bekämpfung von organisierter Kriminalität und Terrorismus darf den Blick auf andere Herausforderungen nicht verbauen.

Die Verteidigung von Rechtsstaatlichkeit und offenen Gesellschaften braucht nicht Aktionismus, sondern Augenmaß, denn wer die Freiheit aufgibt, um Sicherheit zu gewinnen, kann am Ende beides verlieren.


  Helga Stevens, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Als we spreken over veiligheid binnen de Unie, dan denk ik ook aan bepaalde gemarginaliseerde bevolkingsgroepen waarbinnen het fenomeen van moslimextremisme jammer genoeg prominent voorkomt, bijvoorbeeld jongeren uit risicobuurten, die worden aangezet door criminele vriendjes of charismatische geradicaliseerde figuren. Terrorisme volgt vaak uit criminaliteit, maar ook de gemeenschap en het identiteitsgevoel spelen een aanzienlijke rol. De terrorist Abdeslam, bijvoorbeeld, trok na de aanslag in Parijs richting Brussel en vond er prompt onderdak bij een gezin: bij een vader, moeder en zoon in Molenbeek. Daarom vroeg ik mij af hoe die gemeenschappen uit de marginaliteit kunnen worden gehaald.

Sinds 2005 ondersteunt de EU de lidstaten op systematische wijze bij hun inspanningen tegen gewelddadig extremisme. De veiligheidsagenda van 2015 bouwt daarop voort, waarna de Commissie midden 2016 zeven nieuwe prioriteiten lanceerde. Daarbij werd een toolkit aangekondigd om extremisme beter op te sporen en te bestrijden en zo onze maatschappij open, vrij en inclusief te houden. Het is belangrijk dat ook slachtoffers en gedesillusioneerde terroristen hierbij betrokken worden.

Dit zijn goede maatregelen, maar het beste middel voor een hechte samenleving is niettemin activatie en participatie in de vorm van taalopleidingen en trajectbegeleiding bij het vinden van werk. Verplichte inburgering is tevens een absoluut kernpunt in de strijd tegen terreur. In Brussel, bijvoorbeeld, is een inburgeringstraject nog steeds niet verplicht. Dit is te danken aan onze Franstalige PS-collega's. Alsof Europa alles kan oplossen met een toverstok!


  Sophia in 't Veld, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his update.

Commissioner, I very much welcome your intention of giving us a monthly update. On the evaluation, I also very much appreciate your emphasis on the need for evaluation of the implementation, and indeed the PNR case demonstrates that. Although I personally voted against the directive, I think it is extremely silly to pass laws which are not then implemented. I also wonder where the rush came from, if now the Member States are not acting six months after the adoption. I think we should also get a bit more information about the – in total now – EUR 130 million which are being spent on PNR.

But we should not only evaluate the implementation but also the effectiveness. If you compare it to the war on drugs, that has failed dramatically. Is the war on terror any more successful? I do not know, because we have passed so many laws and spent so much money, and the threat levels seem to be going up, not down. We seem to get less of a grip on the phenomenon, not more.

We should also evaluate the impact on fundamental rights and the rule of law, as you have mentioned. But I would also like to see included in your monthly updates the need for democratic and judicial oversight and more transparency and accountability, because I think that is sorely lacking. While defending our democracy and rule of law against terrorist attacks, we seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. So I really hope that you are going to focus more on that.

Three final remarks. First of all, on prevention: I also welcome your statements on that, because I think that so far we have done a terrible job on prevention. I think we have made matters worse by creating deep divisions in society.

Secondly, we all agree on the urgent need for more information-sharing. But, as I said in the previous debate, information-sharing is a lot more than just interconnectivity. That is the technical side of things, but we now need to actually share information, and not on a voluntary, ad hoc, random basis, but systematically.

Finally, in the report that this House adopted in 2011, we stressed already very heavily the need to invest a lot more in what they call HUMINT – human intelligence, people on the ground. I think that the situation in Belgium and the investigation that they did has shown that the real problem is insufficient capacity. So, rather than spending zillions on megalomaniac IT systems, we should be investing in people on the ground.


  Cornelia Ernst, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ich war heute wirklich neugierig, was uns Rat und Kommission zu vermelden haben. Aber was Sie uns mitteilten, ist weder neu noch hat es irgendein System. Sie haben gar keine Strategie für innere Sicherheit. Denn dazu gehört als Mindestvoraussetzung die Evaluation aller bestehenden Sicherheitsinstrumente, ihre Prüfung auf Tauglichkeit, auf Erfolg, auf Zielgenauigkeit. Sie horten stattdessen Milliarden Daten für illustre Sicherheitsmaßnahmen, wie eine Elster glitzernde Gegenstände in ihrem Nest sammelt.

Und Sie glauben, viel hilft viel. Dabei krankt Ihre Politik wirklich an zwei grundlegenden Fehlern: Zum einen investieren Sie unglaublich wenig in den präventiven Bereich, von dem Sie zwar heute dankenswerterweise gesprochen haben, aber Sie setzen fast ausschließlich auf Repression. Beide – Prävention und Repression – stehen in keinem guten Verhältnis, und Sie tun auch nichts wirklich Relevantes zur Austrocknung der Finanzquellen des Terrorismus. Da ist Ihnen die Freundschaft zu Saudi-Arabien und all den anderen Diktatoren sehr viel mehr wert.

Zum anderen – und das ist mir ganz wichtig – haben Sie die Verhältnismäßigkeit zwischen Sicherheit und Grundrechten nicht auf Ihrer Agenda. Grundrechte wie das Recht auf informationelle Selbstbestimmung werden bedenkenlos der Sicherheit geopfert, Milliarden Daten von Bürgern gespeichert und gefiltert, Grundsatzurteile des EuGH ignoriert, und der Bürger wird einfach nur eine Nebenfigur. Sie trauen dem Bürger nicht, verlangen aber, dass man Ihnen vertraut. Und das ist ein verhängnisvoller Fehler!


  Eva Joly, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, ce premier rapport sur les progrès accomplis en matière de sécurité a au moins un mérite: il illustre à merveille l'hypocrisie des États membres. Sur l'échange d'informations, le PNR ou la directive «antiterrorisme», les États jouent double jeu en permanence. Au printemps dernier, ils nous disaient qu'il était urgent d'adopter le PNR, nous traitant à demi-mot d'irresponsables.

Ce rapport révèle que presqu'aucun État membre n'a avancé dans sa mise en œuvre. Idem pour la directive «antiterroriste», sur laquelle nous travaillons actuellement. Alors que les États membres nous somment de l'adopter au plus vite et estiment que nous n'avons pas le temps d'effectuer mener une analyse d'impact, ces mêmes États souhaitent un délai de transposition de deux ans au lieu d'un. Il n'y a d'urgence que face aux caméras.

Ce rapport est bienvenu, mais quand la Commission se décidera-t-elle enfin à publier un rapport sur l'efficacité des instruments existants? Il serait utile de savoir ce qui fonctionne vraiment plutôt que d'accumuler les dispositifs, de criminaliser encore davantage des comportements et d'élargir sans cesse la collecte des données personnelles, et ce au détriment des libertés fondamentales.

Le rapport émis par le comité de surveillance de la police à l'intention des députés belges nous donne déjà des indices sur les défaillances à corriger. Nul manque de données, mais un manque criant de moyens. Plusieurs membres du commando de Paris avaient été identifiés mais n'ont pu faire l'objet d'un suivi adéquat faute de personnel ou de transmission d'informations entre les différents services.

Cessons de jeter de la poudre aux yeux! Ce dont nous avons vraiment besoin, c'est de renforcer la coopération entre États membres et de donner des moyens supplémentaires à la justice et à la police, qui en manquent cruellement.


  Laura Ferrara, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, a tutti noi sta a cuore la sicurezza interna dell'Unione. Eppure non possiamo fare a meno di dimenticare le falle nel sistema di scambio di informazioni tra autorità di polizia e autorità giudiziarie degli Stati membri che sono drammaticamente emerse dopo gli attentati di Parigi e di Bruxelles. Tante volte abbiamo sentito, anche in audizioni pubbliche, che i dati e le informazioni c'erano, ma poi lo scambio non ha funzionato. Ecco, come denunciato nella mia relazione sulla lotta contro la criminalità organizzata che verrà votata oggi, la cooperazione transfrontaliera di polizia e giudiziaria è caratterizzata da procedure eccessivamente lunghe e burocratiche, che ne ostacolano l'efficienza con conseguenze gravi in termini di sicurezza interna dell'Unione. Occorre, dunque, rafforzare la cooperazione, la condivisione delle informazioni tra Stati membri, garantendo delle procedure comuni, l'ammissibilità reciproca delle prove e utilizzando squadre investigative comuni. Infine, vorrei ricordare che i legami e la convergenza crescente tra terrorismo e criminalità organizzata costituiscono una minaccia sempre più grave per l'Unione e anche in questo senso è necessario rafforzare la lotta transnazionale al crimine organizzato.


  Mara Bizzotto, a nome del gruppo ENF. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, oggi discutiamo i progressi della sicurezza dell'Unione europea. Ma quali sono? Io non ne vedo neanche uno. Nell'ultimo anno il terrorismo islamico ha compiuto stragi e attentati in ogni angolo d'Europa. E qual è la vostra risposta? Zero, nisba, nada, praticamente niente! I servizi segreti di tutto il mondo ci dicono che tra i clandestini che sbarcano ogni giorno in Italia si nascondono terroristi islamici; e il governo Renzi, cosa fa? Dall'inizio dell'anno ha accolto 157.000 extracomunitari, due su tre sono clandestini non sono profughi. Ma vi sembra normale? Basta! I cittadini sono stanchi di essere presi in giro, sono stanchi di subire l'invasione di migliaia di clandestini che rubano, spacciano, delinquono. È un inferno! L'unica soluzione per riportare la sicurezza in Italia è fare quello che già fanno altri Stati europei: difendere i confini ed espellere i clandestini. Fermiamo l'invasione prima che sia troppo tardi!


  Λάμπρος Φουντούλης ( NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, υπάρχει εσωτερική ασφάλεια στην Ευρώπη;

Στην πραγματικότητα, κάθε ένα κράτος μέλος της Ένωσης έχει διαφορετικό επίπεδο εσωτερικής ασφάλειας, αναλόγως παραγόντων, η πλειονότητα των οποίων εξαρτάται από τις εσωτερικές συνθήκες του κάθε κράτους και τη μορφή της κοινωνίας του. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση δεν έχει κάνει τίποτα παραπάνω από το να προσθέτει προβλήματα στις χώρες. Με πολλή μεγάλη ευκολία κάποιος μπορεί να ξεκινήσει από τα Βαλκάνια και να βρεθεί στη Δανία οδικώς, μεταφέροντας κάθε είδους παράνομο εμπόρευμα, από ναρκωτικά μέχρι όπλα, έτοιμα να χρησιμοποιηθούν σε τρομοκρατικές επιθέσεις. Οι δήθεν συνοριακοί έλεγχοι που έχουν επιβληθεί, εκτός από το να δημιουργούν κυκλοφοριακή συμφόρηση στα σύνορα, δεν εξυπηρετούν τίποτα παραπάνω, καθώς μόνο έλεγχοι δεν είναι.

Τέλος, πόσοι από εσάς εδώ μέσα μπορούν να πουν υπεύθυνα πως έχουμε δει το τέλος των τρομοκρατικών επιθέσεων; Ακόμα χειρότερα, πόσοι μπορούν να πουν ότι για τις προηγούμενες ή τις μελλοντικές τρομοκρατικές επιθέσεις είχαμε κάνει ή είμαστε έτοιμοι να κάνουμε ό,τι είναι δυνατό από πλευράς μας για να τις αποτρέψουμε; Δυστυχώς, η Ευρώπη αντιμετωπίζει ένα τεράστιο κενό ασφαλείας, κενό που δεν θα καλυφθεί εάν δεν είναι πρόθυμοι ορισμένοι να αφήσουν πίσω τους ιδεοληψίες και αγκυλώσεις, που δεν εξυπηρετούν σε τίποτα πλέον.


  Ελισσάβετ Βόζεμπεργκ-Βρυωνίδη ( PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, είναι βέβαιο ότι έχουν γίνει βήματα, αλλά έχουμε πολύ δρόμο ακόμη μπροστά μας. Η άποψή μου είναι ότι πρέπει να εστιάσουμε στην επικαιροποίηση, στο «updating», της τρομοκρατίας και στην πρόληψη. Ποιοι είναι οι εχθροί μας; Πώς εξοπλίζονται; Πώς προσηλυτίζουν νέα μέλη; Από πού χρηματοδοτούνται; Πώς συνεργάζονται; Πώς οργανώνονται; Και η πρόβλεψη αφορά στους νέους στόχους και τις νέες απειλές για την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και ολόκληρο τον πλανήτη. Ξέρουμε πολύ καλά ότι έχουμε μια ασύμμετρη απειλή, όπως ξέρουμε ότι είμαστε ευάλωτοι. Μόνος είπατε ότι υπάρχουν έντεκα κράτη μέλη που ακόμη δεν έχουν επαρκή ή καθόλου υποδομή για την εφαρμογή του PNR. Αυτό που ενδιαφέρει όμως την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και εμάς εδώ είναι ποια κράτη μέλη δεν θέλουν, δεν έχουν τη βούληση ή είναι αδύναμα να εφαρμόσουν αυτά τα οποία αποφασίζουμε. Είναι βέβαιον, κύριε Επίτροπε, ότι οι πολιτικές που ασκούμε προσκρούουν σε κάποιες ιδεοληψίες που θέλουν να πιστεύουν ότι φαλκιδεύονται οι προσωπικές ελευθερίες με τα μέτρα ασφάλειας. Αυτό το οποίο πρέπει να καταλάβουμε όλοι είναι ότι, από οπουδήποτε και αν προέρχονται οι τρομοκράτες, η απειλή αυτή αφορά στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, στην ευρωπαϊκή νοοτροπία, στον τρόπο σκέψης, και ότι η μεγαλύτερη ασφάλεια, η οργανωμένη ασφάλεια, είναι αυτή καθεαυτή που εξασφαλίζει την ελευθερία των πολιτών.


  Tanja Fajon (S&D). – Varnost je vrednota, ki je evropskim državljanom zelo pomembna. V nedavni raziskavi Eurobarometra je več kot 80 odstotkov državljanov odgovorilo, da želijo več ukrepov na ravni Unije.

A varnost je zame večplastna: varnost pred nezdravo hrano, varovanje zasebnosti, neodvisnost medijev, učinkovita vladavina prava. In ne smemo pozabiti še na drugi vidik, in sicer na zaščito pred pretirano varnostjo, ki bi posegla v temeljne pravice.

Komisija je v svojem odzivu na teroristične napade odgovorila z vrsto novih ukrepov. Čeprav pozdravljam sorazmerne, resnično potrebne in učinkovite ukrepe, pa gredo številni tudi v smeri ogrožanja temeljnih pravic. In ocenjujem, da je zelo krhko razmerje med varnostnimi in ostalimi ukrepi v Uniji že porušeno.

Veliko več naporov moramo, kot ste sami omenili, nameniti v boj proti radikalizaciji mladih. Predmestja, kot so Moellenbeck, so velik izziv in v Evropski uniji imamo dobre prakse, Danska na primer, kako mladim pomagati, ki so potisnjeni na rob družbe.

Spoštovani komisar, ob najinem srečanju in v odboru LIBE ste se zavzeli za temeljit pregled in oceno učinkovitosti vseh obstoječih ukrepov na področju varnosti. V Evropskem parlamentu vas bomo držali za besedo – ta pregled še vedno pričakujemo.

In dokler ne bo sodelovanja med varnostno-obveščevalnimi službami, organi, policijo in pravosodjem nam nobeni novi ukrepi ne bodo pomagali. Enako velja tudi za nesmiselnno vzpostavljanje vrste baz zbiranja osebnih podatkov, če sistemi med seboj ne bodo povezani.

V Evropi nekako gradimo, te dni se zdi, trdnjavo, neprepustne meje. Prenavljamo azilni sistem, ki pa bo ljudem, potrebnim zaščite, povsem nedosegljiv. In gospod King, močno obžalujem, da bo Komisija danes sprejela pozitivno odločitev glede podaljšanja nadzora na notranjih mejah, čeprav sami priznavate, da zanje ne obstajajo utemeljeni razlogi.

Brezglavo hitenje in sprejemanje zakonodaje brez pravega učnika ne povečuje varnosti, pač pa zgolj občutek navidezne varnosti, ki ima lahko resne negativne posledice.


  Monica Macovei (ECR). – Mulțumesc. Aș vrea să ne asumăm cu toții securitatea cetățenilor noștri și securitatea Uniunii Europene. Atacurile teroriste nu se vor opri, ci se vor intensifica.

S-a spus aici că PNR-ul nu se aplică de către statele membre. Vă aduc aminte că în acest Parlament am ținut PNR-ul, nu eu, ci colegi de ai mei, trei ani de zile, până l-am adoptat. Sigur că statele membre nu au stat degeaba și au făcut relații bilaterale între ele și și-au dat aceste date despre pasageri. Deci acesta nu este un argument.

Haideți să adoptăm legislația și să ne facem noi treaba, chiar dacă un stat membru nu-și face treaba, fiindcă noi vom fi răspunzători pentru asta. Comisarul pentru securitate Julian King, care este aici, și mă bucur de aceasta, a avertizat asupra riscului ca luptătorii ISIL să se îndrepte către Europa în atacul lor, în contextul bătăliei pentru Mosul.

În final, aș vrea să insist pe adoptarea anul acesta a Regulamentului de modificare a Schengen prin întărirea granițelor.


  Gérard Deprez (ALDE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, bienvenu parmi nous et bon travail, car ce n'est pas le travail qui va vous manquer.

Premier chantier: la nécessaire, voire l'impérieuse interopérabilité entre les banques de données que nous avons créées. Dieu sait si nous en avons créé! Sans interopérabilité, c'est de l'argent perdu.

Deuxième chantier, M. le Commissaire: vous l'avez reconnu, il faut que les États membres respectent leurs engagements. C'est un scandale qu'il n'y ait à ce jour qu'un seul État membre qui ait un PNR pleinement opérationnel, et le paradoxe veut, M. le Commissaire, que ce soit celui de votre pays, qui vient de décider de quitter l'Union.

Troisième chantier: alors que le Parlement proposait un échange obligatoire des données PNR, les États membres ont préféré ne devoir échanger que les données qu'ils jugent pertinentes. Si les données relatives au terrorisme ne sont pas pertinentes en matière de sécurité, quelles données le seront?

Quatrième chantier, M. le Commissaire: vu le nombre de terroristes qui sont des citoyens de l'Union, il est nécessaire de renforcer les vérifications aux frontières extérieures de l'Union européenne. Ces contrôles sont d'autant plus nécessaires que l'on constate une forte augmentation de l'utilisation de fausses cartes d'identité. À ce propos, M. le Commissaire, j'attends avec impatience, et j'espère que vous vous en occuperez, une proposition de la Commission visant à l'harmonisation des éléments de sécurité des cartes d'identité européennes.

Cinquième chantier: d'après mes informations, la Commission va proposer très prochainement une révision du règlement sur le système d'informations Schengen. Ce sera l'occasion impérieuse d'améliorer la précision des signalements des personnes suspectées de terrorisme.


  Miguel Urbán Crespo (GUE/NGL). – Señor Presidente, Señorías, las vallas de la Europa fortaleza no parecen ser suficientes para frenar el drama migratorio. Los intentos de llegar están lejos de disminuir, generando cada vez más muertos directamente relacionados con nuestra política de fronteras y de seguridad.

Un gran negocio de la xenofobia, del que se benefician a partes iguales la industria de defensa a un lado de la frontera y los traficantes de personas al otro.

Se produce entonces el milagro de la multiplicación de los controles fronterizos, y con ellos arrecian las declaraciones políticas que ligan migración irregular con delincuencia organizada, terrorismo o tráfico de seres humanos, alentando el populismo punitivo, como hemos visto en esta misma Cámara.

Así, la Europa fortaleza se constituye no solo en un proyecto racista vulnerador de derechos y libertades sino también en un gran negocio que no ha parado de crecer en los últimos años: el negocio de la xenofobia que se alimenta gracias a las estrategias de seguridad de esta Europa que mira hacia otro lado ante esta crisis.


  Jan Philipp Albrecht (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Kollegen! Ich möchte drei Punkte vorschlagen, um mehr Sicherheit in der Europäischen Union zu erreichen.

Erstens: Wir brauchen ein hohes Maß an gefühlter Sicherheit. Das ist ja das, was immer gewünscht wird, und das ist auch richtig. Wir brauchen eine Umgebung, in der sich die Menschen sicher fühlen können, und dazu gibt es viele kleine Maßnahmen, die man ergreifen kann. Man braucht Präsenz von bürgernaher Polizei, das gibt den Menschen ein Sicherheitsgefühl.

Zweitens: Wir brauchen eine effektive Sicherheitspolitik und effektive Sicherheitsmaßnahmen. Da zeigen die Studien eben ganz klar: Aufklärungsraten und Kriminalitätsstatistiken ie halten sich etwa auf gleicher Höhe, wenn wir weiterhin auf anlasslose Überwachung setzen, wenn wir auf Datensammlungen über Unverdächtige setzen. Wenn wir konkret ansetzen bei anlassbezogenen Ermittlungen, grenzübergreifenden Ermittlungen, da gibt es Verbesserungen, und wenn wir mehr in die Polizei investieren.

Letzter, dritter Punkt: strukturelle Sicherheit. Wir brauchen eine Umgebung einer offenen Gesellschaft, die Freiheitsrechte und Bürgerrechte verteidigt. Das schafft Sicherheit und eine sichere Infrastruktur – analog wie digital –, und dazu gehören Hintertüren definitiv nicht.


  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE). – Señor Presidente, la Unión Europea está amenazada y tiene que protegerse, tiene que activar herramientas de prevención y de represión. La represión evita la impunidad.

La seguridad de los europeos debe ser una prioridad en las políticas de la Unión. Los ataques terroristas, la delincuencia organizada, el narcotráfico, el blanqueo, la corrupción, la trata y el tráfico ilícito nos ofrecen cada día letales escenarios que deben ser afrontados con determinación y con subordinación a nuestras leyes y a nuestras garantías.

Hemos puesto en marcha multitud de instrumentos y multitud de herramientas —se han referido todos ustedes a ellos—: desde el ECTC al EC3, Prüm, PNR, entradas y salidas, etcétera, etcétera. Yo creo, no obstante, que hay que activar inmediatamente y actualizar el llamado ciclo político. El ciclo político tiene cinco años y tiene que ser actualizado.

Señorías, los desafíos futuros están vinculados al incremento del terrorismo. Cuanto más debilitado esté el terror en los territorios ocupados y en los Estados fallidos, más golpeará objetivos occidentales. La seguridad de un Estado miembro es la seguridad de la Unión en su conjunto. Por lo tanto, debemos dar una respuesta global.

Pero antes que nada debemos decirnos la verdad: no tenemos una política de seguridad común; no tenemos una comunidad de inteligencia; no tenemos un espacio judicial común; no tenemos una política de defensa común. Nuestras fronteras son vulnerables. No tenemos un TFTP.

Largo camino por recorrer.

Muchos éxitos, señor Comisario.


  Ana Gomes (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, este primeiro relatório mensal pode ser uma boa iniciativa para darmos respostas eficazes ao imperativo da segurança dos nossos cidadãos que não pode ser alcançado sem cooperação europeia. Nesse sentido, estamos a negociar a diretiva de combate ao terrorismo, a quarta revisão da diretiva sobre branqueamento de capitais, a quinta em que reforçamos a Europol e a guarda costeira e de fronteiras, criámos o RAN e o Internet Fórum da União Europeia. Mas nada disso substitui o investimento que Comissão e Estados-Membros, estrangulados por autoinfligidas políticas de austeridade não têm feito em programas inteligentes e de proximidade de prevenção da radicalização.

Eu também visitei Mechelen, Comissário King, e de facto, quanto mais se destrói emprego jovem, quanto mais se destroem políticas sociais inclusivas, mais recrutas estão os Estados-Membros da União Europeia a oferecer a grupos extremistas violentos. Bem pode o Conselho preocupar-se com o retorno de foreign fighters ou a infiltração entre migrantes.

Os terroristas que nos golpearam em Paris ou Bruxelas eram de fabrico europeu. Acresce que, ao alimentar o negócio das redes de traficantes e criminalidade organizada associada pela falta de abertura de vias legais e seguras de acesso à Europa para refugiados imigrantes, acrescidas das graves violações de direitos humanos que os deixamos experimentar já em solo europeu, incluindo os milhares de menores não acompanhados desaparecidos, tudo isto só demonstra a incoerência, a inépcia das políticas ditas antiterroristas dos Estados-Membros.

Outros dois problemas fundamentais persistem: desde logo, a resistência de Estados em partilhar informação, em interoperacionalizar serviços, como referiu o Comissário King.

A Diretiva PNR, tantas vezes apresentada como um sucesso, é demonstrativa da falta de aplicação pelos Estados-Membros, a partilha de dados não é sequer obrigatória, o controlo de voos privados não se faz vinculativamente e depois há as questões da dimensão da política externa, como já foi referido por outros colegas.


  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-н Председател, вътрешната сигурност в Европейския съюз в днешни дни е под безпрецедентна заплаха. Причината за това е сбърканата политика, водена от Европейската комисия и част от европейските държави. Дебатът е основно базово сбъркан, защото са подменени понятията и защото се водят празни приказки, породени вероятно от гузна съвест от колониалните времена.

Вътрешният ред и сигурността са под натиска на заплахата на ислямисткия тероризъм. Сгрешената политика, водена от Европейската комисия, нарича ислямисткия тероризъм „културно различие“. Европа отглежда, храни и издържа тези, които я нападат. Това е безпрецедентно и сериозна опасност.

Нужна ни е нова политика – политика на отблъскване на нелегалната емиграция, политика на наричане на нещата с истинските им имена, политика, която ясно да заяви и да разграничи нашествието и терора от човешките права. Нужно е ново поведение на всички европейски лидери.


  Josep-Maria Terricabras (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, the EU has to ensure internal security and has to fight terrorism. This is undeniable, but in a democratic society this can only be done while keeping in mind the main goal of protecting and reinforcing civil liberties and the human rights of citizens. When we do not do so, we are falling into the trap set by terrorism, which plans to have us caught in fear, resentment and diminishing democracy. Has the EU really evaluated which of the security initiatives taken against terrorism really work and which do not? I am afraid this has not been done so far. It is urgent to do so. A lot has been said on this during this debate, but I would like to insist that we should only accept more security measures if they mean a better protection of freedom, not a disruption of it.


  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, boj proti terorismu a organizovanému zločinu nelze řešit jen na úrovni členských států, proto občané právem očekávají, že Evropská unie bude zajišťovat jejich bezpečnost z úrovně jejích pravomocí. V uplynulém období dvou let jsme přijali dvě nařízení, která umožňují shromažďování dat o cestujících, získávání informací o převodech peněžních prostředků, které by mohly sloužit k financování terorismu.

Na úrovni Europolu se násobí množství sdílených dat a vzniká středisko evropského boje proti terorismu. Jsme si vědomi nutnosti prevence, boje proti radikalizaci a také nutnosti netolerance projevů radikálního islámu, sledování obsahu na internetu, a proto chceme zabránit také jeho šíření prostřednictvím audiovizuálních služeb. Dámy a pánové, výčet těchto aktivit, které na úrovni Evropské unie podnikáme, není úplný, není dostatečný, ale je jasným signálem toho, že bezpečnost občanů je naší prioritou.


  Jeroen Lenaers (PPE). – Allereerst wil ik commissaris King feliciteren met zijn benoeming. Ik ben blij dat we in de Europese Unie nu eindelijk een commissaris hebben die zich enkel en alleen met veiligheid bezighoudt. Dat is een belangrijk signaal over hoe hoog dit op onze prioriteitenlijst staat.

Ik heb drie punten, waarvan het eerste persoonsgegevens van passagiers (PNR) betreft. Ik ben oprecht verbaasd en teleurgesteld dat elf lidstaten nog steeds helemaal niks hebben gedaan om de PNR-richtlijn ten uitvoer te leggen. Je zou denken dat de noodzaak daartoe inmiddels toch wel duidelijk is. Helaas niet. Ik zou de commissaris dan ook willen vragen of hij het mogelijk acht om met de lidstaten die wel al grote stappen hebben gezet, op een bepaald moment te zeggen: wij beginnen alvast en de overige kunnen aansluiten wanneer ze daar klaar voor zijn?

Een tweede vraag: tijdens uw hoorzitting, mijnheer King, zei u dat als de Britse regering besluit tot een opt out op het nieuwe Europolmandaat, er ongewenste gaten zouden ontstaan in het Europese veiligheidsbeleid totdat er nieuwe afspraken kunnen worden gemaakt. Bent u bezig om, als voorbereiding daarop, in ieder geval vanuit de Europese Commissie ervoor te zorgen dat die gaten niet ontstaan en dat de 500 miljoen burgers op volledige veiligheid kunnen rekenen?

Laatste punt: criminele organisaties in de grensstreek. We zien steeds vaker dat criminelen onze grenzen nog steeds weten te vinden, ook al zijn ze op papier verdwenen. We moeten meer samenwerken, meer informatie uitwisselen en meer werk maken van grensoverschrijdende confiscatie en bevriezing van bezittingen. Ik zou ertoe willen oproepen het ook mogelijk te maken grensoverschrijdende onderzoeksteams permanent in te zetten om die structurele gevaren aan te pakken. Ik zou graag uw mening daarover willen horen.




  Caterina Chinnici (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, le inchieste sugli attentati più recenti e le dichiarazioni del coordinatore antiterrorismo testimoniano che i processi di reclutamento, in particolare quelli online, si stanno accelerando. Quindi, oltre ad armonizzare il quadro di diritto penale, la vera sfida per un efficace contrasto al terrorismo sarà costituita dalla definizione di una strategia di lunga durata sulla prevenzione della radicalizzazione e la promozione dell'integrazione.

Ma più in generale, credo che tutte le problematiche legate alla sicurezza interna dell'Unione debbano essere affrontate con proposte legislative che impegnino gli Stati ad una concreta, reale cooperazione; penso, in particolare, allo scambio di informazioni – e questo anche nell'ambito della direttiva per il contrasto al terrorismo che, spero, possa consegnarci un testo che contribuisca a spezzare il legame esistente fra criminalità organizzata e gruppi terroristici sempre più consolidato. Necessario è l'aggiornamento della direttiva antiriciclaggio con norme che impediscano ai gruppi terroristici di finanziarsi e necessarie norme specifiche sulla confisca e il congelamento...

(Il Presidente interrompe l'oratrice)


  Kinga Gál (PPE). – Mr President, 82% of Europeans believe that the Union should act more decisively against terrorism, according to our Eurobarometer Survey published this July. There are still many challenges ahead of us. Information exchange has to be stepped up, interoperability of the existing databases must be ensured. It is important that all persons crossing the European Union’s external borders are checked against the relevant databases. In order to keep the Schengen system borderless, we have to prove to our citizens that we are in control of our external borders. More has to be done in order to prevent and fight radicalisation, which is due to failed integration, through the means of the Internet is occurring faster and faster. Security lies at the heart of the European project and there can be no freedom without security.


  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor Presidente, veo una ventaja en la designación del Comisario King como responsable de Seguridad —habiendo ya un responsable de inmigración, el Comisario Avramopoulos—, y es decir con toda claridad que es falsa y profundamente perniciosa para la integración europea esa identificación falaz que pretende que la causa de la inseguridad es la inmigración.

Porque esos discursos que se escuchan aquí a menudo, en este Parlamento Europeo, se aproximan al que escuchamos en el debate constitucional y político de los Estados Unidos ante las elecciones, que protagoniza Donald Trump, que pretende que elevar una frontera o una valla o una barrera contra la inmigración es la garantía contra la inseguridad, mientras defiende la Segunda Enmienda, que ocasiona 30 000 muertos al año por armas de fuego en los Estados Unidos.

No, la causa del terrorismo en Europa no proviene de la inmigración. El terrorismo que más nos ha golpeado en Europa fue perpetrado por ciudadanos que llevaban pasaporte europeo, que residían en capitales europeas y que habitaban entre nosotros. Por lo tanto, la estrategia de seguridad tiene que estar perfectamente distinguida de la estrategia de inmigración.


(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)


  Julian King, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for this first opportunity, following the publication of the first of this series of monthly reports, to have this debate. If, as one or two people have said, this were to become a regular feature in plenary, as far as the Commission is concerned that would be very welcome.

A number of detailed points have been raised in discussion. I am obviously not going to be able to respond to all of those now, but we have taken very careful note and, through this iterative process of reporting and debating, I hope that we will be able to come back and address all of the points that have been raised. I will also have an opportunity myself to go into a little bit of detail on some of these points with the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) early in November.

As Mrs Fajon said, more than 80% of our citizens are looking for more reassurance from EU—level activity in support of our Member States on the security agenda. As Mr Albrecht said, people want to feel more secure and there are a range of things that we can do at EU level to help and support Member States. I am reassured that Mrs Hohlmeier thinks that we are starting to get some things done on terrorism, on cybercrime and on organised crime, as Mrs Ferrara underlined. We need to do what we have collectively agreed. I am in no doubt about that. As Mrs in 't Veld and Mr Deprez, among others, underlined, that is crucial not only because of the importance of the individual measures, but also to reassure people about the credibility of our work in this field.

I am also absolutely convinced that we need to focus on what works and that involves a critical assessment of what we have been doing. Mrs Joly and others underlined that. I take that very seriously. I gave a commitment during my appearance in front of the LIBE Committee that we would work on an evaluation of this policy area, and we will. I agree with Mrs Stevens, Mrs Gomes and others that we need to continue with an intelligent and sustained approach to prevention, as well as taking the fight to terrorism and serious criminality. In all of that I am completely committed to full respect for fundamental rights, because we have a clear objective. Our objective, as many of you have said, is to defend our open societies and that is to act grounded in the rule of law.

I will make two points in response to questions that have come up. On implementation and the particular case of the implementation of PNR underlined by Mrs Sippel and various others, we are not in infringement territory because the transposition date is Spring 2018, but we do need to work together with all the Member States to achieve the common shared objective of effective implementation by that date. To that end, I am going be producing an implementation roadmap in November, which will set out in concrete terms the steps that need to be taken and how we can work together to achieve them.

My last particular point has regard to a number of comments made this morning about the relationship between migration and terrorism. I want to agree one hundred percent with the last speaker, Mr López Aguilar. We should not conflate the challenges associated with migration, on the one hand, with terrorism and the problems it poses on the other. To do so is to play into the hands of Daesh.


  Ivan Korčok, amtierender Ratspräsident. – Herr Präsident! Darf ich damit beginnen, wie ich mich gefreut habe, dass mehrere Abgeordnete einfach anerkannt haben, dass wir Fortschritte im legislativen Bereich gemacht haben. Das hat Frau Hohlmeier gesagt, und dafür möchte ich mich bedanken. Sei es im Bereich Informationsaustausch oder Interoperabilität – mehrmals wurde erwähnt, dass uns die Kommission auf monatlicher Basis eine Aktualisierung gibt, wo wir stehen. Das bringt mich aber dazu, dass ich auch die Stimmen sehr sorgfältig gehört habe, die darauf hingewiesen haben ...

that the implementation is extremely important and therefore the Slovak Presidency wants to assure you that we will not allow ourselves any complacency in this area. That is why we are organising an extraordinary, or additional, Interior Council on 18 November where we will have an exchange of views and try to generate momentum in the whole complexity of this area of security union.

Secondly, radicalisation is extremely important too; we will put it on the agenda of the Educational Council. Here in the area of education I think we need to make progress to face and fight radicalisation. I know also about the interests of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) in having an exchange on radicalisation.

Finally, we are making very good progress when it comes to the directive on combating terrorism, with a good prospect that we will close it towards the end of our Presidency.


  Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 162 GO)


  Robert Jarosław Iwaszkiewicz (EFDD), na piśmie. – Są dwa wektory bezpieczeństwa UE, na które należy zwrócić uwagę: zarówno w kwestii wewnętrznej i zewnętrznej nie da się ich odseparować. W wymiarze wewnętrznym najważniejszym problem jest kryzys związany z kolejnymi falami uchodźców oraz atakami terrorystycznymi. Obie te kwestie są silnie powiązane z kwestiami bezpieczeństwa zagranicznego wokół granic UE. Są to bez wątpienia kwestia fatalnych w skutkach arabskich wiosen i decyzji władz Francji, Wielkiej Brytanii czy Włoch, aby wspierać rebeliantów.

Kolejnym równie ważnym czynnikiem jest wojna hybrydowa, którą Rosja wytoczyła Zachodowi. Nie myślę tu tylko o Ukrainie, lecz również o cyberatakach i dezinformacji skierowanej w kierunku krajów Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, w tym mojej ojczyzny Polski. Dotychczas unijnym instytucjom nie udało się wypracować żadnego rozwiązania na jakiekolwiek z tych zagrożeń – i dobrze, bo takie rozwiązania powstają tylko w ramach państw członkowskich. Bezpieczeństwo było, jest i będzie nieodłączna domeną suwerennych państw. Wbrew marzeniom komunistów, eurosocjalistów i fanatyków europejskiej federacji wspólna polityka bezpieczeństwa nie istnieje.


  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL), písemně. – Přijatá opatření pro zlepšení vnitřní bezpečnosti v EU nejsou veřejností dobře hodnocena. Body programu: informace o pohybu zahraničních teroristických bojovníků, prevence radikalizace a boj proti radikalizaci, sankce proti teroristům, lepší výměna informací a další jsou v pořádku, ale veřejnost negativně vnímá nesmyslnost dalšího z pokusů o kriminalizování držení střelných zbraní. Tento návrh vzbudil u sportovních střelců, myslivců a dalších profesních skupin mnoho oprávněných pochyb o jeho smyslu a účelu. Ochrana občanů a kritických infrastruktur se převtělila v investiční opatření na vstupu do některých veřejných budov. Ve Francii jsou doprovázena mimořádným stavem. V Belgii vidíme na řadě veřejných míst vojáky s automatickými zbraněmi. Úřady se stále snaží zasáhnout do svobody internetu a prohloubit sledování vlastních občanů. Domnívám se, že veřejnost vítá snahu zesílit boj proti financování terorismu a jakýkoliv náznak o posílení ochrany vnějších hranic EU. Na protiteroristických opatřeních je žádoucí spolupracovat nejen se zeměmi v oblasti Středozemního moře. Bez skutečně účinných kroků se totiž vnitřní bezpečnost států EU nezlepší. Komisař pro migraci, vnitřní věci a občanství říká, že EU má být pro své občany prostorem svobody, bezpečnosti a práva bez vnitřních hranic. Bohužel, kroky Evropského soudního dvora, národních soudů a Evropské komise vytvářejí z EU prostor bez vnějších hranic. To chceme?


  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE), písemně. – Tato zpráva představuje něco, co je pro současnou EU velmi důležité, ochranu našich evropských hodnot, demokracie, právního státu a základních práv. Na tom je založeno naše společenství a naše důvěra ve fungování Unie jako celku. Pokud tyto hodnoty nejsou dodržovány, musíme mít účinné nástroje, jak jejich dodržovaní zaručit. K tomu ale nesmí v žádném případě docházet na úkor suverenity členských států, na úkor jejich politické situace, na úkor jejich dobrovolnosti podílet se na projektu Evropské unie. Proto je pro mě v této zprávě zásadní otázka subsidiarity a suverenity členských států. Ty jsou v první instanci těmi, kdo za demokracii, právní stát a základní práva ve své zemi ručí. EU musí v této otázce hrát roli partnera a pomocníka, ne kontrolora, který bude členským státům nařizovat, co a jak dělat. To by bylo samo o sobě nedemokratické.


  Janusz Zemke (S&D), na piśmie. – Rośnie w Unii zagrożenie terrorystyczne, co potwierdza liczba ofiar zamachów. Słusznie zatem zwiększyliśmy kompetencje Europolu i Eurojustu, gdyż skuteczniejsza walka z terrorystami wymaga ożywienia współpracy międzynarodowej. Pozostaje jednak problem kontroli efektywności nowo wprowadzanych rozwiązań. Dla przykładu, po długich dyskusjach zdecydowano, że państwa UE i Stany Zjednoczone będą się wymieniały automatycznie informacjami o pasażerach samolotów. Cóż się jednak dzisiaj okazuje – 11 z 28 państw członkowskich UE nie jest w stanie szybko – ze względów technicznych i organizacyjnych – przekazywać pozostałym państwom informacji o pasażerach samolotów. Powinno to skłaniać nas do ważnej refleksji. Zanim zdecydujemy się na kolejne rozszerzenie uprawnień policji i służb, sprawdźmy najpierw, jak wykorzystywane są dotychczasowe kompetencje. Klucz bowiem nie polega dzisiaj na mnożeniu instrumentów do walki z przestępcami, w tym z terrorystami, lecz na wdrożeniu i optymalnym wykorzystaniu rozwiązań już istniejących.


(Die Sitzung wird für einige Minuten unterbrochen.)



Avviż legali - Politika tal-privatezza