Fuld tekst 
Fuldstændigt Forhandlingsreferat
Onsdag den 15. februar 2017 - Strasbourg Revideret udgave

13. Informationsudveksling om retshåndhævelse i EU og erstatning af instrumenterne fra før Lissabontraktaten (forhandling)
Video af indlæg

  La Présidente. – L’ordre du jour appelle le débat sur la déclaration du Conseil et de la Commission sur l’échange d’informations en matière répressive dans l’Union et le remplacement des instruments antérieurs au traité de Lisbonne (2017/2504(RSP)).


  Ian Borg, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, strengthening the exchange of information is one of the measures which were agreed by the Council as a response to the terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels. Besides the enormous importance of collecting information, it is equally important to join up the dots and make the best use of the information.

Last June, the need to address the issue led the Council to endorse a roadmap on information exchange and information management in the Justice and Home Affairs area, including interoperability solutions. The roadmap contains no less than 50 practical short and medium—term actions and long—term orientations. The implementation of those actions is monitored by the Standing Committee on Operational Cooperation on Internal Security. The essence of the roadmap is to make sure that the practitioners have access to the information they need. It provides a coherent framework for a more integrated EU information architecture in the Justice and Home Affairs area. This must obviously happen in full respect of fundamental rights and data protection rules.

Improving information exchange and implementing the roadmap has been a priority of the previous Presidencies and it continues to be a priority for our Presidency. I believe that, based on available statistics, it is fair to say that there has been substantive progress in increasing the information exchange, both among the Member States and with Europol, over the past year. Let me give you some figures to demonstrate this point. For instance, in the third quarter of 2016, more than 200 000 messages were exchanged via the Secure Information Exchange Network Application amongst the Member States, and between the Member States and Europol. This is an increase of 16% compared to the same quarter of the year before, 2015. Regarding new cases, nearly 11 000 new cases were initiated via the same network application in the third quarter of 2016, which amounts to an increase of 6% compared to 2015.

As regards the use of Europol’s databases, both the input of data and the number of searches in the Europol information system substantially increased in 2016. The number of searches conducted in this database even set a new record in the third quarter of last year, reaching more than one million searches for the first time. I am aware of the fact that using the existing tools is only one part of the process. The implementation of many of the actions of the roadmap and achieving interoperability of information systems will require certain legislative changes. Important work in this direction is ongoing in the high—level expert group which the Commission set up last April and in which the European Parliament participates. Once the group’s report is presented to Parliament and the Council in April, our common role as co-legislators will be crucial when addressing some of the challenges ahead.

Regarding the various legal instruments, I would like to make the following points. Regarding the exchange of information on terrorism offences, the Council, throughout the negotiations last year on the Counter—Terrorism Directive, was actively engaged in seeking a compromise with Parliament on strengthening the exchange of information. I am glad that Parliament has just had a debate on the directive and will vote on it tomorrow. I would like once again to thank Ms Hohlmeier and her colleagues for their work on the directive.

The directive will strengthen the European Union’s legal framework to prevent terrorist attacks, notably by criminalising acts such as training or travelling for terrorist purposes, and it also reinforces the rights of the victims. This morning we had the opportunity to address the media, together with the rapporteur and Commissioner King, on the expectation that tomorrow’s vote on this directive would now pave the way to its adoption. The political agreement on the directive envisages that Member States will be obliged to exchange relevant information gathered in criminal proceedings wherever such information could be used in the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences, and irrespective of whether there has been a request to that effect.

To ensure better compliance by Member States, an explicit obligation for the receiving competent authorities to take active follow-up measures on such information is also introduced. At the same time Parliament, the Council and the Commission agreed that to ensure efficient and timely exchange of information on terrorism, measures in a broader policy context are necessary. In a joint statement the three institutions underlined the necessity of making full use of all the existing Union instruments, channels and agencies to exchange information. A swift implementation of all adopted Union legislation in this field is key.

Madam President, I will stop here – though I can see that in the time that I have been addressing the House, it is no longer Madam President but Mr President – and I now look forward to listening to your debate in the House and responding later.




  Julian King, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for this opportunity to discuss this question of EU law enforcement information exchange. Forgive me in advance if some of this gets a bit technical. I know that there are many experts here who can match, indeed far exceed, my technical expertise.

EU Member States are in the front line for dealing with many of these issues to do with tackling terrorism, security, and law enforcement. But we can, and should, do all we can at the EU level to help and assist and support EU Member States and EU Member States’ agencies. Information sharing is a key part of that, as we all recognise, and indeed the Member States and their agencies recognise.

Unfortunately, and we have already talked about this in earlier discussions this afternoon, some of the recent attacks have shown some weaknesses in the way that information is currently being shared across the European Union and, more generally, in the way that some of these systems are operating currently, including how they operate with each other. The Commission has consistently called on Member States to exploit fully the potential of the existing information systems at EU level. And we work to support the Member States in doing this with funding, expertise and by getting them to share best practice.

As I have said on several occasions before this House, EU instruments can only bring added value on the ground, if and when they are fully implemented by the Member States and applied in practice. This is why a key aspect of our work towards an effective and sustainable security union is better application and implementation of existing EU instruments. It is one of the pillars of our work towards a stronger and smarter set of information systems and greater interoperability; it is a key part of the work of the high-level expert group to assess various options and make recommendations to that end.

The Commission assists Member States in every possible way to ensure the proper implementation of our agreements, but where necessary we do not shy away from enforcing the law, including the use of infringement procedures.

Let me turn to some of the key instruments and give you a brief update on where we stand in terms of their implementation and their use. The main instrument, we have already touched upon it earlier this afternoon, that I am going to address, is the Schengen Information System (SIS). It is the most widely used information-sharing system in Europe and I believe it is a real operational success, thanks in part to our collective – and I include very much the work of the Parliament here – support and work to raise awareness. There is a clear upward trend in the way Member States are using the SIS. To take just one example, there has been a significant increase in checks by, and involvement of Member State security services with this system. An 800% increase in the discreet and specific check alerts issued by those services over the last two years. So I believe we are moving in the right direction, but there is still a long way to go. We need to make technical and operational improvements to the SIS if it is to become more effective and efficient, as we all want.

That is why, as I have just said in finishing the last debate, in December, the Commission presented a set of proposals to improve the technical functioning of SIS, to streamline national processes and to strengthen data protection by introducing additional safeguards. In doing so, we propose to turn the current Council decisions on the SIS – which are pre-Lisbon instruments and part of the so-called former third pillar – into regulations to be adopted under the ordinary legislative procedures.

From the various improvements tabled I would highlight one in particular: for the first time, we propose to make it obligatory for Member States to issue alerts in SIS for persons related to terrorist offences. I hope you will support that and we stand ready to examine whether such mandatory obligations for information-sharing could/should be introduced for other EU databases. It is important that the co-legislators work together for the swift adoption of these proposed measures.

In parallel we are continuing to work with the Member States to ensure the full implementation and effective use of all of our information exchange tools. One well-known tool is the Prüm framework for exchanging data regarding DNA, fingerprints and vehicle registration, and for enhancing cross-border cooperation against crime and terrorism. We are focused on getting to full implementation of this system, which, as you know, was agreed some years ago. Despite all the efforts we have made collectively there are five Member States that still do not comply with the requirements of the Prüm Decision. That is why, for the first time in relation to a former third-pillar instrument, infringement proceedings were launched in September last year. All five Member States have responded; we are looking at their replies and, in the light of those, we will need to take a decision on next steps. We have also got the high-level expert working group looking into the challenge of strengthening and improving the functioning of Prüm cooperation.

Another instrument that I want to pause on is the Council framework decision referred to as ‘the Swedish initiative’, well known to you here. It provides a common legal framework for the effective and expeditious exchange of information and criminal intelligence between Member States’ law enforcement authorities. Now good progress has been made, and only one Member State has not notified transposition. But some Member States use the Swedish framework decision more extensively than others – to put it politely – and overall there remains room for improvement. That is why the Commission is currently looking at the Member States’ use of the Swedish initiative and why we plan to launch a compliance study to look into this in more detail. It will help us to determine what is needed to ensure a better use of this important instrument.

The last instrument I want to pause on is Council decision 2005/671 on the exchange of information on terrorist offences. This legislation, again well-known to you, requires Member States to designate contact points with responsibility for sending information on terrorist offences to Europol and Eurojust. It defines a minimum base for what types of information should be shared with the two agencies. It requires Member States to transmit information on terrorist offences to Eurojust, Europol and other Member States concerned, unless this would jeopardise ongoing investigations. Information sharing with Europol and Eurojust has increased significantly over the last year. For instance, the number of foreign terrorist fighters communicated to Europol and entered into its Europol information system increased from 3 740 entries in December 2015 to 7 884 entries in December 2016.

The volume of data concerning foreign terrorist fighters shared with Europol’s Focal Point Travellers – Europol’s specialist team of analysts and experts who work on analysing information around foreign terrorist fighters – increased almost threefold over the course of 2016. Now I take this progress to be encouraging, but the level of engagement still differs between different Member States. The obligations in the Council decision will be strengthened through the Directive on combating terrorism which you are voting on tomorrow. Thanks to the work of the Parliament, the Directive will make the exchange of information mandatory and include an obligation for the receiving Member State to take appropriate action when they get information.

Finally, let me say a few words about our work on information systems and interoperability and the preparatory work at senior officials level that is currently being done by the high-level expert group. President Juncker’s State of the Union address in September and the European Council conclusions of December, refer to the importance of overcoming the current shortcomings in information management and improving the interoperability and interconnection between existing information systems.

To accelerate the work of the high-level expert group, the chairman presented an interim report last December. We discussed the findings with some of you in the LIBE Committee in January and I look forward to continuing a discussion on this important subject.

Today I would just like briefly to refer to the interim report’s recommendations. First, the Group suggests ways to improve data quality in EU Information Systems. The Commission welcomes this, as information systems are really only as effective as the quality of the data they hold and we intend to pursue the proposals put forward by the Group.

Second, the Group proposes to look at a European portal capable of searching simultaneously all relevant EU databases to which the person conducting the search has access rights. Again this would seek to make better use of existing systems in full compliance with existing rules on access, the use of data and data protection rules. I think it is a good suggestion which I commend to you.

More generally the process we initiated last year with a strategy presented in April, the setting-up of the high-level expert group, allows us to address shortcomings in the EU information systems in an inclusive and transparent way. The high-level expert group will present its final report later this spring, and, on this basis, the Commission will consider if, and if so what, further measures might increase the effectiveness and help address the current security threats. Any proposals – I think it goes without saying – for amending the existing legal framework will of course need to be taken forward with you in the normal way. On that and indeed all of these issues to do with information exchange, I look forward to continuing the close dialogue that we have between the Commission and the Parliament because these subjects merit it.


  Monika Hohlmeier, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Ratspräsidentschaft! Ich bedanke mich erst einmal für die sehr ausführlichen Antworten.

Trotzdem will ich ein paar kritische Nachfragen stellen. Erst einmal empfinde ich es als sehr gut, dass wir uns über den Ersatz der pre-Lisbon instruments unterhalten, denn seit dem Lissabon-Vertrag haben wir Mitbestimmung im Europäischen Parlament in diesen Fragen. Es ist notwendig, der Terrorismusrichtlinie, die wir morgen verabschieden werden, weitere rechtliche Instrumente in der Umsetzung folgen zu lassen. Wir unterhalten uns derzeit sehr stark und berechtigt über das Thema Terrorismus. Wir haben jedoch auch andere Formen der internationalen Schwerkriminalität – im Besonderen der organisierten Kriminalität –, die sich zum Teil gemeinsam mit Terrornetzwerken fazilitieren, gegenseitig unterstützen und damit zum Teil auch staatsgefährdende Formen entwickeln.

Ich halte es für besonders wichtig, dass wir uns erstens beim Thema Informationsaustausch vergewissern, dass tatsächlich alle Mitgliedstaaten Informationen einspeisen, dass die Informationen analysiert werden – zunächst auf nationaler Ebene, dann zusammengeführt auf europäischer Ebene – und dass wir der Analyse von Informationen deutlich mehr manpower und auch technische Ausstattung zukommen lassen, denn der präzisen Analyse von Informationen ist es zu verdanken, wenn wir schwere Straftaten verhindern können, und nicht ausschließlich dem bloßen Ansammeln von Informationen.

Als Zweites halte ich es für sehr wesentlich, dass wir auch die Dateneinspeisung in das SIS gewährleisten. Es sind jetzt Jahre, dass wir darüber diskutieren, und es gibt immer noch welche, die nicht einspeisen – ich möchte es nicht glauben! Aber langsam sollte es der Letzte begriffen haben. Des Weiteren wäre eine gemeinsame Liste der Gefährder notwendig, und es wäre ganz wesentlich, die Joint Investigation Teams mit weniger Bürokratie und mehr Geld zu versorgen, damit wir grenzüberschreitend mehr Zusammenarbeit haben und weniger ineffektive bürokratische Strukturen.


  Claude Moraes, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his comprehensive assessment. Commissioner, you mention that colleagues here can match you for technical detail. Sadly, we cannot match you for speaking time, so I am only going to identify one or two of the issues that you spread over 12 to 14 minutes.

Ms Hohlmeier mentioned the pre-Lisbon instruments. Let me say first of all that we must be there; this is why Ms Hohlmeier mentioned the pre-Lisbon instruments. I want to say to Mr Borg: thank you to your JHA Council for keeping up the pressure, and we as a Parliament will want to see the Council face to face, because this is very much about the Member States.

The Commissioner mentioned the Prüm Convention. I only have two minutes, so let me mention the Prüm Convention. In terms of intelligence cooperation this, as the Commissioner mentioned, is the building blocks, the vehicle licensing, the DNA databases. All of the things he said were correct: evaluation, implementation, ensuring that there is cooperation, and ensuring at the bottom of this that there are fundamental rights, the Police Directive. But in the end, if the Member States are not willing to share the basic information, as we saw with the Prüm Convention and as we now see with continuing infringement procedures by the Commission, then we don’t have the genuine sharing of intelligence and police information, and that is the problem.

So, before we have any new legislation or any new avenues, we must have a proper structure in sharing of information which has all of these elements together, which takes the valuable private information of individuals to fight the crime or terrorism that invades our fundamental freedoms. This is the really important area when we see record numbers of searches on the SIS database, when we see records being made on the Europol searches, all of the things that the Commissioner mentioned. The High Level Working Group on Interoperability is now one of the key challenges for us.

I think Parliament is doing its work. There are experts here. In fact, the small number of Members here in the Chamber now are experts, as you as you rightly identified. We are doing our work to ensure that this balance is created, but the key, as the Commissioner said, is implementation and evaluation, and of course we will do our work in relation to fundamental rights. This is such an important area because as soon as there is a terrorist attack, everyone says: have we had the intelligence-sharing? We need to answer, intelligently and with practicality in this House, that we have also done our job.


  Helga Stevens, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Momenteel moet slechts in uitzonderlijke gevallen informatie worden gedeeld. Maar gezien de veranderde veiligheidssituatie is het de vraag of de uitwisseling van informatie tussen lidstaten aangaande terreur en zware criminaliteit vrijblijvend moet blijven. Mijn partij is voorstander van een doorgedreven informatie-uitwisseling omdat het de veiligheid bevordert. Daarnet hadden wij het over de grensbewakingsverordening, waarmee systematische checks worden ingevoerd voor iedereen die de Europese Unie binnenkomt of verlaat, onder meer via internationale luchthavens. De bedoeling is om zowel EU- als niet-EU-burgers te onderwerpen aan een screening door het raadplegen van de EU-databanken, zoals het SIS-systeem, en internationale databanken, zoals het SLTD-systeem. Het spreekt voor zich dat die databanken relevante data moeten bevatten.

Daarnaast verplicht de anti-terreurrichtlijn waarover morgen wordt gestemd de lidstaten om relevante inlichtingen inzake strafonderzoeken te delen met andere EU-landen. De uniforme definities voor terreurmisdrijven moeten dat ook vergemakkelijken.

Tegelijkertijd begrijpen wij dat inlichtingendiensten misschien net minder informatie zullen uitwisselen indien zij verplicht worden werkelijk alles te delen met de landen die zij niet volledig vertrouwen. Dat de Raad nu denkt aan een richtlijn voor een strikter rechtskader voor de uitwisseling van informatie en inlichtingen tussen rechtshandhavingsinstanties op het niveau van de Unie, is alvast een interessante optie. Het is echt van belang om tot een evenwichtige en breed gedragen oplossing te komen.


  Gérard Deprez, au nom du groupe ALDE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Ministre, Monsieur le Commissaire, nous convenons tous que l’échange d’informations est essentiel.

Monsieur le Commissaire, je ne vais pas parler technique aujourd’hui. Vous nous avez donné une leçon, je ne vais donc pas m’aventurer aussi loin.

Je ne conteste pas les progrès qui ont été enregistrés ces dernières années dans l’échange d’informations mais, Présidence du Conseil, c’est bien la moindre des choses après les événements que nous avons connus. L’augmentation qui est constatée montre bien à quel point c’était insuffisant antérieurement. Par conséquent, la nécessité reste la même et les quelques progrès accomplis ne sont pas suffisants.

Je prends bonne note, par ailleurs, de ce qu’a dit le commissaire – et je m’en réjouis – en ce qui concerne la création du groupe de haut niveau sur l’interopérabilité. Il est quand même extraordinaire, Monsieur le Commissaire, qu’il ait fallu attendre la création de dix à douze systèmes de collecte d’informations au niveau européen, dans des matières très différentes, avant qu’on ne se préoccupe véritablement, de manière systémique, de leur interopérabilité. Ce n’est pas une critique, vous n’en êtes pas responsable.

Par ailleurs, je veux saluer, avec insistance, la proposition de la Commission, qui vise à rendre obligatoire le signalement des personnes suspectées de terrorisme dans le système d’information Schengen. Mais ce n’est pas suffisant, tout le monde en convient. Cette obligation ne concerne qu’une seule banque de données, le SIS, et une seule catégorie de personnes suspectées, les terroristes. Est-ce que je me trompe, Monsieur le Commissaire?

D’autre part, la base à partir de laquelle fonctionnent toujours les services répressifs en matière d’information est antérieure à Lisbonne. Nous sommes toujours dans le pré-Lisbonne. Or, la période transitoire pour les actions dans le domaine de l’échange d’informations, telle qu’elle est énoncée dans le protocole 36 des traités de l’Union européenne, a expiré le 1er décembre 2014, Monsieur le Commissaire, et il est prévu, dans la déclaration 50 qui y est jointe, que le Parlement européen, le Conseil et la Commission vont chercher à adopter des actes juridiques modifiant ou remplaçant les actes de l’Union qui ont été adoptés avant l’entrée en vigueur du traité de Lisbonne.

Alors, Monsieur le Commissaire, à quand cette proposition?


  Cornelia Ernst, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Wenn wir über Terrorismusbekämpfung reden, dann müssen wir natürlich auch über den Datenaustausch sprechen und darüber, wie die beiden Council decisions aus 2005 und 2006 tatsächlich umgesetzt werden. Und siehe da: Bei den meisten Terroranschlägen der letzten Zeit zeigt sich, dass es genau daran mangelt. Irgendwelche Verdächtigen sind schon ganz lange verdächtig, werden dann inhaftiert, mangels Beweisen wieder rausgelassen, um irgendwann doch an Tatorten aufzutauchen. Der notwendige Datenaustausch – das wissen wir doch – funktioniert nicht vorne und nicht hinten.

Ich frage mich, wieso einer in einem Land der EU als Terrorverdächtiger bekannt ist und das andere Nachbarland das nicht weiß. Bleiben drei Möglichkeiten: Entweder – und das haben Sie ja gesagt, Mister King – die Mitgliedstaaten setzen EU-Recht nicht richtig um, oder die Informationen, die getauscht werden, sind die falschen, oder beides. Genau deshalb brauchen wir dazu eine umfassende qualitative Evaluierung der bestehenden Instrumente auch in den Mitgliedstaaten. Und es geht darum, nicht massenhaft noch mehr Datenbanken zu erstellen, noch mehr Daten anzusammeln, sondern einen gezielten Austausch hinzubekommen. Nur so kommen wir voran – und das ist das, was wir fordern.


  Jan Philipp Albrecht, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, Commissioner King, it is exactly what you have outlined here: the better use of the existing infrastructure that we have in place, especially when it comes to the Europol Information System, the Schengen Information System, and those databases which we already have in place for the exchange of information on risks and on suspects. That is what we have to improve and I really appreciate that you are taking this on your agenda and I would really see that Member States are supporting you in making better use of these systems.

Because what we have been talking about for years is very often the wrong way, to say that the systems are too few, that there should be more systems in place, that there should be more pots of data in place, because we have just been saying that more data would do the trick. But the point is that very often we have the data, as has been said often in this debate, and it is not being used. One case we saw recently was the Berlin attacker who was very well known to the intelligence services in Germany at least, and who, even after this attack in Berlin, was fleeing through some Member States, even France which is in a state of emergency, with a weapon in his hand, and I think that shows very much that we have to divert away from spending big money into new systems, rather than investing, and that should be our focus in the cooperation between the police authorities, for example in the field of joint investigation teams with Europol.


  Dubravka Šuica (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, ima li bolje teme od ove za dokazati kako nijedna država članica ne može sama, kako moramo surađivati, kako nas je problem migracija i terorizma pozvao na suradnju. Ne samo da države članice nisu razmjenjivale podatke, ne da pokrajine nisu razmjenjivale podatke, nego čak neke gradske četvrti nisu međusobno surađivale, ako se sjetimo posljednjih terorističkih napada. To je pitanje koje moramo svi samima sebi postaviti. Danas smo ovdje čuli da želimo manje birokracije, ali ipak više tehnike i da se ne smijemo opet svi zaplesti u novu birokraciju, nove sustave. Imamo puno različitih sustava, ali ne radimo na njihovoj interoperabilnosti. To je ono što želimo poručiti danas i Komisiji i Vijeću ‒ interoperabilnost je neophodna.

Mi, kao Europski parlament, nakon Lisabonskog sporazuma dobili smo pravo suodlučivanja i na nama je ta odgovornost, ali isto tako veća je odgovornost na državama članicama i danas se postavlja pitanje što je to schengenski sustav, što je to SIS, na koji način razmišljamo o onim zemljama koje jesu države članice, a koje nisu dijelom schengenskog sustava.

Konkretno, dolazim iz Hrvatske, radimo sve da ispunimo sve kriterije, čekamo evaluaciju i želimo biti dio tog sustava kako bismo ravnopravno surađivali i ravnopravno mijenjali podatke. To je tema koju danas možda treba otvoriti, kako pet zemalja još uvijek ne razmjenjuje podatke, ali tako i pet zemalja još uvijek nisu članice tog sustava, pozivam i Komisiju i Vijeće, a i članove određenih odbora u ovom Parlamentu, da nam pomognu da postanemo dijelom tog sustava kako bismo zajedno surađivali i razmjenjivali podatke koji su obveza. Pozdravljam novu Direktivu koju ćemo sutra usvojiti.


  Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Mr President, after the terrorist attacks in the United States of America, the European Council stated at its extraordinary meeting in September 2001 that terrorism is a real challenge to the world and to Europe, and that the fight against terrorism would be a priority objective of the European Union. The Council decided to increase cooperation between Europol, Eurojust, the EU intelligence services and police forces, and adopted some decisions.

Although the situation in the EU has changed since that time, the current legal framework at European Union level for the exchange of information and intelligence is still mostly subject to pre—Lisbon instruments. The EU Treaties enable the adoption of legal acts amending or replacing the acts of the Union in the fields of police cooperation and cooperation in criminal matters which were adopted before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

After numerous terrorist attacks in Europe, the European Council promised to make some changes and to improve the exchange of information to address the current security challenges facing the EU. So we need change to strengthen the legal framework for the exchange of law enforcement and intelligence information at European Union level and we need Parliament’s participation in this process.


  Jeroen Lenaers (PPE). – Na iedere terroristische aanslag in Europa horen we achteraf dat de samenwerking en het delen van informatie tussen lidstaten, tussen veiligheidsdiensten van lidstaten, niet optimaal was. We hebben hier vanuit het Europees Parlement dan ook regelmatig een oproep gedaan aan de lidstaten om actie te ondernemen op dit gebied. Dat is heel terecht. Het gebrek aan samenwerking tussen lidstaten verslechtert het gevoel van veiligheid voor onze burgers en er is ook al heel wat gebeurd. De Commissaris wijst terecht ook op het Prüm-systeem en Claude Moraes, onze collega, noemde dat ook als een hoeksteen van die uitwisseling. Tegelijkertijd hoor ik van veel mensen uit de praktijk dat het Prüm-systeem verouderd en langzaam is en ik zou graag vragen aan de Commissaris of hij daar iets over kan zeggen.

Maar er is meer gebeurd. We hebben de artikelen over het delen van gegevens in de terrorismerichtlijn waarover we morgen stemmen. We hebben dezelfde artikelen in de PNR-richtlijn. We zien - dat merkte de Commissaris terecht op - een toename in het delen van gegevens via Europol. We werken aan de interoperabiliteit. Dat is allemaal heel goed maar het is niet genoeg en het feit dat wij nog steeds werken met Raadsbesluiten uit 2005, 11-12 jaar geleden, zegt eigenlijk alles. We kunnen niet de terreur van morgen bestrijden met de instrumenten van gisteren. We moeten actie ondernemen en we zullen daarbij moeten leren van onze fouten. En om te leren van onze fouten zullen we die fouten moeten onderzoeken.

Gezien het transnationale karakter van veel van de aanslagen die in de afgelopen jaren gepleegd zijn, zou zo'n onderzoek op Europees niveau moeten plaatsvinden. Ik ben dan ook een grote voorstander van het voorstel van Manfred Weber om vanuit het Europees Parlement zo'n onderzoekscommissie op te richten en ik vraag aan alle collega’s om dat ook van harte te ondersteunen.


  Daniel Buda (PPE). – Domnule președinte, adoptarea Tratatului de la Lisabona a însemnat cel mai important pas pentru reformarea și consolidarea Uniunii Europene de la înființarea acesteia.

În același timp, realitățile din zilele noastre ne demonstrează că există însă restanțe din partea statelor membre, care creează dificultăți majore în vederea îndeplinirii angajamentelor și obligațiilor asumate pentru asigurarea securității și stabilității la nivelul Uniunii Europene.

Recentele atacuri armate din diverse orașe și capitale din interiorul Uniunii ne arată că terorismul a devenit o reală amenințare pentru viața și securitatea cetățenilor Uniunii Europene.

Răspunsul la această problemă trebuie să cunoască o abordare transfrontalieră, iar, în acest sens, autoritățile din statele membre trebuie să aibă acces într-un termen cât mai scurt posibil la date relevante incluse în dosare, la documente, elemente de informare, obiecte sau alte mijloace de probă reținute în legătură cu infracțiunile de terorism comise în alt stat membru.

Instituțiile Uniunii Europene trebuie să depună toate eforturile în vederea creării unor instrumente actualizate și adoptării unui cadru juridic eficient, riguros și armonizat.

Acestea trebuie să responsabilizeze statele membre în vederea îndeplinirii obligațiilor instituite în sarcina lor și anume aceea de a furniza reciproc informații privind infracțiuni de terorism și nu numai și, subliniez, nu numai, care să permită luarea deciziilor în timp real.

Doar prin consolidarea cadrului juridic al Uniunii și a cooperării dintre statele membre se va putea combate terorismul în toate formele sale, asigurându-se, totodată, respectarea unui drept fundamental al unui cetățean și anume dreptul la viață.


Zgłoszenia z sali


  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane komisaři, já jsem velmi pozorně poslouchal Vaše vystoupení, které bylo opravdu rozsáhlé a kvalitní, a děkuji za něj, nicméně celá ta debata, která zde probíhala, jasně ukázala, že klíčovým problémem je neochota jednotlivých členských států sdílet informace. To si myslím, že je asi největší problém, a i když zítra přijmeme směrnici, která stanoví nové povinnosti pro členské státy, tak se domnívám, že je třeba, aby Komise a Rada permanentně tlačily na členské státy a upozorňovaly na to, že bez ochoty jednotlivých států žádný sebelepší systém fungovat nebude. To je zkrátka realita a jakéhokoliv přijetí nových předpisů tu situaci bez ochoty členských států nevyřeší.

Osobně jsem chtěl vyzdvihnout otázky Europolu a jeho nového protiteroristického centra, jak vnímám první výsledky, a Vy jste to také zmiňoval, toto centrum začíná dobře fungovat a narůstá množství informací, které jsou takto vyměňovány. Proto prosím o větší finanční podporu tohoto institutu.


  Cristian-Silviu Buşoi (PPE). – Mr President, Mr Borg, Commissioner King, the European Union’s area of freedom, security and justice was created to ensure free movement of persons and to provide its citizens with a high level of security. In recent years terrorism has become a real challenge to the world and to Europe. Therefore, to make the fight against terrorism a priority objective of the European Union, as the Council stated many times, requires better collaboration between Europol, Eurojust and Member States’ intelligence services.

I agree with Commissioner King that some of the recent terrorist attacks showed the weaknesses in the sharing of information between Member States. Information exchange needs to be improved at their level in order to facilitate the performance of EU bodies. In this matter, the role of the European Parliament as a co-legislator is more than necessary in improving the legal framework to ensure that certain information vital for law enforcement authorities is exchanged in good time within the Union, but of course, not forgetting data protection.


  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il Consiglio europeo ha più volte ribadito il suo impegno a migliorare lo scambio di informazioni al fine di affrontare le attuali sfide in termini di sicurezza cui l'Unione europea deve far fronte.

Tuttavia, il quadro giuridico attualmente in vigore per tale scambio tra le autorità incaricate, compreso lo scambio di informazioni in materia di reati terroristici, è ancora in gran parte sottoposto a strumenti precedenti al trattato di Lisbona. La lentezza con cui l'Unione sta lavorando in materia di prevenzione non è ammissibile, specie in un momento storico in cui i cittadini europei avvertono maggiormente il bisogno di sicurezza.

Ritengo indispensabile che la Commissione agisca con risolutezza, avviando una procedura di infrazione nei confronti degli Stati membri reticenti nella condivisione delle informazioni a cui sono obbligati dall'attuale quadro giuridico, e nel frattempo avanzi un'ambiziosa proposta di direttiva volta a garantire un quadro giuridico conforme e più rigoroso per lo scambio di informazioni in materia di applicazione della legge e di intelligence a livello di Unione.


  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, τα θέματα εσωτερικής ασφάλειας και δημόσιας τάξης, όπως είναι η αντιμετώπιση της τρομοκρατίας, ανήκουν στην αποκλειστική αρμοδιότητα των κρατών μελών της Ένωσης. Ταυτόχρονα, είναι δεδομένο ότι κατά τη συγκέντρωση στοιχείων πρέπει να τηρούνται οι συνταγματικές προϋποθέσεις που υπάρχουν σε κάθε κράτος και βεβαίως να διασφαλίζεται η προστασία των ιδιωτικών δικαιωμάτων. Φυσικά, η ανταλλαγή πληροφοριών μεταξύ των κρατών μελών είναι ιδιαίτερα χρήσιμη. Δεν θα πρέπει να ξεχνούμε ότι το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο έχει επανειλημμένα τονίσει την ανάγκη να βελτιωθεί η ανταλλαγή πληροφοριών, κυρίως στον τομέα της επιβολής του νόμου, ενώ προβλέπεται επίσης και η ενίσχυση του προϋπολογισμού της Ευρωπαϊκής Αστυνομικής Υπηρεσίας. Είναι δεδομένο ότι το ισχύον ενωσιακό δίκαιο για την ανταλλαγή πληροφοριών πρέπει να εκσυγχρονιστεί και σε αυτό το πλαίσιο γίνεται και η παρούσα συζήτηση, διότι μέχρι σήμερα συγκαταλέγεται στα μέσα που προϋπήρχαν της Συνθήκης της Λισαβόνας. Επομένως, είναι σημαντική η ανταλλαγή πληροφοριών, είναι σημαντική και η παρέμβαση της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής και της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, υπό τον όρο όμως της τήρησης των προϋποθέσεων που έχουν σχέση με τα θέματα της προστασίας των ιδιωτικών συμφερόντων.


  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, comisario King, de reforzar el intercambio de información disponible entre agencias policiales y judiciales para combatir mejor la amenaza terrorista hemos hablado mucho esta tarde en el Parlamento Europeo, y quiero decir dos cosas con total concisión.

La primera: hay que reforzar la interoperabilidad, porque tenemos el SIE, el SIS (primera y segunda generación), tenemos PNR y ninguna inversión será bastante si no garantizamos la disponibilidad de toda la información y la voluntad política de las autoridades policiales y judiciales para compartirla.

Y la segunda, jurídica: hace tiempo que caducó el período de cinco años establecido por el propio Tratado de Lisboa para adaptar a Lisboa todo el instrumental de cooperación en materia de información previsto en las Decisiones de 2005 y la Decisión marco de 2006.

Por eso es imprescindible, primero, que la Comisión ofrezca una evaluación de incumplimiento y exija el cumplimiento de esos instrumentos previos a Lisboa.

Pero, en segundo lugar, que garantice la adecuación definitiva de esa Decisión de 2005 y de la de 2006 —la Decisión marco— al Tratado de Lisboa con plena garantía de los derechos fundamentales de los europeos.


  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule Borg, domnule comisar, eforturile de prevenire și combatere a terorismului trebuie să se intensifice, suntem cu toții de acord, având în vedere atacurile din ultimul an.

Prezentul raport este binevenit, dar este esențială implementarea măsurilor și colaborarea între statele membre. Așa cum se arată și în raport, lupta împotriva terorismului este o luptă la nivel mondial și Uniunea Europeană nu poate aborda și câștiga de una singură.

Comunicarea și transmiterea informațiilor este importantă, dar nu și suficientă. Rezoluția Consiliului de securitate ONU din 2014 le impune statelor membre obligația de a incrimina anumite infracțiuni legate de terorism și trebuie, domnule comisar, să urmăriți acest lucru dacă se aplică.

Ați vorbit de sistemul de informare Schengen, e foarte bine. Problema e că noi avem granițele Uniunii Europene și în afara spațiului Schengen și trebuie să faceți tot ce este posibil ca și statele care nu sunt în Schengen să intre în schimbul de informații, pentru că, până la urmă, trecerea teroriștilor e transfrontalieră și noi trebuie să ne preocupăm de granița Uniunii Europene.

Sper, totuși, că vom face pași pentru a combate terorismul și a asigura pacea în lume, pentru că pacea salvează vieți omenești.


  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D). – Mr President, Council decisions on data exchange between Member States should take into account the provisions as agreed in the Lisbon Treaty. This should have been done years ago, but unfortunately nothing has been done yet. This matter is of utmost importance for the security of European citizens. There is an urgent need to improve information sharing among and between the Member States, and for instruments such as the new so-called Police Directive on data protection, providing a high level structure for information exchange. I believe it is important to ensure fundamental rights protection as well, the necessity and proportionality of what is exchanged, and the data protection and privacy issues on how the data is exchanged and between whom – speaking now about the respective institutions.


(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)


  Julian King, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I shall follow the discipline of previous speakers. We are all agreed that it is absolutely crucial that we fully exploit the potential of existing information systems at EU level, and that means making sure that all Member States implement what they have agreed to do and that we also find ways of encouraging the effective use of these tools by frontline practitioners on the ground, with effective cooperation between police, border guards and immigration officers.

For me, implementation is absolutely the priority, and that applies whether the instrument in question is a pre-Lisbon instrument or one that has been adopted since by Parliament and the Council. To support that implementation, we have funding: we have the Internal Security Fund (ISF), which continues to fund national programmes in this area, and we have extra funding that has been dedicated to supporting the agencies, notably Europol to reinforce staffing for the new European Counter Terrorism Centre (ECTC). We have expertise and we have the sharing of best practice. We will continue to support all of those means.

We will also continue to look at what we need to do to plan for the future and to adapt the information tools we have to make them as effective as possible, and that applies to the Prüm Convention as well, although I have to say, in direct response to a direct question, that right now, as of today, we do not have a proposal on Lisbonisation. That question remains open, and if that can help effective implementation we will certainly examine it.

You, the European Parliament, continue to play an absolutely key role because, as today’s debate has shown, you rightly point the finger at areas where further improvement is needed, and that helps maintain pressure. It maintains pressure on the Member States, as we have been discussing, but, frankly, it also maintains pressure on the Commission to continue the important work on implementation that we have all agreed is at the heart of making progress.


  Przewodniczący. – Bardzo dziękuję, panie komisarzu za taki, jak pan się wyraził, zdyscyplinowany sposób, ale te wymogi dyscypliny pana nie dotyczą. Tym niemniej dziękuję, to było bardzo uprzejme z pana strony.

Panie ministrze, pana restrykcje czasowe też nie dotyczą.


   You are free to take as much time as you wish. However, we would be grateful for a comprehensive summary.


  Ian Borg, President fil-Kariga tal-Kunsill. – Jiena wkoll insegwi l-istruzzjoni tiegħek. Ħadt pjaċir nisma’, l-ewwel nett lill-Kummissarju, illi ta spjegazzjoni dettaljata tal-ħidma li qiegħda ssir, anke mill-aspett tal-Kummissjoni Ewropea u b’mod partikolari lilkom, il-Membri, li kollha, ovvjament, nifhem anke s-sentiment u napprezza s-sentiment tal-argumenti tagħkom. Kienu interventi interessanti kollha kemm huma. Segwejt b’attenzjoni kemm tal-Onorevoli Hohlmeier kif ukoll anke tal-Onorevoli Moraes u tal-Membri kollha, però dawk b’mod partikolari.

Qabel xejn nibdew billi nserrħu ras din il-Kamra li l-Kunsill huwa kommess sabiex ikompli mhux biss jara l-implimentazzjoni tar-"roadmap", imma anke biex naħdmu flimkien sabiex intejbu anke aktar qsim tal-informazzjoni bejn l-Istati Membri. Però, ovvjament, tifhmu illi, bħala Kunsill, m’aħniex f’pożizzjoni li, fil-parametri tal-prerogattivi istituzzjonali, nipprovdu informazzjoni speċifika fuq il-"compliance" jew le ta’ Stati Membri relatati ma’ strumenti speċifiċi u naħseb li din, ovvjament, ilkoll nafuha. Però, ovvjament, ser inkomplu nimpenjaw rwieħna, kif kont qed ngħid, sabiex naħdmu flimkien u jkun hemm aktar qsim tal-informazzjoni, mhux biss bejn l-Istati Membri imma anke mal-aġenziji, kif ukoll anke ntejbu l-interoperabilità li ġiet riferuta anke f’diversi interventi tagħkom; mhux biss fuq dawk is-sistemi li għandna llum, imma anke dawk is-sistemi li wieħed jista’ jkollu fil-futur.

U allura, kif għidt fl-introduzzjoni, inħarsu ’l quddiem b’interess u stennija għall-"outcome" li ser ikollna mill-grupp ta’ esperti għolja f’dan ir-rigward. Nirringrazzjakom u nħarsu ’l quddiem sabiex inkomplu naħdmu flimkien ukoll.


  Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.

Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)


  Carlos Coelho (PPE), por escrito. – A partilha de informação é um pilar fundamental na estratégia de segurança interna da União. É já um lugar-comum, infelizmente, reconhecer que a cooperação dos Estados-Membros neste domínio está ainda longe de ser perfeita.

No entanto, a União está possivelmente a sofrer uma das mais intensas reformulações dos seus sistemas de informação, com alterações ao SIS, VIS e EURODAC, a par da criação do novo sistema de entrada e saída e o ETIAS.

Em paralelo, ainda que idealmente devesse estar a montante, o Grupo de Alto Nível Para os sistemas de informação e a interoperabilidade publicará, em maio deste ano, o resultado do seu trabalho.

É evidente que as decisões de PRUM e a Decisão do Conselho para a partilha de informação no âmbito do terrorismo devem ser adaptadas aos novos desafios e ao novo enquadramento jurídico Tratado de Lisboa.

Contudo, precaução aconselha-se. Qualquer alteração deverá ser feita tendo em conta toda a paisagem dos sistemas de informação – apenas assim será possível assegurar a eficácia, a proporcionalidade e a necessidade. Caso contrário, não estaremos a proteger os nossos cidadãos.


  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), na piśmie. – Należy ciągle dbać o jakość dialogu między państwami członkowskimi UE oraz wymianę informacji w ramach stosownych instrumentów, aby zapewnić odpowiedni poziom bezpieczeństwa wewnętrznego w UE. Koniecznym jest uzyskanie jeszcze większej wydajności instrumentów wymiany informacji oraz wyeliminowanie jakichkolwiek istniejących luk. Definicja terroryzmu nie jest zamknięta i już obecnie powinna zostać rozszerzona. Również Parlament Europejski powinien jednoznacznie opowiadać się za zwiększeniem skuteczności swoich działań, dążeniem do umocnienia zaufania ze strony obywateli. Metoda wspólnotowego podejmowania decyzji powinna ukierunkować się na wykorzystanie w tym kontekście możliwości nadanych traktatem lizbońskim. Sama wymiana informacji to jednak nie wszystko, konieczne jest skuteczne reagowanie i koordynacja, w przeciwnym wypadku trudno będzie skonstruować sprawnie funkcjonującą sieć podmiotów z różnych krajów UE mających dostęp do czytelnych i jednoznacznych danych generowanych z przeznaczeniem do wykorzystania przez różne jednostki związane z bezpieczeństwem. Potrzebna jest również intensywna praca reprezentantów na forum organizacji międzynarodowych, dalsze wzmacnianie Wspólnej Polityki Zagranicznej i Bezpieczeństwa, troszczenie się o pokój i rozwój w sąsiedztwa UE oraz upowszechnianie najlepszych zasad i wartości demokratycznych.

Juridisk meddelelse - Databeskyttelsespolitik