Index 
Texts adopted
Tuesday, 2 September 2008 - Brussels
Youth in Action programme (2007-2013) ***I
 Culture Programme (2007-2013) ***I
 "Europe for Citizens" programme (2007-2013) ***I
 Action programme in the field of lifelong learning ***I
 Protocol to the EC-Uzbekistan Partnership and Cooperation Agreement *
 Protocol to the EC-Kyrgyzstan Partnership and Cooperation Agreement *
 Protocol to the EC-Tajikistan Partnership and Cooperation Agreement *
 Separate liability of Montenegro with regard to the long-term loans to Serbia and Montenegro (formerly the Republic of Yugoslavia) *
 Organic production and labelling of organic products *
 Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement *
 Draft amending budget 5/2008
 European Judicial Network *
 Application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters *
 Fisheries and aquaculture in the context of ICZM in Europe
 Use of the Visa Information System (VIS) under the Schengen Borders Code ***I
 Strengthening of Eurojust and amendment of Decision 2002/187/JHA *
 Evaluation of the Dublin system
 Certain issues relating to motor insurance
 Coordinated strategy to improve the fight against fiscal fraud
 Involvement of the chairs of subcomittees (interpretation of Rule 182)
 Announcing 2011 as the European Year of Volunteering
 Devoting more attention to youth empowerment in EU policies
 Emergency cooperation in recovering missing children

Youth in Action programme (2007-2013) ***I
PDF 191kWORD 33k
Resolution
Text
European Parliament legislative resolution of 2 September 2008 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1719/2006/EC establishing the Youth in Action programme for the period 2007 to 2013 (COM(2008)0056 – C6-0057/2008 – 2008/0023(COD))
P6_TA(2008)0369A6-0274/2008

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0056),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 149(4) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0057/2008),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Culture and Education (A6-0274/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 2 September 2008 with a view to the adoption of Decision No .../2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1719/2006/EC establishing the Youth in Action programme for the period 2007 to 2013

P6_TC1-COD(2008)0023


(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position at first reading corresponds to the final legislative act, Decision No 1349/2008/EC.)


Culture Programme (2007-2013) ***I
PDF 189kWORD 33k
Resolution
Text
European Parliament legislative resolution of 2 September 2008 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1855/2006/EC establishing the Culture Programme (2007 to 2013) (COM(2008)0057 – C6-0058/2008 – 2008/0024(COD))
P6_TA(2008)0370A6-0273/2008

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0057),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 151(5), first indent, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0058/2008),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Culture and Education (A6-0273/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 2 September 2008 with a view to the adoption of Decision No .../2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1855/2006/EC establishing the Culture Programme (2007 to 2013)

P6_TC1-COD(2008)0024


(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position at first reading corresponds to the final legislative act, Decision No 1352/2008/EC.)


"Europe for Citizens" programme (2007-2013) ***I
PDF 191kWORD 32k
Resolution
Text
European Parliament legislative resolution of 2 September 2008 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1904/2006/EC establishing for the period 2007 to 2013 the programme "Europe for Citizens" to promote active European citizenship (COM(2008)0059 – C6-0060/2008 – 2008/0029(COD))
P6_TA(2008)0371A6-0275/2008

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0059),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Articles 151 and 308 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0060/2008),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Culture and Education (A6-0275/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 2 September 2008 with a view to the adoption of Decision No .../2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1904/2006/EC establishing for the period 2007 to 2013 the programme "Europe for Citizens" to promote active European citizenship

P6_TC1-COD(2008)0029


(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position at first reading corresponds to the final legislative act, Decision No 1358/2008/EC.)


Action programme in the field of lifelong learning ***I
PDF 190kWORD 34k
Resolution
Text
European Parliament legislative resolution of 2 September 2008 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1720/2006/EC establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning (COM(2008)0061 – C6-0064/2008 – 2008/0025(COD))
P6_TA(2008)0372A6-0276/2008

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0061),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Articles 149(4) and 150(4) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0064/2008),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Culture and Education (A6-0276/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 2 September 2008 with a view to the adoption of Decision No .../2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1720/2006/EC establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning

P6_TC1-COD(2008)0025


(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position at first reading corresponds to the final legislative act, Decision No 1357/2008/EC.)


Protocol to the EC-Uzbekistan Partnership and Cooperation Agreement *
PDF 193kWORD 31k
European Parliament legislative resolution of 2 September 2008 on the proposal for a Council and Commission decision on the conclusion of the Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Uzbekistan, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (COM(2007)0117 – C6-0213/2008 – 2007/0044(CNS))
P6_TA(2008)0373A6-0306/2008

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the proposal for a Council and Commission decision (COM(2007)0117),

–   having regard to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the Republic of Uzbekistan,

–   having regard to Article 44(2), Article 47(2), last sentence, Articles 55, 57(2), 71, 80(2), 93, 94, 133, 181a, and Article 300(2), second sentence, of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to Article 101 of the Euratom Treaty,

–   having regard to Article 6(2) of the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania,

–   having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0213/2008),

–   having regard to Rules 51, 83(7) and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A6-0306/2008),

1.  Approves the conclusion of the Protocol;

2.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Uzbekistan.


Protocol to the EC-Kyrgyzstan Partnership and Cooperation Agreement *
PDF 193kWORD 31k
European Parliament legislative resolution of 2 September 2008 on the proposal for a Council and Commission decision on conclusion of the Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kyrgyz Republic, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (COM(2007)0133 – C6-0228/2008 – 2007/0047(CNS))
P6_TA(2008)0374A6-0307/2008

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the proposal for a Council and Commission decision (COM(2007)0133),

–   having regard to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the Kyrgyz Republic,

–   having regard to Article 44(2), Article 47(2), last sentence, Articles 55, 57(2), 71, 80(2), 93, 94, 133, 181a, and Article 300(2), second sentence, of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to Article 101 of the Euratom Treaty,

–   having regard to Article 6(2) of the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania,

–   having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0228/2008),

–   having regard to Rules 51, 83(7) and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A6-0307/2008),

1.  Approves the conclusion of the Protocol;

2.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Krygyz Republic.


Protocol to the EC-Tajikistan Partnership and Cooperation Agreement *
PDF 194kWORD 32k
European Parliament legislative resolution of 2 September 2008 on the proposal for a Council and Commission decision on the conclusion of the Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tajikistan, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (COM(2007)0143 – C6-0254/2008 – 2007/0050(CNS))
P6_TA(2008)0375A6-0320/2008

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the proposal for a Council and Commission decision (COM(2007)0143),

–   having regard to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the Republic of Tajikistan,

–   having regard to Article 44(2), Article 47(2), last sentence, Articles 55, 57(2), 71, 80(2), 93, 94, 133, 181a, and Article 300(2), second sentence, of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to Article 101 of the Euratom Treaty,

–   having regard to Article 6(2) of the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania,

–   having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0254/2008),

–   having regard to Rules 51, 83(7) and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A6-0320/2008),

1.  Approves the conclusion of the Protocol;

2.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Tajikistan.


Separate liability of Montenegro with regard to the long-term loans to Serbia and Montenegro (formerly the Republic of Yugoslavia) *
PDF 192kWORD 30k
European Parliament legislative resolution of 2 September 2008 on the proposal for a Council decision establishing a separate liability of Montenegro and reducing proportionately the liability of Serbia with regard to the long-term loans granted by the Community to the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro (formerly the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) pursuant to Council Decisions 2001/549/EC and 2002/882/EC (COM(2008)0228 – C6-0221/2008 – 2008/0086(CNS))
P6_TA(2008)0376A6-0281/2008

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0228),

–   having regard to Article 308 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0221/2008),

–   having regard to Rules 51 and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade (A6-0281/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal;

2.  Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3.  Calls for initiation of the conciliation procedure under the Joint Declaration of 4 March 1975 if the Council intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

4.  Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

5.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.


Organic production and labelling of organic products *
PDF 188kWORD 29k
European Parliament legislative resolution of 2 September 2008 on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products (COM(2008)0314) – C6-0219/2008 – 2008/0097(CNS))
P6_TA(2008)0377A6-0311/2008

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0314),

–   having regard to Article 37(2) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0219/2008),

–   having regard to Rules 51 and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A6-0311/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal;

2.  Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3.  Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

4.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.


Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement *
PDF 191kWORD 36k
European Parliament legislative resolution of 2 September 2008 on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (COM(2007)0831 – C6-0047/2008 – 2007/0285(CNS))
P6_TA(2008)0378A6-0315/2008

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2007)0831),

–   having regard to Articles 37 and 300(2), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0047/2008),

–   having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs on the proposed legal base,

–   having regard to Rules 51, 35 and 83(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A6-0315/2008),

1.  Approves the proposal for a Council decision as amended and approves the conclusion of the Agreement;

2.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

Text proposed by the Commission   Amendment
Amendment 1
Proposal for a Council decision – amending act
Citation 1
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 37 in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 37 in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof,

Draft amending budget 5/2008
PDF 192kWORD 30k
European Parliament resolution of 2 September 2008 on draft amending budget No 5/2008 of the European Union for the financial year 2008 (11571/2008 – C6-0294/2008 – 2008/2161(BUD))
P6_TA(2008)0379A6-0328/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Article 272 of the EC Treaty and Article 177 of the Euratom Treaty,

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities(1), and particularly Articles 37 and 38 thereof,

–   having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2008, as finally adopted on 13 December 2007(2),

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(3),

–   having regard to Preliminary Draft Amending Budget No 5/2008 of the European Union for the financial year 2008, which the Commission presented on 18 June 2008 (COM(2008)0381),

–   having regard to Draft Amending Budget No 5/2008, which the Council established on 22 July 2008 (11571/2008 – C6-0294/2008),

–   having regard to Rule 69 of and Annex IV to its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A6-0328/2008),

1.  Approves Draft Amending Budget No 5/2008 unamended;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

(1) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 71, 14.3.2008, p. 1.
(3) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.


European Judicial Network *
PDF 383kWORD 177k
European Parliament legislative resolution of 2 September 2008 on the initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic, with a view to adopting a Council Decision on the European Judicial Network (5620/2008 – C6-0074/2008 – 2008/0802(CNS))
P6_TA(2008)0380A6-0292/2008

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic (5620/2008),

–   having regard to Article 34(2)(c) of the EU Treaty,

–   having regard to Article 39(1) of the EU Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0074/2008),

–   having regard to Rules 93 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0292/2008),

1.  Approves the initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic as amended;

2.  Calls on the Council to amend the text accordingly;

3.  Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

4.  Calls on the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic substantially;

5.  Calls on the Council and the Commission, following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, to give priority to any future proposal to amend the Decision in accordance with Declaration No 50 concerning Article 10 of the Protocol on transitional provisions to be annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community;

6.  Is determined to examine any such future proposal by the urgent procedure in accordance with the procedure referred to in paragraph 5 and in close cooperation with national parliaments;

7.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission, and the governments of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic.

Text proposed by 14 Member States   Amendment
Amendment 1
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Recital 7
7)  It is necessary to strengthen judicial cooperation between the Member States of the European Union and to allow contact points of the European Judicial Network and Eurojust for this purpose to communicate whenever needed, directly and more efficiently through a secure telecommunications network,
(7) It is necessary to strengthen judicial cooperation between the Member States of the European Union and to allow contact points of the European Judicial Network and Eurojust for this purpose to communicate whenever needed, directly and more efficiently through secure telecommunications connections,
Amendment 2
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a)  As regards the processing of personal data, Council Framework Decision (.../.../JHA) on the Protection of Personal Data Processed in the Framework of Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters1, providing for an adequate level of data protection, should apply. Member States should ensure a level of protection of personal data in their national laws at least equivalent to that provided under the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data of 28 January 1981 and its Additional Protocol of 8 November 2001 and, in so doing, should take account of Recommendation No R (87) 15 of 17 September 1987 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to the Member States regulating the use of personal data in the police sector, which also applies where data are not processed automatically.
___________
1 OJ L...
Amendment 3
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 2 – paragraph 3
3.  Each Member State shall appoint, among the contact points, a national correspondent for the European Judicial Network.
3.  Each Member State shall appoint, among the contact points, a national correspondent for the European Judicial Network, as well as a national information contact point.
Amendment 4
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 2 – paragraph 4
4.  Each Member State shall ensure that its contact points have functions in relation to judicial cooperation in criminal matters and an adequate knowledge of a language of the European Union other than its own national language, bearing in mind the need to be able to communicate with the contact points in the other Member States. Before appointing a new contact point, the Member States may seek the national correspondents' opinion.
4.  Each Member State shall ensure that its contact points have functions in relation to judicial cooperation in criminal matters and an adequate knowledge of a language of the European Union other than its own national language, bearing in mind the need to be able to communicate with the contact points in the other Member States. When selecting contact points, the Member States shall comply with the criteria set out in the Guidelines for the selection of contact points of the European Judicial Network.
Amendment 5
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 2 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a.  The Member States shall also ensure that their contact points have sufficient resources to adequately fulfil their tasks as contact points.
Amendment 6
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 2 – paragraph 5
5.  Where the liaison magistrates referred to in Joint Action 96/277/JHA have been appointed in a Member State and have duties analogous to those assigned by Article 4 to the contact points, they shall be linked to the European Judicial Network and to the secure telecommunications network pursuant to Article 10 by the Member State appointing the liaison magistrate in each case, in accordance with the procedures to be laid down by that State.
5.  Where the liaison magistrates referred to in Joint Action 96/277/JHA have been appointed in a Member State and have duties analogous to those assigned by Article 4 to the contact points, they shall be linked to the European Judicial Network and to the secure telecommunications connections pursuant to Article 10 by the Member State appointing the liaison magistrate in each case, in accordance with the procedures to be laid down by that State.
Amendment 7
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 2 – paragraph 7
7.  The European Judicial Network shall have a Secretariat which shall be responsible for the administration of the network, in cooperation and in consultation with the Presidency of the Council. The Secretariat may represent the Network, in consultation with the Presidency.
7.  The European Judicial Network shall have a Secretariat which shall be responsible for the administration of the network.
Amendment 8
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 3 – point b
(b) it shall organise periodic meetings of the Member States' representatives in accordance with the procedures laid down in Articles 5, 6 and 7;
(b) it shall organise periodic meetings of the Member States' representatives in accordance with the procedures laid down in Articles 5 and 6;
Amendment 9
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 3 – point c
(c) it shall constantly provide a certain amount of up-to-date background information, in particular by means of an appropriate telecommunications network, under the procedures laid down in Articles 8, 9 and 10.
(c) it shall constantly provide a certain amount of up-to-date background information, in particular by means of an IT tool under the procedures laid down in Articles 8 and 9, as well as provide for secure telecommunications connections in accordance with Article 10.
Amendment 10
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 4 – Title
Functions of contact point including the national correspondent
Functions of the contact points, the national correspondents and the information contact points
Amendment 11
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1.  The contact points, including the national correspondent, shall be active intermediaries with the task of facilitating judicial cooperation between Member States, particularly in action to combat forms of serious crime. They shall be available to enable local judicial authorities and other competent authorities in their own country, contact points in the other countries and local judicial and other competent authorities in the other countries to establish the most appropriate direct contacts.
1.  The contact points shall be active intermediaries with the task of facilitating judicial cooperation between Member States, particularly in action to combat forms of serious crime. They shall be available to enable local judicial authorities and other competent authorities in their own country, contact points in the other countries and local judicial and other competent authorities in the other countries to establish the most appropriate direct contacts.
They may if necessary travel to meet other Member States' contact points, on the basis of an agreement between the administrations concerned.
They may if necessary travel to meet other Member States" contact points in order to allow the exchange of useful experience and problems, especially as regards the functioning of the network in the respective Member States.
Amendment 12
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2.  The contact points, including the national correspondent, shall provide the local judicial authorities in their own country, the contact points in the other countries and the local judicial authorities in the other countries with the legal and practical information necessary to enable them to prepare an effective request for judicial cooperation or to improve judicial cooperation in general.
2.  The contact points shall provide the local judicial authorities in their own country, the contact points in the other countries and the local judicial authorities in the other countries with the legal and practical information necessary to enable them to prepare an effective request for judicial cooperation or to improve judicial cooperation in general.
Amendment 13
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3.  At their respective level the contact points, including the national correspondent, shall organise training sessions on judicial cooperation for the benefit of the competent authorities of their Member State, in cooperation with the European Judicial Training Network.
3.  At their respective level the contact points shall be involved in and promote the organisation of training sessions on judicial cooperation for the benefit of the competent authorities of their Member State, where appropriate in cooperation with the European Judicial Training Network.
Amendment 14
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 4 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a.  The contact points shall improve the coordination of judicial cooperation in cases where a series of requests from the local judicial authorities in a Member State necessitates coordinated action in another Member State.
Amendment 15
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 4 – paragraph 3 b (new)
3b.  The national correspondents, in addition to their tasks as contact points as referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3a, shall:
(a) be responsible, in their respective Member States, for issues relating to the internal functioning of the network, including the coordination of requests for information and replies issued by the competent national authorities;
(b) be responsible for contacts with the Secretariat of the European Judicial Network, including participation in the meetings referred to in Article 6;
(c) where requested by their respective Member States, give an opinion concerning the appointment of new contact points.
Amendment 16
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 4 – paragraph 3 c (new)
3c.  The national information contact points, in addition to their tasks as contact points referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3a, shall ensure that the information relating to their Member States and referred to in Article 8 is provided and updated in accordance with Article 9.
Amendment 17
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 5 – Title
Purposes of the periodic
meetings of contact points
Plenary
meetings of contact points
Amendment 18
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1.  The purposes of the periodic meetings of the European Judicial Network, to which at least two contact points per Member State shall be invited, shall be as follows:
1.  The purposes of the plenary meetings of the European Judicial Network, to which at least three contact points per Member State shall be invited, shall be as follows:
Amendment 19
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a.  Plenary meetings shall be held regularly at least three times a year. Once a year the meeting may be held on the premises of the Council in Brussels, in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Council's Rules of Procedure. Two contact points shall be invited to meetings held on the premises of the Council.
Amendment 20
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 5 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b.  However, alternative meetings may be held in the Member States to enable the contact points of all the Member States to meet the authorities of the host State other than its contact points and visit specific bodies in that State with responsibilities in the field of international judicial cooperation or of the fight against certain forms of serious crime.
Amendment 21
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 6 – Title
Frequency of plenary meetings
Meetings of the national correspondents
Amendment 22
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 6
The European Judicial Network plenary, composed of the national correspondents, shall meet periodically on an ad hoc basis, at least once a year and as its members feel the need, at the invitation of the Presidency of the Council, which shall also take account of the Member States' wishes for the Network to meet.
The national correspondents shall meet periodically, on an ad hoc basis, at least once a year and as they feel the need, at the invitation of the Presidency of the Council, which shall also take account of the Member States' wishes for the Network to meet. During these meetings, matters related to their tasks under Article 4(3b) shall be discussed, including the issue of how the access to secure telecommunications connections can be optimised and provided for all competent judicial authorities.
Amendment 23
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 7
Article 7
deleted
Venue of meetings
1.  Meetings may be held on the premises of the Council in Brussels, in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Council's Rules of Procedure.
2.  However, alternative meetings in the Member States may be held to enable the contact points of all the Member States to meet authorities of the host State other than its contact points and visit specific bodies in that State with responsibilities in the context of international judicial cooperation or of combating certain forms of serious crime.
Amendment 24
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 8 – Title
Content of the information disseminated
within the European Judicial Network
Information provided
by the European Judicial Network
Amendment 25
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 8 – introductory part
The European Judicial Network shall make the following information available to contact points and competent judicial authorities:
The Secretariat of the European Judicial Network shall make the following information available to contact points and competent judicial authorities:
Amendment 26
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 8 – point 2
2) an IT tool allowing the issuing authority of a Member State to identify the competent authority in another Member State to receive and execute its request for judicial cooperation, including European Arrest Warrants, European Evidence Warrants, orders for the freezing of assets and requests for mutual legal assistance;
(2) information allowing the issuing authority of a Member State to identify the competent authority in another Member State to receive and execute its request for judicial cooperation, including European Arrest Warrants, European Evidence Warrants, orders for the freezing of assets and requests for mutual legal assistance by means of an IT tool;
Amendment 27
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) a secure telecommunications network is set up for the operational work of the contact points of the European Judicial Network;
(b) secure telecommunications connections are set up for the operational work of the European Judicial Network;
Amendment 28
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the secure telecommunications network makes possible the flow of data and of all requests for judicial cooperation between Member States, as well as between them and the national members, national correspondents of Eurojust and liaison magistrates appointed by Eurojust;
(c) the secure telecommunications connections make possible the flow of data and of all requests for judicial cooperation between Member States, as well as between them and the national members, national correspondents of Eurojust and liaison magistrates appointed by Eurojust;
Amendment 29
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 10 – paragraph 2
2)  The secure telecommunications network referred to in paragraph 1 may also be used for their operational work by the national correspondents, national correspondents for terrorist matters, the national members of Eurojust and liaison magistrates appointed by Eurojust. It may be linked to the Case Management System of Eurojust referred to in Article 16 of Decision 2002/187/JHA.
2.  The secure telecommunications connections referred to in paragraph 1 may also be used for their operational work by the national correspondents, national correspondents for terrorist matters, the national members of Eurojust and liaison magistrates appointed by Eurojust. They may be linked to the Case Management System of Eurojust referred to in Article 16 of Decision 2002/187/JHA.
Amendment 30
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 10 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a.  The use of secure telecommunications connections shall not preclude direct contacts between contact points or between the competent authorities of the Member States.
Amendment 31
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a)  Eurojust shall have access to centralised information from the European Judicial Network in accordance with Article 8 of this Decision and to the secured telecommunication network set up under Article 10 of this Decision;
(a)  Eurojust shall have access to centralised information from the European Judicial Network in accordance with Article 8 of this Decision and to the secured telecommunications connections set up under Article 10 of this Decision;
Amendment 32
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) without prejudice to Article 13 of Decision 2002/187/JHA and in accordance with Article 4(4) of this Decision, the contact points of the European Judicial Network shall, on a case-by-case basis, inform Eurojust on cases involving two Member States and entering the field of competence of Eurojust:
(b) in addition to the obligation to transmit information to Eurojust stipulated in Article 13 of Decision 2002/187/JHA, the contact points of the European Judicial Network shall, on a case-by-case basis, inform their national member of Eurojust of all other cases with which Eurojust is deemed to be in a better position to deal.
– in cases where conflicts of jurisdiction are likely to arise
or
– in cases of a refusal of a request for judicial cooperation, including European Arrest Warrants, European Evidence Warrants, orders for the freezing of assets and requests for mutual legal assistance.
Amendment 33
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c)  The contact points of the European Judicial Network shall also inform Eurojust, on a case-by-case basis, on all cases entering the field of competence of Eurojust and involving at least three Member States;
deleted
Amendment 34
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) the national members of Eurojust may attend meetings of the European Judicial Network at the latter's invitation. European Judicial Network contact points may be invited on a case-by-case basis to attend Eurojust meetings.
(f) the national members of Eurojust may attend meetings of the European Judicial Network at the latter's invitation. Likewise, European Judicial Network contact points may attend meetings of Eurojust at its invitation.
Amendment 35
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 11 a (new)
Article 11a
Data protection
1.  When personal data are exchanged between the competent authorities or the contact points of the Member States, they shall ensure that:
– the receiving competent authority processes the data only for the purposes for which the data have been supplied;
– steps are taken to ensure that personal data are effectively protected against accidental or unauthorised destruction, accidental loss, unauthorised access, unauthorised or accidental alteration and unauthorised disclosure.
2.  Specific categories of data (personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, party or trade union membership, sexual orientation or health or data relating to offences, criminal convictions or security measures) shall be processed only when it is strictly necessary for the performance of the activities of the European Judicial Network. In that case, additional safeguards shall be put in place, such as:
– access to the data concerned only for personnel who are responsible for the performance of the legitimate task that justifies the processing;
– strong encryption for transmission;
– retention of the data for only as long as necessary for the competent authorities and the contact points to perform their tasks.
Amendment 36
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 12
Article 12
deleted
Informing the Council and the Commission
The Administrative Director of Eurojust and the Presidency of the Council shall report to the Council and the Commission in writing every second year on the activities and management, including budgetary management, of the European Judicial Network. To that end, the Presidency shall prepare a bi-annual report on the activities of the European Judicial Network and on any criminal policy problems within the Union highlighted as a result of the European Judicial Network's activities. In that report, the European Judicial Network, through the Presidency, may also make proposals for the improvement of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The European Judicial Network may also submit any report or any other information on the operation of the European Judicial Network which may be required by the Council or the Presidency.
Amendment 37
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 15 – Title
Assessment of the operation of the European Judicial Network
Reporting to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission and assessment of the operation of the European Judicial Network
Amendment 38
Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Poland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Portuguese Republic
Article 15
1.  The European Judicial Network shall report to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission in writing every second year on its activities and management, including its budgetary management. The European Judicial Network may in its report also indicate any criminal policy problems within the Union highlighted as a result of the European Judicial Network's activities and may also make proposals for the improvement of judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
2.  The European Judicial Network may also submit any report or provide any other information on the operation of the European Judicial Network which may be requested by the Council.
The Council shall, every four years, carry out an assessment of the operation of the European Judicial Network on the basis of a report drawn up by the Commission, in cooperation with the European Judicial Network.
3.  The Council shall, every four years, carry out an assessment of the operation of the European Judicial Network on the basis of a report drawn up by the Commission, in cooperation with the European Judicial Network.

Application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters *
PDF 513kWORD 344k
European Parliament legislative resolution, of 2 September 2008, on the initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany with a view to adopting a Council Framework Decision on the enforcement of decisions rendered in absentia and amending Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders and Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (5598/2008 – C6-0075/2008 – 2008/0803(CNS))
P6_TA(2008)0381A6-0285/2008

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany (5598/2008),

–   having regard to Article 34(2)(b) of the EU Treaty,

–   having regard to Article 39(1) of the EU Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0075/2008),

–   having regard to Rules 93 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0285/2008),

1.  Approves the initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany as amended;

2.  Calls on the Council to amend the text accordingly;

3.  Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

4.  Calls on the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany substantially;

5.  Calls on the Council and the Commission, following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, to give priority to any future proposal to amend the Decision in accordance with Declaration No 50 concerning Article 10 of the Protocol on transitional provisions to be annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community;

6.  Is determined to examine any such future proposal by the urgent procedure in accordance with the procedure referred to in paragraph 5 and in close cooperation with national parliaments;

7.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission, and the governments of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany.

Text proposed by seven Member States   Amendment
Amendment 1
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Title
Council Framework Decision on the enforcement of decisions rendered in absentia and amending Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders, and Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union
on strengthening citizens' rights, promoting the application of the principle of mutual recognition in respect of decisions rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person, and amending Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders, Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union, and Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA on the recognition and supervision of suspended sentences, alternative sanctions and conditional sentences
Amendment 2
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Recital 1 a (new)
(1a)  It is necessary to strengthen mutual trust in the European area of freedom, security and justice in criminal matters by means of measures at European Union level designed to ensure greater harmonisation and mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters and by adopting at that level some provisions and practices in criminal matters.
Amendment 3
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Recital 1 b (new)
(1b)  Adequate procedural safeguards are a necessary precondition for the mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters. It is therefore important to adopt the framework decision on procedural rights in criminal proceedings as soon as possible.
Amendment 4
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Recital 4
(4)  It is therefore necessary to provide clear and common solutions which define the grounds for refusal and the discretion left to the executing authority.
(4)  It is therefore necessary to provide clear and common solutions which define the grounds for refusal of the execution of a decision rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person and the discretion left to the executing authority. The purpose of this Framework Decision is to define such common grounds in order to allow the executing authority to execute a decision despite the absence of the person concerned at the trial. It is not designed to regulate the applicable forms and methods, or the procedural requirements, that are used to achieve the results specified in this Framework Decision, which are a matter for the national law of the Member States. By completing the relevant section of the European arrest warrant or of the relevant certificate under the other Framework Decisions, the issuing authority gives an assurance that the requirements have been or will be met, which should be sufficient for the purposes of the execution of a decision on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition.
Amendment 5
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Recital 6
(6)  Common solutions on grounds for refusal in the relevant existing Framework Decisions should take into account the diversity of situations with regard to informing the accused person of his right to a retrial.
(6)  Common solutions on grounds for non-recognition in the relevant existing Framework Decisions should take into account the diversity of situations with regard to the right of the person concerned to a retrial or to an appeal. Such a retrial, which aims to safeguard the rights of the defence, is characterised by the following elements: the person concerned has the right to participate in the retrial; the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, will be (re)examined, and the proceedings may lead to the original decision being quashed.
Amendment 6
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Recital 6 a (new)
(6a)  The recognition and execution of a decision rendered following a trial at which the defendant did not appear in person should not be refused if, on the basis of the information provided by the issuing State, it is satisfactorily established that the defendant was summoned in person, or by other means actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the trial. In this context it is understood that the person should have received such information in good time, i. e. sufficiently in advance to allow him or her to participate in the trial and to effectively exercise his or her right of defence. All information should be provided in a language which the defendant understands.
Amendment 7
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Recital 6 b (new)
(6 b)  The recognition and execution of a decision following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person should not be refused where the person concerned, being aware of the scheduled trial, was defended at the trial by a legal counsellor to whom he or she had given an explicit mandate to do so, thus ensuring that the legal assistance was practical and effective. In this context, it should be immaterial whether the legal counsellor was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned, or was appointed and paid by the State in accordance with its national law applicable to the rights of the defence, it being understood that the person concerned would have chosen to be represented by a legal counsellor instead of appearing him- or herself at the trial.
Amendment 8
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a)  At a retrial following a conviction resulting from a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person, that person should be in the same position as someone standing trial for the first time. Therefore the person concerned should have the right to be present at the retrial, the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, should be (re)examined, the retrial could lead to the original decision being quashed and the defendant may appeal against the new decision.
Amendment 9
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2.  This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty, and any obligations incumbent upon judicial authorities in this respect shall remain unaffected.
2.  This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, and any obligations incumbent upon judicial authorities in this respect shall remain unaffected.
Amendment 10
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 1 – paragraph 3
3.  The scope of this Framework Decision is to establish common rules for the recognition and/or execution of judicial decisions in one Member State (the executing Member State) issued by another Member State (the issuing Member State) following proceedings where the person was not present, according to the provisions in Article 5(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, in Article 7(2)(g) of Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA, in Article 8(2)(e) of Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA and Article 9(1)(f) of Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA.
3.  The scope of this Framework Decision is to establish common rules for the recognition and/or execution of judicial decisions in one Member State (the executing Member State) issued by another Member State (the issuing Member State) following a trial where the person was not present, according to the provisions in Article 5(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, in Article 7(2)(g) of Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA, in Article 8(2)(e) of Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA, Article [9(1)(f)] of Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA and in Article [9(1)(h)] of Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA.
Amendment 11
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 2 – point 1
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
Article 1 – paragraph 4
1) the following paragraph shall be added to Article 1:
"4. For the purpose of this Framework Decision, 'decision rendered in absentia' shall mean a custodial sentence or a detention order when the person did not personally appear in the proceedings resulting in that decision."
deleted
Amendment 12
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 2 – point 2
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
Article 4a – title and paragraph 1
Article 4a
Decisions rendered in absentia
Article 4a
Decisions rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person
The executing judicial authority may also refuse to execute the European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order, if the decision was rendered in absentia, unless the European arrest warrant states that the person:
1.  The executing judicial authority may also refuse to execute the European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order, if the decision was rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person, unless the European arrest warrant states that the person, in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State:
Amendment 13
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 2 – point 2
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
Article 4a – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) was summoned in person or informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State through a competent representative and in due time, of the scheduled date and place of the hearing which led to the decision rendered in absentia and informed about the fact that such a decision may be handed down in case the person does not appear for the trial;
(a) in due time, and in a language which he or she understood,
(i) either was directly summoned in person or by other means actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial,
and
(ii) was personally informed that the decision may be handed down if he or she did not appear at the trial;
or
Amendment 14
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 2 – point 2
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
Article 4a – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) after having been directly summoned in person or by other means having actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial, had given an explicit mandate to a legal counsellor who was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned or who was appointed and paid by the State in accordance with its national law applicable to the rights of the defence, and was indeed defended by that counsellor during the trial;
Amendment 15
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 2 – point 2
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
Article 4a – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) after being served with the decision rendered in absentia and being expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial:
(b) after being personally served with the decision and being expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood, about the right to a retrial or to an appeal*, in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed:
(i) expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia;
(i) expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision;
or
or
(ii) did not request a retrial in the applicable timeframe which was of at least […] days;
(ii) did not request a retrial or an appeal in the applicable timeframe, which shall be a minimum of 10 days and a maximum of 15 days.
(*This amendment applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate corresponding changes throughout (each time there is a reference to a retrial the expression "or an appeal" should be added.)
Amendment 16
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 2 – point 2
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
Article 4a – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) was not personally served with the decision rendered in absentia but:
(c) was not personally served with the decision but:
(i) will be served with it at the latest on the fifth day after the surrender and will be expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial;
(i) will be personally served with it immediately and in any event not later than three days after the surrender and will be expressly informed in a language which he or she understands about the right to a retrial or an appeal, in which he or she will have the right to participate, which will allow the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, to be (re)examined and which may lead to the original decision being quashed;
and
and
(ii) will have at least […] days to request a retrial.
(ii) will be informed about the timeframe, which shall be a minimum of 10 days and a maximum of 15 days, within which he or she must request such a retrial or appeal;
Amendment 17
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 2 – point 2
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
Article 4a – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a.  If a European arrest warrant is issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or detention order under the conditions set out in paragraph (1)(c) and the person concerned has not previously received any official information about the existence of the criminal proceedings against him or her, that person, when he or she is informed about the content of the European arrest warrant, may request a copy of the judgment before being surrendered. Immediately after having been informed of that request, the issuing judicial authority shall provide a copy of the judgment via the executing judicial authority to the person who made the request. If the judgment is rendered in a language which the person concerned does not understand, the issuing judicial authority via the executing judicial authority shall provide an extract from the judgment in a language which the person concerned understands. The provision of the judgment or an extract from the judgment to the person concerned shall be for information purposes only; it shall not be construed as constituting formal service of the judgment nor shall it activate any time-limits applicable for requesting a retrial or appeal.
Amendment 18
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 2 – point 4
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
Annex – box d – introductory part and points 1 and 2
(d)  Indicate if the decision was rendered in absentia:
(d)  Indicate if the person appeared in person at the trial resulting in the decision:
1. ? No, it was not
1.? Yes, the person appeared in person at the trial resulting in the decision.
2. ? Yes, it was. If you have answered yes, please confirm that:
2. ? No, the person did not appear in person at the trial resulting in the decision.
If you answered "no" to this question, please indicate if:
Amendment 19
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 2 – point 4
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
Annex – box d – point 2 - subpoint 2.1
2.1 the person was summoned in person or informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State through a competent representative and in due time, of the scheduled date and place of the hearing which led to the decision rendered in absentia and informed about the fact that such a decision may be handed down in case the person does not appear for the trial
2.1 the person was directly summoned in person or by other means actually received official information in due time, in a language which he /she understood, in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State, about the scheduled date and place of the trial which led to the decision in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that the person concerned was aware of the scheduled date and place of the trial and was personally informed that a decision may be handed down if he or she did not appear at the trial
Time and place when and where the person was summoned or otherwise informed:
Time and place when and where the person was summoned or received in person the official information by other means:
……………………………………………
……………………………………………
Language in which the information was delivered:
……………………………………………
Describe how the person was informed:
Describe how the person was informed:
……………………………………………
……………………………………………
Amendment 20
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 2 – point 4
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
Annex – box d – point 2 - subpoint 2.1 a (new)
2.1a after having been directly summoned in person or by other means having actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial, had given an explicit mandate to a legal counsellor who was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned or who was appointed and paid by the State in accordance with its national law applicable to the rights of the defence, and was indeed defended by that counsellor during the trial;
Provide information on how this condition was met:
……………………………………………
Amendment 21
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 2 – point 4
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
Annex – box d – point 2 - subpoint 2.2
2.2 the person, after being served with the decision rendered in absentia, expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia
2.2 the person, after being personally served with the decision and being expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood, about the right to a retrial or to an appeal, in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed, expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision
Describe when and how the person expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia:
Describe when the person was served with the decision, how he or she was informed about his/her right to a retrial or an appeal and when and how the person expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision:
…………………………………………
…………………………………………
Amendment 22
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 2 – point 4
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
Annex – box d – point 2 - subpoint 2.3.1 - indent 1
– the person was expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial; and
- the person was expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood, about the right to a retrial or an appeal, in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed, and
Amendment 23
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 2 – point 4
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
Annex – box d – point 2.3.2
? 2.3.2 the person was not served with the decision rendered in absentia, and
? 2.3.2. the person was not served with the decision and
– the person will be served with the decision rendered in absentia within … days after the surrender; and
– the person will be personally served with the decision within … days after the surrender; and
– when served with the decision rendered in absentia, the person will be expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial; and
– when served with the decision, the person will be expressly informed, in a language which he or she understands, about the right to a retrial or an appeal, in which he or she will have the right to participate, which will allow the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, to be (re)examined and which may lead to the original decision being quashed; and
– after being served with the decision rendered in absentia, the person will have … days to request a retrial.
– after being served with the decision, the person will have ... days to request a retrial or an appeal.
If you ticked box 2.3.2, please confirm
? that if the person concerned, when being informed in the executing State about the content of the European arrest warrant, requests a copy of the judgment before being surrendered, he or she will be provided with a copy of the judgment or with an extract from the judgment in a language which he or she understands ... days after the request is made via the executing judicial authority.
Amendment 24
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 3 – point 1
Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA
Article 1 – point e
1) the following point shall be added to Article 1:
"(e) 'Decision rendered in absentia' shall mean a decision as defined in (a) when the person did not personally appear in the proceedings resulting in that decision.";
deleted
Amendment 25
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 3 – point 2 - subpoint b
Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point i - introductory part
(i) according to the certificate provided for in Article 4, the decision was rendered in absentia, unless the certificate states that the person:
(i) according to the certificate provided for in Article 4, the decision was rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person, unless the certificate states that the person, in accordance with the national law of the issuing State:
Amendment 26
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 3 – point 2 - subpoint b
Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point i – subpoint i
(i) in due time, and in a language which he or she understood,
(i) was summoned in person or informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing State through a competent representative and in due time, of the scheduled date and place of the hearing which led to the decision rendered in absentia
(a) either was directly summoned in person or by other means actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial,
and
and
informed about the fact that such a decision may be handed down in case the person does not appear for the trial;
(b) was personally informed that the decision may be handed down if he or she did not appear at the trial;
or
or
Amendment 27
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 3 – point 2 - subpoint b
Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point i – subpoint i a (new)
(ia) after having been directly summoned in person or by other means having actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial, had given an explicit mandate to a legal counsellor who was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned or who was appointed and paid by the State in accordance with its national law applicable to the rights of the defence, and was indeed defended by that counsellor during the trial; or
Amendment 28
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 3 – point 2 - subpoint b
Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point i – subpoint ii
(ii) expressly stated to a competent authority that he or she does not contest the case; or
deleted
Amendment 29
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 3 – point 2 - subpoint b
Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point i – subpoint iii
(iii) after being served with the decision rendered in absentia and being expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial:
(iii) after being personally served with the decision and being expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood, about the right to a retrial or to an appeal, in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed:
– expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia;
– expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision;
or
or
– did not request a retrial in the applicable timeframe which was of at least […] days;
– did not request a retrial or an appeal in the applicable timeframe, which shall be a minimum of 10 days and a maximum of 15 days;
Amendment 30
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 3 – point 2 - subpoint b
Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point i a (new)
(ia) according to the certificate provided for in Article 4, the person did not appear in person, unless the certificate states that the person, having been expressly informed about the proceedings and the possibility of participating in person in the trial, expressly waived the right to an oral hearing and expressly indicated that he or she did not contest the case.
Amendment 31
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 3 – point 3
Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA
Annex – box h – point 3 - introductory part and subpoints 1 and 2
3.  Indicate if the decision was rendered in absentia:
3.  Indicate if the person appeared in person at the trial which led to the decision:
1. ? No, it was not
1. ? Yes, the person appeared in person at the trial which led to the decision.
2. ? Yes, it was. If you have answered yes, please confirm that:
2. ? No, the person did not appear in person at the trial which led to the decision.
If you answered "no" to this question, please indicate if:
Amendment 32
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 3 – point 3
Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA
Annex – box h – point 3 - subpoint 2.1
2.1 the person was summoned in person or informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State through a competent representative and in due time, of the scheduled date and place of the hearing which led to the decision rendered in absentia and informed about the fact that such a decision may be handed down in case the person does not appear for the trial
2.1 the person was directly summoned in person or by other means actually received, in accordance with the national law of the issuing State, official information in due time and in a language which he or she understood, about the scheduled date and place of the trial which led to the decision in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that the person concerned was aware of the scheduled date and place of the trial and was personally informed that such a decision may be handed down if he or she did not appear at the trial
Time and place when and where the person was summoned or otherwise informed:
--  ------------------------------------------------
Time and place when and where the person was summoned or by other means received the official information in person:
--  ------------------------------------------------
Language in which the information was delivered:
--  ------------------------------------------------
Describe how the person was informed:
--  ------------------------------------------------
Describe how the person was informed:
--  ------------------------------------------------
OR
OR
Amendment 33
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 3 – point 3
Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA
Annex – box h – point 3 - subpoint 2.1 a (new)
2.1a. after having been directly summoned in person or by other means having actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial, had given an explicit mandate to a legal counsellor who was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned or who was appointed and paid by the State in accordance with its national law applicable to the rights of the defence, and was indeed defended by that counsellor during the trial;
Provide information on how this condition was met:
………………………………
OR
Amendment 34
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 3 – point 3
Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA
Annex – box h – point 3 - subpoint 2.2
2.2 the person, before or after being served with the decision rendered in absentia, expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia.
2.2 the person, before or after being personally served with the decision and being expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood, of the right to a retrial or to an appeal, in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed, expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision.
Describe when and how the person expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia:
Describe when the person was served with the decision, how he or she was informed of his/her right to a retrial or to an appeal and when and how the person expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision:
…………………………………………
OR
…………………………………………
OR
Amendment 35
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 3 – point 3
Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA
Annex – box h – point 3 - subpoint 2.3
? 2.3 the person was served with the decision rendered in absentia on … (day/month/year) and was entitled to a retrial in the issuing State under the following conditions:
? 2.3 the person was personally served with the decision following a trial at which he or she did not appear in person on … (day/month/year) and was entitled to a retrial or to an appeal in the issuing State under the following conditions:
– the person was expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial; and
- the person was expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood, of the right to a retrial or to an appeal, in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed, and
– after being informed of this right, the person had … days to request a retrial and he or she did not request it during this period.
- after being informed of this right, the person had ... days to request a retrial or an appeal and he or she did not request it during that period.
OR
Amendment 36
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 3 – point 3
Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA
Annex – box h – point 3 - subpoint 2.3 a (new)
2.3a the person, having been expressly informed of the proceedings and the possibility of participating in person in the trial, expressly waived the right to an oral hearing and expressly indicated that he or she did not contest the case.
Describe when and how the person waived the right to an oral hearing and indicated that he or she did not contest the case:
…………………………………………
Amendment 37
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 4 – point 1
Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA
Article 2 – point i
1) the following point shall be added to Article 2:
"(i) 'Decision rendered in absentia' shall mean a confiscation order as defined in (c) when the person did not personally appear in the proceedings resulting in that decision.";
deleted
Amendment 38
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 4 – point 2
Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point e – introductory part
(e) according to the certificate provided for in Article 4(2), the decision was rendered in absentia, unless the certificate states that the person:
(e) according to the certificate provided for in Article 4(2), the decision was rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person, unless the certificate states that the person, in accordance with the national law of the issuing State:
Amendment 39
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 4 – point 2
Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point e – subpoint i
(i) in due time, and in a language which he or she understood,
(i) was summoned in person or informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing State through a competent representative and in due time, of the scheduled date and place of the hearing which led to the confiscation order rendered in absentia
(a) either was directly summoned in person or by other means actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial,
and
and
informed about the fact that such a confiscation order may be handed down in case the person does not appear for the trial;
(b) was personally informed that a confiscation order may be handed down if he or she did not appear at the trial;
or
or
Amendment 40
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 4 – point 2
Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point e – subpoint i a (new)
(ia) after having been directly summoned in person or by other means having actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial, had given an explicit mandate to a legal counsellor who was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned or who was appointed and paid by the State in accordance with its national law applicable to the rights of the defence, and was indeed defended by that counsellor during the trial;
or
Amendment 41
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 4 – point 2
Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point e – subpoint ii
(ii) after being served with the confiscation order rendered in absentia and being expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial:
(ii) after being personally served with the confiscation order and being expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood, of the right to a retrial or to an appeal, in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed:
– expressly stated that he or she does not contest the confiscation order;
– expressly stated that he or she did not contest the confiscation order;
or
or
– did not request a retrial in the applicable timeframe which was of at least […] days;
– did not request a retrial or an appeal in the applicable timeframe, which shall be a minimum of 10 days and a maximum of 15 days.
Amendment 42
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 4 – point 3
Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA
Annex – box j – introductory part and points 1 and 2
(j)  Indicate if the decision was rendered in absentia:
(j)  Indicate if the person appeared in person at the trial which led to the confiscation order:
1. ? No, it was not
1. ? Yes, the person appeared in person at the trial which led to the confiscation order.
2. ? Yes, it was. If you have answered yes, please confirm that:
2. ? No, the person did not appear in person at the trial which led to the confiscation order.
If you answered "no" to this question, please indicate if:
Amendment 43
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 4 – point 3
Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA
Annex – box j – point 2 - subpoint 2.1
2.1 the person was summoned in person or informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State through a competent representative and in due time, of the scheduled date and place of the hearing which led to the decision rendered in absentia and informed about the fact that such a decision may be handed down in case the person does not appear for the trial
2.1 the person was directly summoned in person or by other means actually received official information in due time, in accordance with the national law of the issuing State and in a language which he or she understood, about the scheduled date and place of the trial which led to the confiscation order, in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that the person concerned was aware of the scheduled date and place of the trial and was personally informed that such a decision may be handed down if he or she did not appear at the trial
Time and place when and where the person was summoned or otherwise informed:
Time and place when and where the person was summoned or received the official information in person by other means:
……………………………………………
……………………………………………
Language in which the information was delivered:
……………………………………………
Describe how the person was informed:
Describe how the person was informed:
……………………………………………
OR
……………………………………………
OR
Amendment 44
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 4 – point 3
Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA
Annex – box j – point 2 -subpoint 2.1 a (new)
2.1a after having been directly summoned in person or by other means having actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial, had given an explicit mandate to a legal counsellor who was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned or who was appointed and paid by the State in accordance with its national law applicable to the rights of the defence, and was indeed defended by that counsellor during the trial;
Provide information on how this condition was met:
……………………………………………
OR
Amendment 45
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 4 – point 3
Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA
Annex – box j – point 2 - subpoint 2.2
2.2 the person, after being served with the decision rendered in absentia, expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia.
2.2 the person, after being personally served with the confiscation order and being expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood, about the right to a retrial or to an appeal, in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed, expressly stated that he or she did not contest the order.
Describe when and how the person expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia:
Describe when the person was served with the confiscation order, how he or she was informed about his/her right to a retrial or to an appeal and when and how the person expressly stated that he or she did not contest the confiscation order:
…………………………………………
OR
…………………………………………
OR
Amendment 46
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 4 – point 3
Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA
Annex – box j – point 2 - subpoint 2.3
? 2.3 the person was served with the decision rendered in absentia on … (day/month/year) and was entitled to a retrial in the issuing State under the following conditions:
? 2.3 the person was personally served with the confiscation order on … (day/month/year) and was entitled to a retrial or an appeal in the issuing State under the following conditions:
– the person was expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial; and
- the person was expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood, about the right to a retrial or to an appeal, in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed, and
– after being informed of this right, the person had … days to request a retrial and he or she did not request it during this period.
- after being informed of that right, the person had ... days to request a retrial or an appeal and he or she did not request it during that period.
Amendment 47
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 5 – point 1
Framework Decision 2008/.../JHA
Article 1 – point e
1) the following point shall be added to Article 1:
(e)  "Decision rendered in absentia" shall mean a decision as defined in (a) when the person did not personally appear in the proceedings resulting in that decision."
deleted
Amendment 48
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 5 – point 2
Framework Decision 2008/.../JHA
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) according to the certificate provided for in Article 4, the decision was rendered in absentia, unless the certificate states that the person:
(f) according to the certificate provided for in Article [4], the decision was rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person, unless the certificate states that the person, in accordance with the national law of the issuing State:
Amendment 49
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 5 – point 2
Framework Decision 2008/.../JHA
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point f – subpoint i
(i) in due time, and in a language which he or she understood,
(i) was summoned in person or informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing State through a competent representative and in due time, of the scheduled date and place of the hearing which led to the decision rendered in absentia
(a) either was directly summoned in person or by other means actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial,
and
and
informed about the fact that such a decision may be handed down in case the person does not appear for the trial;
(b) was personally informed that a decision may be handed down if he or she did not appear at the trial;
or
or
Amendment 50
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 5 – point 2
Framework Decision 2008/.../JHA
Article 9 − paragraph 1 – point f – subpoint i a (new)
(ia) after having been directly summoned in person or by other means having actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial , had given an explicit mandate to a legal counsellor who was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned or who was appointed and paid by the State in accordance with its national law applicable to the rights of the defence, and was indeed defended by that counsellor during the trial;
or
Amendment 51
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 5 – point 2
Framework Decision 2008/.../JHA
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point f – subpoint ii
(ii) after being served with the decision rendered in absentia and being expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial:
(ii) after being personally served with the decision and being expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood, about the right to a retrial or to an appeal, in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed:
– expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia;
– expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision;
or
or
– did not request a retrial in the applicable timeframe which was of at least […] days;
– did not request a retrial or an appeal in the applicable timeframe, which shall be a minimum of 10 days and a maximum of 15 days.
Amendment 52
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 5 – point 3
Framework Decision 2008/.../JHA
Annex – box k – point 1 - introductory part and subpoints a and b
1.  Indicate if the decision was rendered in absentia:
1.  Indicate if the person appeared in person at the trial which led to the decision:
a. ? No, it was not
a. ? Yes, the person appeared in person at the trial which led to the decision.
b. ? Yes, it was. If you have answered yes, please confirm that:
b. ? No, the person did not appear in person at the trial which led to the decision.
If you answered "no" to this question, please indicate if:
Amendment 53
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 5 – point 3
Framework Decision 2008/.../JHA
Annex – box k – point 1 - subpoint b.1
? b.1 the person was summoned in person or informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State through a competent representative and in due time, of the scheduled date and place of the hearing which led to the decision rendered in absentia and informed about the fact that such a decision may be handed down in case the person does not appear for the trial
? b.1 the person was directly summoned in person or by other means actually received official information in due time and in a language which he or she understood, in accordance with the national law of the issuing State, about the scheduled date and place of the trial which led to the decision in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that the person concerned was aware of the scheduled date and place of the trial and was personally informed that a decision may be handed down if he or she did not appear at the trial
Time and place when and where the person was summoned or otherwise informed:
Time and place when and where the person was summoned or received the official information in person by other means:
……………………………………………
……………………………………………
Language in which the information was delivered:
……………………………………………
Describe how the person was informed:
Describe how the person was informed:
……………………………………………
OR
……………………………………………
OR
Amendment 54
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 5 – point 3
Framework Decision 2008/.../JHA
Annex – box k – point 1 - subpoint b.1 a (new)
? b.1a after having been directly summoned in person or by other means having actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial, had given an explicit mandate to a legal counsellor who was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned or who was appointed and paid by the State in accordance with its national law applicable to the rights of the defence, and was indeed defended by that counsellor during the trial;
Provide information on how this condition was met:
……………………………………………
OR
Amendment 55
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 5 – point 3
Framework Decision 2008/.../JHA
Annex – box k – point 1 - subpoint b.2
? b.2 the person, after being served with the decision rendered in absentia, expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia.
? b.2 the person, after being personally served with the decision and being expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood, about the right to a retrial or to an appeal, in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed, expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision.
Describe when and how the person expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia:
Describe when the person was served with the decision, how he or she was informed about his/her right to a retrial or to an appeal and when and how the person expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision:
…………………………………………
OR
…………………………………………
OR
Amendment 56
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 5 – point 3
Framework Decision 2008/.../JHA
Annex – box k – point 1 - subpoint b.3
? b.3 the person was served with the decision rendered in absentia on … (day/month/year) and was entitled to a retrial in the issuing State under the following conditions:
? b.3 the person was personally served with the decision following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person on … (day/month/year) and was entitled to a retrial or to an appeal in the issuing State under the following conditions:
– the person was expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial; and
- the person was expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood, about the right to a retrial or to an appeal, in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed, and
– after being informed of this right, the person had … days to request a retrial and he or she did not request it during this period.
- after being informed of that right, the person had ... days to request a retrial or an appeal and he or she did not make such a request during that period.
Amendment 57
Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany – amending act
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5a
Amendments to Framework Decision 2008/.../JHA
Framework Decision 2008/.../JHA is hereby amended as follows:
"1) in Article [9(1)], point [h] shall be replaced by the following:
(h) according to the certificate provided for in Article [6], the decision was rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person, unless the certificate states that the person, in accordance with the national law of the issuing State:
(i) in due time, and in a language which he or she understood,
- either was directly summoned in person or by other means actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial,
and
- was personally informed that a decision may be handed down if he or she did not appear at the trial;
or
(ii) after having been directly summoned in person or by other means having actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial , had given an explicit mandate to a legal counsellor who was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned or who was appointed and paid by the State in accordance with its national law applicable to the rights of the defence, and was indeed defended by that counsellor during the trial; or
(iii) after being personally served with the decision and being expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood, about the right to a retrial or to an appeal, in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed:
- expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision;
or
- did not request a retrial or an appeal in the applicable timeframe, which shall be a minimum of 10 days and a maximum of 15 days.".
2)  In box [(i)] of the Annex ("Certificate"), point [1] shall be replaced by the following:
"1. Indicate if the person appeared in person at the trial resulting in the decision:
? Yes, the person appeared in person at the trial resulting in the decision.
? No, the person did not appear in person at the trial resulting in the decision.
If you answered "no" to this question , please indicate if:
(i) the person was directly summoned in person or in accordance with the national law of the issuing State by other means actually received official information, in due time and in a language which he or she understood, about the scheduled date and place of the trial which led to the decision in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that the person concerned was aware of the scheduled date and place of the trial and was personally informed that a decision may be handed down if he or she did not appear at the trial
Time and place when and where the person was summoned or received the official information in person by other means:
……………………………………………
Language in which the information was delivered:
……………………………………………
Describe how the person was informed:
……………………………………………
OR
(ii) after having been directly summoned in person or by other means having actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial , had given an explicit mandate to a legal counsellor who was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned or who was appointed and paid by the State in accordance with its national law applicable to the rights of the defence, and was indeed defended by that counsellor during the trial;
Provide information on how this condition was met:
……………………………………………
OR
(iii) the person, after being personally served with the decision and being expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood, about the right to a retrial or to an appeal, in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed, expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision.
Describe when the person was served with the decision, how he or she was informed about his/her right to a retrial or to an appeal and when and how the person expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision:
…………………………………………
OR
(iv) the person was personally served with the decision following a trial at which he or she did not appear in person on … (day/month/year) and was entitled to a retrial or to an appeal in the issuing State under the following conditions:
- the person was expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood, about the right to a retrial or to an appeal, in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed, and
- after being informed of that right, the person had ... days to request a retrial or an appeal and he or she did not make such a request during that period.".

Fisheries and aquaculture in the context of ICZM in Europe
PDF 125kWORD 43k
European Parliament resolution of 2 September 2008 on Fisheries and Aquaculture in the context of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe (2008/2014(INI))
P6_TA(2008)0382A6-0286/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Recommendation 2002/413/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2002 concerning the implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe(1),

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission of 7 June 2007 entitled 'Report to the European Parliament and the Council: An evaluation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in Europe" (COM(2007)0308),

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European Fisheries Fund(2),

–   having regard to Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive)(3) and the Communication from the Commission of 24 October 2005 entitled "Thematic Strategy on the Protection and Conservation of the Marine Environment" (COM(2005)0504),

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission of 10 October 2007 entitled "An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union" (COM(2007)0575),

–   having regard to its resolution of 15 June 2006 on inshore fishing and the problems encountered by inshore fishing communities(4),

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission of 9 March 2006 on improving the economic situation in the fishing industry (COM(2006)0103) and its resolution of 28 September 2006 on that subject(5),

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission of 19 September 2002 entitled "A Strategy for the Sustainable Development of European Aquaculture" (COM(2002)0511),

–   having regard to the study for Parliament on "Regional dependency on fisheries"(6),

–   having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A6-0286/2008),

A.   whereas Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) is not only an environmental policy but also an ongoing process aimed at improving the economic and social conditions of coastal zones and securing the sustainable development of all the activities pursued in those regions, such as fishing and aquaculture,

B.   whereas the implementation of ICZM is a long-term process and most national strategies adopted within the framework of the above-mentioned Recommendation began to be implemented only in 2006,

C.   whereas the management of coastal zones has so far been conducted in the medium term, ignoring the fact that these are complex natural ecosystems which change with the passing of time,

D.   whereas the decisions and measures that have been taken concerned an isolated activity and failed to tackle the problem of the degradation of coastal zones as a whole,

E.   whereas existing planning has so far focused on land and has failed to take into account the impact of some coastal activities on other activities pursued in the same region,

F.   whereas it is expected that national ICZM strategies will cost little to implement, while producing significant financial benefits,

G.   whereas there has been a failure adequately to involve representation of all sectors in planning and implementing measures to address the problems of coastal zones and, as a result, the interests of some sectors are being harmed,

H.   whereas the implementation of integrated-management policies involves the planning in coastal areas of population-related, tourism-related and economic uses and of landscape and environmental protection,

I.   whereas the effective coordination of ICZM bodies has not yet been possible except in isolated cases,

J.   whereas the implementation of policies to promote ICZM may, in some cases, require large-scale spending, which cannot be met by local communities, resulting in appeals to higher administrative levels and delays in implementation,

K.   whereas, owing to the cross-border nature of many coastal processes, regional coordination and cooperation are necessary, even with third countries,

L.   whereas fishing and aquaculture are two coastal activities par excellence which depend on the quality of inshore waters,

M.   whereas a level of technological development has not yet been reached in aquaculture which will enable that activity (which is intensive in nature) to be pursued away from coastal areas,

N.   whereas the fundamental and so far poorly acknowledged role played by women in fisheries-dependent areas must be taken into account,

O.   whereas inshore fishing accounts for 80% of the Community fishing fleet and contributes to the economic and social cohesion of coastal communities and the preservation of their cultural traditions,

P.   whereas fishing, even though it is not itself a source of pollution, suffers the impact of pollution caused by other activities pursued in coastal areas, which further undermines its viability,

Q.   whereas fishing and aquaculture are of great economic and social importance, since they are mainly pursued in coastal regions with fragile economies, many of which are disadvantaged and unable to provide their inhabitants with alternative job opportunities,

R.   whereas the existence of a clean and healthy marine environment will contribute to the future increase in fisheries production and thus improve prospects for this sector,

S.   whereas aquaculture is firmly based on the principle of sustainable development, and any environmental impact is offset by Community rules,

T.   whereas in an environment in which fish stocks are in decline and world demand for fish and shellfish is increasing, the importance of aquaculture in Europe is steadily growing,

U.   whereas not all Member States have yet completed their regional planning in line with the principles of ICZM for the balanced development of activities pursued in coastal zones,

V.   whereas there is fierce competition for space in coastal zones, and aquaculturists and fishermen have the same rights and obligations as other users,

W.   whereas the outermost regions, as defined in Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty and Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, may require the creation of specific integrated national ICZM strategies and an adequate adaptation of ICZM at EU level,

1.  Stresses the economic and social importance of fishing and aquaculture for coastal regions and calls for them to receive assistance within the framework of ICZM;

2.  Points out the need to ensure that the fisheries and aquaculture sectors are involved and well represented in transnational maritime clusters, and exhorts the Commission to stimulate this process;

3.  Emphasises that the European Fisheries Fund can contribute to the long-term funding of measures within the framework of ICZM, since it supports actions which contribute to the sustainable development of fishing regions;

4.  Points out the need to clarify the competences of the administrative bodies of the coastal zones concerned and establish coordinated strategies so that they can be more effective;

5.  Recognises the difficulties in coordinating the activities of coastal zone management bodies and calls on the Commission, in monitoring implementation of ICZM, to re-examine, after consultation with Member States, whether or not a coordinating body needs to be set up;

6.  Stresses the need for representatives of the fishing and aquaculture sectors to be involved in activities linked to the planning and development of ICZM, bearing in mind that their involvement in sustainable development strategies will increase the added value of their products, and recalls that the European Fisheries Fund may support such collective actions;

7.  Acknowledges the important role of women in fisheries-dependent areas and therefore calls on the Commission and the Member States to cooperate in order to promote and incorporate the principle of equal opportunities at the various stages of the implementation of the European Fisheries Fund, including the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation stages, as provided for in Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006;

8.  Calls for closer cooperation between competent bodies at regional level through exchanges of information relating to the state of coastal zones and the adoption of joint strategies to improve the environmental situation of local marine ecosystems;

9.  Calls on the national and regional governments of the outermost regions to prepare integrated ICZM strategies in order to ensure the sustainable development of coastal regions;

10.  Emphasises the importance, in the above contexts, of proper spatial planning;

11.  Aquaculture for repopulation purposes is an essential tool to achieve ecological conservation in certain coastal zones, and it must therefore be promoted, stimulated and financially supported;

12.  Stresses the importance of aquaculture to the food industry for social and economic development in some EU coastal communities;

13.  Considers that the fisheries and aquaculture sectors must both be included in a cross-cutting approach to all maritime activities taking place in coastal zones, in order to achieve sustainable development, in accordance with the new maritime policy guidelines;

14.  Stresses the need to develop and implement strategies to adjust to the dangers facing coastal zones, including climate change, taking fully into account the impact on fishing and aquaculture;

15.  Believes that data collection efforts must continue so as to contribute to the exchange and the use of information with a view to carrying out comparative studies, including data on the state of biodiversity and fish stocks;

16.  Considers that greater research efforts should be made in aquaculture with a view to introducing cultivation systems based on closed-circuit intensive production;

17.  Proposes that aquaculture projects which use renewable energy sources and which do not infringe areas protected under EU environmental law should be given priority under ICZM;

18.  Calls on the Commission, after consulting the Member States, to set a clear timetable for examining progress in the implementation of ICZM in the European Union;

19.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 148, 6.6.2002, p. 24.
(2) OJ L 223, 15.8.2006, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 164, 25.06.2008, p. 19.
(4) OJ C 300E, 9.12.2006, p. 504.
(5) OJ C 306 E, 15.12.2006, p. 417.
(6) IP/B/PECH/ST/IC/2006-198.


Use of the Visa Information System (VIS) under the Schengen Borders Code ***I
PDF 193kWORD 34k
Resolution
Text
European Parliament legislative resolution of 2 September 2008 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 as regards the use of the Visa Information System (VIS) under the Schengen Borders Code (COM(2008)0101 – C6-0086/2008 – 2008/0041(COD))
P6_TA(2008)0383A6-0208/2008

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0101),

–   having regard to Articles 251(2) and 62(2)(a) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0086/2008),

–   having regard to the undertakings given by the Council representative by letter of 25 June 2008 to adopt the proposal as amended, in accordance with Article 251(2), second sentence, first indent of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0208/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 2 September 2008 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No .../2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 as regards the use of the Visa Information System (VIS) under the Schengen Borders Code

P6_TC1-COD(2008)0041


(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position at first reading corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EC) No 81/2009.)


Strengthening of Eurojust and amendment of Decision 2002/187/JHA *
PDF 460kWORD 192k
European Parliament legislative resolution of 2 September 2008 on the initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden with a view to adopting a Council Decision on the strengthening of Eurojust and amending Decision 2002/187/JHA (5613/2008 – C6-0076/2008 – 2008/0804(CNS))
P6_TA(2008)0384A6-0293/2008

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden (5613/2008),

–   having regard to Article 34(2)(b) of the EU Treaty,

–   having regard to Article 39(1) of the EU Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0076/2008),

–   having regard to Rules 93 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0293/2008),

1.  Approves the initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden as amended;

2.  Calls on the Council to amend the text accordingly;

3.  Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

4.  Calls on the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden substantially;

5.  Calls on the Council and the Commission, following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, to give priority to any future proposal to amend the Decision in accordance with Declaration No 50 concerning Article 10 of the Protocol on transitional provisions to be annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community;

6.  Is determined to examine any such future proposal by the urgent procedure in accordance with the procedure referred to in paragraph 5 and in close cooperation with national parliaments;

7.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission, and the governments of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden.

Text proposed by 14 Member States   Amendment
Amendment 1
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Recital 5 a (new)
(5a)  In the light of Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, it is necessary to draw up a Green Paper on the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor's Office.
Amendment 2
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Recital 5 b (new)
(5b)  The rights of defendants and victims need to be taken into account in determining which Member State is best placed to prosecute or take other law enforcement action.
Amendment 3
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Recital 8 a (new)
(8a)  Adequate procedural safeguards, including during the investigations, are a necessary precondition for the mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters. In particular, a framework decision on procedural rights should be adopted as soon as possible in order to lay down certain minimum rules on the availability of legal assistance to individuals in the Member States.
Amendment 4
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Recital 8 b (new)
(8b)  It is also necessary for the Council to adopt as soon as possible a framework decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, providing for an adequate level of data protection. Member States should ensure a level of protection of personal data in their national law at least equal to that provided under the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data of 28 January 1981 and its Additional Protocol of 8 November 2001 and, in so doing, should take account of Recommendation No R (87) 15 of 17 September 1987 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to the Member States regulating the use of personal data in the police sector, as well as ensure the protection of data which are not processed automatically.
Amendment 5
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Recital 8 c (new)
(8c)  It is important to ensure appropriate protection of personal data for all types of personal data filing systems used by Eurojust. In this respect, the Rules of Procedure on the processing and protection of personal data at Eurojust1 should also apply to structured manual files, that is to say, to case-related files that are compiled manually by national members or assistants and are organised in a logical way.
_____________
1 OJ C 68, 19.3.2005, p. 1.
Amendment 6
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Recital 8 d (new)
(8d)  When processing e-mail traffic- related data in accordance with Article 14(1), Eurojust should ensure that the content and titles of e-mails are not disclosed.
Amendment 7
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Recital 8 e (new)
(8e)  Persons who have been the subject of a criminal investigation based on a Eurojust request but have not been prosecuted should be informed of that investigation no later than one year after the decision not to prosecute was taken.
Amendment 8
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Recital 8 f (new)
(8f)  The Member States shall provide a judicial remedy where an investigation was carried out at the request of Eurojust on the basis of manifestly insufficient grounds.
Amendment 9
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 3
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 5a – paragraph 1
1.  In order to fulfil its tasks on an emergency basis, Eurojust shall set up an "Emergency Coordination Cell" (ECC).
1.  In order to fulfil its tasks on an emergency basis, Eurojust shall set up an "Emergency Coordination Cell" (ECC), which shall be contactable via a single contact point.
Amendment 10
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 3
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 5a – paragraph 2
2.  The ECC shall be composed of one representative per Member State, who may be either the national member, his or her deputy, or an assistant entitled to replace the national member. The ECC shall be contactable and able to act on an around the clock basis.
2.  The ECC shall be composed of one representative per Member State, who may be either the national member, his or her deputy, or an assistant entitled to replace the national member. The representative shall be able to act on a 24 hour/7 day basis.
Amendment 11
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 3
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 5a – paragraph 3
3.  When in urgent cases a request for judicial cooperation needs to be executed in several Member States, the competent authority may forward it to the ECC through the representative of its Member State in the ECC. The representative of the Member State concerned in the ECC shall transmit the request to the competent authorities of the relevant Member States for execution. Where no competent national authority has been identified or it is not possible to identify it in a timely manner, the member of the ECC shall have the power to execute the request himself.
3.  When in urgent cases a request for judicial cooperation needs to be executed in several Member States, the competent authority may forward it to the ECC through the representative of its Member State in the ECC. The representative of the Member State concerned in the ECC shall transmit the request to the competent authorities of the relevant Member States for execution. Where is not possible to identify a competent national authority in a timely manner, the member of the ECC shall have the power to execute the request himself. In such a case, the ECC member concerned shall inform the College in writing without delay of the steps taken and the reasons for the failure to identify a competent national authority in a timely manner.
Amendment 12
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 4
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a – subpoint vi
(vi) take special investigative measures;
deleted
Amendment 13
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 4
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a – subpoint vii
(vii) take any other measure justified for the investigation or prosecution;
deleted
Amendment 14
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 6
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 8
If the competent authorities of the Member States concerned decide not to comply with a request referred to in Articles 6(1)(a), 6(1)(g), 7(1)(a), 7(2) and 7(3), they shall inform Eurojust of their decision and of the reasons for it.
1.  If the competent authorities of the Member States concerned decide not to comply with a request referred to in Articles 6(1)(a), 6(1)(g), 7(1)(a), 7(2) and 7(3), they shall inform Eurojust of their decision and of the reasons for it.
2.  The Member States shall ensure that a decision of the national competent authority may be judicially reviewed before it is communicated to Eurojust.
Amendment 15
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 7 – subpoint c
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 9 – paragraph 4
4.  In order to meet Eurojust's objectives, the national member shall have full access to:
4.  In order to meet Eurojust's objectives, the national member shall have full access to or at least be able to obtain
(a) the information contained in the following registers:
the information contained in the following types of national registers when they exist in his or her Member State:
(i) national criminal records;
(i) criminal records;
(ii) registers of arrested persons;
(ii) registers of arrested persons;
(iii) investigation registers;
(iii) investigation registers;
(iv)  DNA registers;
(iv)  DNA registers;
(b) registers, other than those in (a), of his Member State containing information that is necessary for him to be able to fulfil his tasks
(v) other registers of his or her Member State containing information that is necessary for him or her to be able to fulfil his or her tasks.
Amendment 16
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 8
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 9a – paragraph 3
3.  National members may, in urgent cases and where no competent national authority has been identified or it is not possible to identify it in a timely manner, be able to authorise and coordinate controlled deliveries.
3.  National members may, in urgent cases and where it is not possible to identify a competent national authority in a timely manner, be able to authorise and coordinate controlled deliveries. In such a case the national member concerned shall inform the College in writing without delay of the steps taken and the reasons for the failure to identify the competent national authority in a timely manner.
Amendment 17
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 11 – subpoint -a (new)
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 13, paragraph 1
(-a) paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:
"1. The competent authorities of the Member States may exchange with Eurojust any information necessary for the performance of its tasks in compliance with Articles 4 and 5 in accordance with the rules on data protection set out in this Decision."
Amendment 18
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 11 – subpoint b
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 13, paragraph 5
5.  Member States shall ensure that their national member is informed in a timely manner, at an early stage, and as soon as the information is available of all criminal investigations concerning three or more States, two or more of which are Member States, that fall within the remit of Eurojust and insofar as necessary for the performance of Eurojust's functions, in particular where parallel letters rogatory are needed in several States or where there is a need for coordination by Eurojust or in cases of positive or negative conflicts of jurisdiction. The Member States shall ensure that the obligation to report is supervised at national level.
5.  Member States shall ensure that their national member is informed in a timely manner, at an early stage, and as soon as the information is available of any case directly concerning three or more Member States and for which requests for or decisions on judicial cooperation, including those regarding instruments giving effect to the principle of mutual recognition, have been transmitted to at least two Member States.
Amendment 19
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 11 – subpoint b
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 13, paragraph 6
6.  As a first step, Member States shall implement paragraph 5 with regard to cases relating to the following offences:
6.  As a first step, Member States shall implement paragraph 5 with regard to cases relating to the following offences:
(a) trafficking in drugs;
(a) trafficking in drugs;
(aa) sexual exploitation of children and child pornography;
(b) trafficking in human beings and arms;
(b) trafficking in human beings and arms;
(c) trafficking in nuclear waste;
(c) trafficking in nuclear waste;
(d) trafficking in works of art;
(d) trafficking in works of art;
(e) trading in endangered species;
(e) trading in endangered species;
(f) trading in human organs;
(f) trading in human organs;
(g) money laundering;
(g) money laundering;
(h) fraud, including fraud against the Community's financial interests;
(h) fraud, including fraud against the Community's financial interests;
(i) counterfeiting, including of the euro;
(i) counterfeiting, including of the euro;
(j) terrorism, including financing of terrorism;
(j) terrorism, including financing of terrorism;
(k) environmental crime;
(k) environmental crime;
(l) other forms of organised crime.
(l) other forms of offences where there are factual indications that a criminal organisation or serious crimes are involved.
Amendment 20
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 11 – subpoint b
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 13, paragraph 8
8.  Member States shall ensure that their national member is also informed of:
8.  Member States shall ensure that their national member is also informed of:
(a) all requests for judicial cooperation regarding instruments adopted under Title VI of the Treaty, including instruments giving effect to the principle of mutual recognition, sent by their competent authorities in cases involving at least three States, two or more of which are Member States;
(a) cases where conflicts of jurisdiction have arisen or are likely to arise;
(b) all controlled deliveries and undercover investigations affecting at least three States, at least two of which are Member States;
(b) all controlled deliveries and undercover investigations affecting at least three States, at least two of which are Member States;
(c) all refusals of requests for judicial cooperation regarding instruments adopted under Title VI of the Treaty, including instruments giving effect to the principle of mutual recognition;
(c) repeated difficulties or refusals regarding the execution of requests for, and decisions on, judicial cooperation, including instruments giving effect to the principle of mutual recognition;
(d) all requests for mutual legal assistance emanating from a non-Member State where it appears that these requests are part of an investigation involving other requests sent by that non-Member State to, at least, two other Member States.
Amendment 21
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 11 – subpoint b
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 13, paragraph 9
9.  In addition, competent authorities shall provide the latter with any other information which the latter deems necessary to fulfil its tasks.
deleted
Amendment 22
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 11 – subpoint b
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 13, paragraph 10 a (new)
10a.  By ... *, the Commission shall establish, on the basis of information transmitted by Eurojust, a report on the implementation of this Article, accompanied where appropriate by any proposals, including proposals considering the addition of offences other than those referred to in paragraph 6.
____________
* Three years after the entry into force of this Decision.
Amendment 23
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 13
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 14, paragraph 4 and Article 16, paragraph 1
13) in Articles 14(4) and 16(1), the words "an index of" shall be replaced by "a Case Management System containing
deleted
Amendment 24
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 14
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 15, paragraph 4 and Article 16, paragraphs 1 and 2
14) in Articles 15(4), 16(1) and 16(2), the word "index" shall be replaced by "Case Management System" and the words "an index" in Article 16(1) by "a Case Management System";
deleted
Amendment 25
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 15 – subpoint a – subpoint i
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1.  When processing data in accordance with Article 14(1), Eurojust may process personal data on persons who, under the national legislation of the Member States concerned, are the subject of a criminal investigation or prosecution for one or more of the types of crime and the offences defined in Article 4, such as:
1.  When processing data in accordance with Article 14(1), Eurojust may process only the following personal data on persons who, under the national legislation of the Member States concerned, are the subject of a criminal investigation or prosecution for one or more of the types of crime and the offences defined in Article 4:
Amendment 26
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 15 – subpoint a – subpoint ii
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point l
(l) telephone numbers, vehicle registration data, e-mail accounts, phone and e-mail traffic related data, DNA records and photographs.
(l)   DNA identification patterns, i.e. a letter or a number code which represents a set of identification characteristics of the non-coding part of an analysed human DNA sample, i.e. the particular chemical form of the various DNA locations (loci);
(la) photographs;
(lb) telephone numbers;
(lc) telephone and e-mail traffic-related data excluding the transmission of content data;
(ld) e-mail accounts;
(le) vehicle registration data.
Amendment 27
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 15 – subpoint b
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 15 – paragraph 2
(b) in paragraph 2, the word "only" shall be deleted;
deleted
Amendment 28
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 17 a (new)
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 23 – paragraph 12
17a)  Article 23(12) shall be replaced by the following:
"12. The Joint Supervisory Body shall submit an annual report to the European Parliament and the Council."
Amendment 29
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 18 – subpoint a
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 26 – paragraph 1a
1a.  Member States shall ensure that the College may actually be able to open a Europol Analytical Work File and that it may participate in its functioning.
1a.  Member States shall ensure that the College may actually be able to open a Europol Analytical Work File, as referred to in Article 10 of the Convention based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention)1 and that it may participate in its functioning.
_________________
1 OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 2.
Amendment 30
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 18 – subpoint b
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) without prejudice to Article 13 of this Decision and in accordance with Article 4(4) of Decision …./../JHA, the contact points of the European Judicial Network shall, on a case-by-case basis, inform Eurojust on cases involving two Member States and entering the field of competence of Eurojust:
(b) without prejudice to Article 13 of this Decision and in accordance with Article 4 of Decision .../../JHA, the contact points of the European Judicial Network shall, on a case-by-case basis, inform their national member of Eurojust of all other cases with which Eurojust is deemed to be in a better position to deal.
– in cases where conflicts of jurisdiction are likely to arise,
or
– in cases of a refusal of a request for judicial cooperation regarding instruments adopted under Title VI of the Treaty, including instruments giving effect to the principle of mutual recognition.
The contact points of the European Judicial Network shall, also on a case-by-case basis, inform Eurojust on all cases entering the field of competence of Eurojust and involving at least three Member States.
National members shall, on a case-by-case basis, inform European Judicial Network contact points on all cases with which the network is deemed to be in a better position to deal;
National members shall, on a case-by-case basis, inform their respective national correspondents of the European Judicial Network of all cases with which the Network is deemed to be in a better position to deal.
Amendment 31
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 19 a (new)
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 27 – paragraph 4
19a)  Article 27(4) shall be replaced by the following:
"4. Without prejudice to paragraph 3, the transmission of personal data by Eurojust to the entities referred to in paragraph 1(b) and to the authorities referred to in paragraph 1(c) of third States which are not subject to the Council of Europe Convention of 28 January 1981 may be effected only when an adequate level of data protection is ensured, which shall be assessed in accordance with Article 28(3) of the Rules of Procedure on the processing and protection of personal data at Eurojust."
Amendment 32
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 19 b (new)
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 27 – paragraph 5 a (new)
19b) in Article 27 the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 5:
"5a. Once every two years the Joint Supervisory Body, together with the respective third State or entity referred to in paragraph 1(b) and (c), shall evaluate the implementation of the provisions of the relevant cooperation agreement relating to the protection of the data exchanged. The report on this evaluation shall be sent to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission."
Amendment 33
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 22 – indent 1 a (new)
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 32 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
– the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:
"1. The President, on behalf of the College, shall report every year to the European Parliament and the Council in writing [...] on the activities and management, including budgetary management, of Eurojust."
Amendment 34
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 22 – indent 1 b (new)
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 32 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
– the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:
"To that end, the College shall prepare an annual report on the activities of Eurojust and on any criminal policy problems within the Union highlighted as a result of Eurojust's activities. In that report, Eurojust shall also include analyses of situations when national members have exercised their powers as referred to in Article 5a(3) and in Article 9a(3). The report may also make proposals for the improvement of judicial cooperation in criminal matters."
Amendment 35
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 22 – indent 1 c (new)
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 32 – paragraph 2
– paragraph 2 shall be replaced by the following:
"2. Each year the representative of the Joint Supervisory Body shall report to the European Parliament on its activities [...]."
Amendment 36
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden – amending act
Article 1 – point 26
Decision 2002/187/JHA
Article 42 – paragraph 2
2.  The Commission shall at regular intervals examine the implementation by the Member States of this Decision and shall submit a report thereon to the Council together with, if appropriate, necessary proposals to improve judicial cooperation and the functioning of Eurojust. This shall in particular apply to Eurojust's capacities to support Member States in fighting terrorism
2.  The Commission shall at regular intervals examine the implementation by the Member States of this Decision and shall submit a report thereon to the European Parliament and the Council together with, if appropriate, necessary proposals to improve judicial cooperation and the functioning of Eurojust. This shall in particular apply to Eurojust's capacities to support Member States in fighting terrorism

Evaluation of the Dublin system
PDF 163kWORD 55k
European Parliament resolution of 2 September 2008 on the evaluation of the Dublin system (2007/2262(INI))
P6_TA(2008)0385A6-0287/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national ('the Dublin Regulation')(1),

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 concerning the establishment of 'Eurodac' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention ('the Eurodac Regulation')(2),

–   having regard to Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted(3),

–   having regard to Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers(4) ('the Reception Directive'),

–   having regard to Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 311/76 on the compilation of statistics on foreign workers(5),

–   having regard to the Council Conclusions on access to Eurodac by Member States" police and law enforcement authorities as well as Europol(6),

–   having regard to Decision No 573/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the General programme Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows and repealing Council Decision 2004/904/EC(7),

–   having regard to its resolution of 6 April 2006 on the situation with refugee camps in Malta(8),

–   having regard to the reports of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on its visits to detention centres in several Member States,

–   having regard to its resolution of 21 June 2007 on asylum: practical cooperation, quality of decision-making in the common European asylum system(9),

–   having regard to its resolution of 16 January 2008: Towards an EU strategy on the rights of the child(10),

–   having regard to its resolution of 13 March 2008 on the case of the Iranian citizen Seyed Mehdi Kazemi(11),

–   having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0287/2008),

A.   whereas every asylum seeker is entitled to a full, individual examination of his or her claim,

B.   whereas asylum legislation and practice still vary widely from country to country and, as a result, asylum-seekers receive different treatment from one Dublin State to another,

C.   whereas the Dublin system is rooted in such premises as mutual trust and reliability and, if these prerequisites are not fulfilled, i.e. if there are serious gaps in data collection or inconsistencies in the decision-making process in certain Member States, the whole system suffers,

D.   whereas there is evidence that some Member States do not guarantee effective access to a procedure for determining refugee status,

E.   whereas some Member States do not apply the Reception Directive effectively, either to asylum applicants awaiting transfer to another Member State under the Dublin Regulation, or at the point of return to the Member State responsible,

F.   whereas some Member States systematically place persons subject to the Dublin system in detention,

G.   whereas the high level of multiple requests and the low level of effected transfers are indicators of the deficiencies of the Dublin system and of the need to establish a common European asylum system,

H.   whereas a correct implementation of the Dublin Regulation may well result in the unequal distribution of responsibility for persons seeking protection, to the detriment of some Member States particularly exposed to migration flows simply on the grounds of their geographical location,

I.   whereas the Commission's evaluation reveals that, in 2005, the thirteen Member States at the borders of the Union had to deal with increasing challenges raised by the Dublin system,

J.   whereas southern Member States are having to accept asylum applications from irregular immigrants who are rescued when in distress whilst they are on their way to Europe,

K.   whereas southern Member States are having to accept asylum applications from irregular immigrants without any assistance from third countries which are obliged to provide such assistance under international law,

L.   whereas Member States may have no interest in complying with the obligation of registering illegal entrants in the Eurodac database, as this may result in increasing the number of applications for asylum which they will have to deal with,

M.   whereas the Dublin Regulation establishes a system which is designed to determine the Member State responsible for dealing with a claim, but it was not originally put in place for, and therefore fails to serve as, a burden-sharing mechanism,

N.   whereas it is essential that any evaluation of the Dublin system is accompanied by a concrete, permanent, fair and functional burden-sharing mechanism,

O.   whereas the Dublin system's first-country-of-entry criteria put a lot of pressure on the border Member States,

P.   whereas recognition rates of candidates for refugee status vary for certain third-country nationals from approximately 0% to 90% within Member States,

Q.   whereas it is essential that individuals lodging claims are fully apprised of the Dublin process, in a language which they understand, and its possible consequences,

R.   whereas Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states that in all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child's best interests must be a primary consideration,

S.   whereas although family unity is mentioned first in the hierarchy of criteria applied in the Dublin Regulation, that provision is not often applied,

T.   whereas there is an obvious lack of accuracy in statistical data on transfers, as they do not indicate, for instance, the rate of requests for taking charge of an asylum applicant based on an irregular crossing of the border, or the proportion of 'taking charge' versus 'taking back' requests,

U.   whereas in 2005 nine of the new Member States stated that they were registering more "incoming" transfers under the Dublin Regulation and Member States with no external land border of the Union stated that they were registering more "outgoing" transfers,

V.   whereas the Commission has been unable to evaluate the cost of the Dublin system and whereas that information is important to be able to assess its effectiveness,

W.   whereas the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting in Luxembourg on 12 and 13 June 2007 invited the Commission to present as soon as possible an amendment to the Eurodac Regulation with the aim of enabling Member States' police and law-enforcement authorities, as well as Europol, to have access under certain conditions to Eurodac, a database which was conceived originally as a tool for implementing the Dublin Regulation,

Efficiency of the system and responsibility sharing

1.  Strongly believes that unless a satisfactory and consistent level of protection is achieved across the European Union, the Dublin system will always produce unsatisfactory results from both the technical and the human viewpoints, and asylum seekers will continue to have valid reasons for wishing to lodge their application in a specific Member State to take advantage of the most favourable national decision-making;

2.  Strongly believes that in the absence of a genuine common European asylum system and a single procedure the Dublin system will continue to be unfair both to asylum seekers and to certain Member States;

3.  Reaffirms the urgent need for the improvement of both the quality and the consistency of the decision-making process; is convinced that a European Asylum Support Office could play a valuable role in this respect, for example in providing training to high common standards and through the provision of expert support teams;

4.  Asks the Commission to consider ways of providing the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) with direct financing to complement project-based funding in order to enable it to enhance its monitoring and advisory work in the EU and continue developing methods intended to support national authorities in their efforts to improve the quality of their decision-making;

5.  Asks the Commission to bring forward proposals for burden-sharing mechanisms which could be put in place in order to help alleviate the disproportionate load which could fall on certain Member States, in particular the border Member States, but do not fit into the Dublin system;

6.  Calls on the Commission, pending the introduction of European burden-sharing mechanisms, to consider providing for mechanisms other than financial within the Dublin Regulation to correct the adverse effects of its implementation for the smaller Member States at the Union's external borders;

7.  Asks the Commission to provide for a binding mechanism to stop transfers of asylum applicants to Member States that do not guarantee full and fair treatment of their claims and to take systematic measures against those States;

8.  Calls on the Commission to establish meaningful bilateral working relations with third countries in order to facilitate cooperation and ensure that such third countries meet their international legal obligations with regard to the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951 and rescue at sea;

Rights of the claimants

9.  Asks the Commission to introduce into the new regulation clearer and more stringent provisions concerning the means by which the persons seeking protection are informed of the implications of the Dublin Regulation, and to consider drafting a standard leaflet which could be translated into a certain number of languages and be distributed to all Member States, and which should also take into account the individual levels of literacy;

10.  Asks the Commission to amend Articles 19 and 20 of the Dublin Regulation on 'taking charge and taking back', so as to provide applicants with an automatic suspensory right of appeal against a decision to transfer responsibility to another Member State under the Dublin Regulation;

11.  Reaffirms that the principle of non-refoulement should remain one of the cornerstones of any common asylum system at European Union level, and insists that the implementation of the Dublin Regulation should never lead to a claim being closed for procedural reasons and not reopened for a full and fair examination of the original claim after a transfer via the Dublin process; considers that this should be made clear in the Regulation;

12.  Considers that information-sharing on transfers between Member States should be improved, especially with respect to special medical care needed for the transferees;

13.  Calls on the Commission to assess the possibility for individuals concerned by a transfer to another Member State under the Dublin system to be able to be transferred to their country of origin, solely at their express request and on the basis of full compliance with procedural rights;

Family reunification and the principle of the best interest of the child

14.  Recommends that a set of common guidelines on age-assessment be adopted at European Union level and that in the event of uncertainty, the benefit of the doubt be given to the child;

15.  Recalls that in all decisions relating to children, the best interests of the child must be paramount; insists that unaccompanied minors should never be detained or transferred to another Member State, except for the sake of family reunification, and that if such a transfer proves necessary, the child must be duly represented and accompanied throughout the procedure; welcomes, therefore, the Commission's intention to further clarify the applicability of Dublin rules to unaccompanied minors;

16.  Regrets that the definition of a family member under the current Regulation is too restrictive and asks the Commission to extend the present definition to include all close relatives and long-term partners, particularly those who have no other family support, and adult children unable to care for themselves;

17.  Welcomes the Commission's intention to extend the scope of the Dublin Regulation to include subsidiary protection, as this should enable applicants for subsidiary protection to be reunited with family members who were granted this type of protection or are asking for it in another Member State;

Detention

18.  Asks the Commission to add a provision restricting the detention of Dublin claimants to a measure of last resort, thereby specifying the grounds on which detention may be employed and the procedural safeguards which should be provided for;

19.  Asks the Commission to state explicitly in the Dublin Regulation that Dublin claimants are entitled to the same reception conditions as other asylum seekers, in accordance with the Reception Directive, Article 3(1) of which lays down general rules notably on material reception conditions, health care, freedom of movement and the schooling of minors;

Humanitarian and Sovereignty Clauses

20.  Considers that the humanitarian clause contained in Article 15 of the Dublin Regulation gives considerable flexibility to the Dublin system, but that it should be applied more widely, so as to avoid undue hardship to families as a result of separation;

21.  Considers that where an asylum seeker is in a particularly vulnerable state owing to a serious illness, a severe disability, old age or pregnancy, and he or she is therefore dependent on the assistance of a relative present in the territory of a Member State other than the one in charge of the examination of the application, he or she should, as far as possible, be reunited with that relative; asks the Commission to consider making compulsory the relevant provisions of the humanitarian clause in Article 15(2);

22.  Considers that a proactive duty to trace family members should be introduced for organisations such as the Red Cross and Red Crescent;

23.  Welcomes the Commission's intention to better specify the circumstances and procedures for applying the Sovereignty clause, notably in order to introduce the condition of the asylum-seeker's consent;

Data collection and Eurodac

24.  Expresses its concern at the discrepancies and deficiencies in the collection of data revealed by the Commission's evaluation of the Dublin system, especially in relation to the registering of fingerprints of illegal entrants at the borders of the Union, which casts serious doubts on the validity of the system; trusts that the above-mentioned Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection will give the stakeholders a more accurate picture of the functioning of the Dublin system and other Community instruments on international protection;

25.  Expresses its concern that no cost-assessment of the Dublin system is currently available; calls on the Commission to remedy this as it is an important aspect of the evaluation of the system;

26.  Notes with interest the concerns expressed by the Commission regarding the collection and the quality of data sent to the Eurodac Central Unit, as well as regarding non-compliance with the obligation to delete certain data and with the rules relating to the protection of personal data; considers that these failings, which call into question the reliability of Eurodac, should be addressed properly before any other use of this database be envisaged;

27.  Considers that each Member State should clarify, on a closed list, the agencies and authorities that have access to the Eurodac database, and for what purpose, in order to prevent any illegal use of data;

28.  Stresses that extending access to the Eurodac database to Member States' police and law-enforcement authorities as well as to Europol entails the risk that information may pass to third countries, which could have negative repercussions for asylum seekers and their families; is convinced that this would also increase the risk of asylum seekers being stigmatised;

o
o   o

29.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

(1) OJ L 50, 25.2.2003, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 316, 15.12.2000, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 304, 30.9.2004, p. 12.
(4) OJ L 31, 6.2.2003, p. 18.
(5) OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 23.
(6) 2807th Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting in Luxembourg, 12 and 13 June 2007.
(7) OJ L 144, 6.6.2007, p. 1.
(8) OJ C 293 E, 2.12.2006, p. 301.
(9) OJ C 146 E, 12.6.2008, p. 364.
(10) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0012.
(11) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0107.


Certain issues relating to motor insurance
PDF 129kWORD 45k
European Parliament resolution of 2 September 2008 on certain issues relating to motor insurance (2007/2258(INI))
P6_TA(2008)0386A6-0249/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission report on certain issues relating to Motor Insurance (COM(2007)0207) (the "Commission Report"),

–   having regard to Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (Fourth motor insurance Directive)(1),

–   having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0249/2008),

A.   whereas the free movement of persons in the EU, particularly in the context of the most recent two rounds of enlargement and the corresponding extension of the Schengen group, has resulted in a rapid increase in the number of both persons and vehicles travelling across national borders for both business and private purposes,

B.   whereas the priority of protecting accident victims requires clear, precise and effective motor insurance legislation at EU level,

C.   whereas the Fourth motor insurance Directive called on the Commission to report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation and the effectiveness of national penalties introduced in respect of the reasoned offer/reply procedure, as well as on their equivalence, and to submit proposals if necessary,

D.   whereas the Commission Report examines national penalty provisions, the effectiveness of the claims representative mechanism, and the existing availability of voluntary legal expenses insurance to which potential victims of road accidents can additionally subscribe,

E.   whereas Article 4(6) of the Fourth motor insurance Directive governs the reasoned offer procedure, under which victims of car accidents abroad have the right to apply for compensation to the claims representative of the insurer appointed in the country of the victim's residence,

F.   whereas the victim must receive a reasoned reply from the insurer within three months or sanctions are envisaged,

G.   whereas clarification of the functioning of this provision is still needed,

H.   whereas the Commission must take full account of enlargement when implementing EU policies, in particular the relatively high cost of motor insurance in the new Member States,

I.   whereas different penalty provisions in respect of the reasoned offer/reply procedure have been implemented in the Member States,

J.   whereas consultations with national authorities, including in the new Member States, have confirmed that current penalty provisions, where they exist, are adequate and that their implementation is effective across the EU,

K.   whereas, however, some Member States make no provision for specific sanctions and rely solely upon the insurers' duty to pay statutory interest on the amount of compensation if the reasoned offer/reply is not made within three months,

L.   whereas the claims representatives system is relatively well known in the majority of Member States,

M.   whereas the consultations carried out by the Commission to assess citizens" awareness of the claims representative system involved only the Member States and the insurance industry, without appropriately involving citizens and consumer associations, i.e. those most interested in ensuring that the system works properly,

N.   whereas legal expenses insurance for legal costs borne by the victims of motor vehicle accidents is available in most Member States; whereas more than 90% of all cases are settled out-of-court and legal costs are reimbursed in many Member States; whereas, additionally, legal expenses insurers have already provided coverage for all types of cross-border case for a number of years and consequently have established their own departments to handle foreign claims and facilitate quick settlements,

O.   whereas the question of whether such reasonable legal costs should be covered by Motor Third Party Liability insurance in all Member States is still open,

P.   whereas, however, coverage of reasonable legal costs in all Member States by Motor Third Party Liability insurance helps to better protect European consumers and increase their confidence,

Q.   whereas insurance markets in the new Member States are steadily developing; whereas, however, in a number of these Member States, legal expenses insurance is a relatively new product that needs to be promoted, as public awareness of legal expenses insurance is comparatively low,

R.   whereas compulsory cover for legal costs should increase consumer confidence in Motor Third Party Liability insurance, particularly in cases where legal redress is sought, since consumers in many new Member States are wary of high legal fees, which would be covered by compulsory insurance,

S.   whereas compulsory legal expenses insurance would create an additional and more complex workload for the judiciary and possibly create delays in the resolution of disputes and a higher percentage of unjustified claims,

T.   whereas Motor Third Party Liability insurance and legal expenses insurance have different objectives and serve different functions, namely that while Motor Third Party Liability insurance allows consumers to meet the cost of claims made against them following a road traffic accident, legal expenses insurance covers the legal costs of pursuing a claim against a third party following a road traffic accident,

U.   whereas public campaigns by national authorities, the insurance industry and consumer organisations are important for the development of national markets,

1.  Welcomes the Commission Report and highlights the importance of including, fully and effectively, all stakeholders, in particular consumers, in the process of consultation in the development of EU policy in this field;

2.  Calls therefore for the systematic involvement of consumer organisations representing in particular victims in the process of evaluation of the effectiveness of the systems in place in the Member States;

3.  Welcomes this ex-post evaluation of legislative measures to ensure that the rules are working as intended and to highlight any unforeseen misapplications;

4.  Stresses the importance of increasing consumer confidence in motor insurance policies as regards cross-border motor vehicle travel within the EU, especially for motorists from the old Member States travelling to destinations in the new Member States and vice versa;

5.  Considers that the promotion of existing legal and market-led solutions which protect the consumer strengthen consumer confidence in motor insurance;

6.  Believes that Member States are also responsible for the good functioning of their national insurance systems in relation to EU legislation regarding the reasoned offer/reply procedure and legal costs borne by victims;

7.  Calls on the Commission to continue to closely monitor the effective functioning of market mechanisms and to report periodically to Parliament on this;

8.  Considers that the mere requirement that the insurer pay statutory interest in case of delay is not a punitive instrument, and that the Commission therefore needs to exercise greater control and take appropriate measures in this respect to ensure that in all Member States markets are working smoothly and consumers are effectively protected;

9.  Underlines that working relations between the Commission, national authorities, the insurance industry and consumers should be strengthened in order to ensure the constant provision of accurate data on the enforcement systems in place;

10.  Considers, in line with the generally established EU approach on sanctions, that the principle of subsidiarity should be applied and that there is no need for the harmonisation of national penalty provisions;

11.  Considers that national regulatory bodies are better placed to guarantee the highest possible level of consumer protection on their national markets,

12.  Recommends therefore with reference to the reasoned offer/reply procedure to leave to the discretion of Member States the imposition of sanctions and the choice of which types and levels of provision are appropriate,

13.  Calls on the Member States to ensure that in the event of non-compliance with the three-month deadline for submitting a reasoned reply to the claim for compensation or a reasoned offer of compensation, the penalties introduced are effective;

14.  Considers it advisable to carefully consider the reasons for the non-compliance of insurance companies before imposing penalties, taking account in particular of factors which do not depend on the companies themselves; hopes that the Commission will continue to monitor national markets, offering its input to those national authorities which call for its assistance;

15.  Reiterates the importance of boosting citizens" confidence in the functioning of the claims representative system by promoting it through public campaigns and by other appropriate measures;

16.  Calls on Member States and the Commission to raise consumer confidence by encouraging appropriate measures that increase awareness and use of national insurance information centres, such as requiring insurers to include the contact details of the information centre in the Member State in question in their contractual information package;

17.  Calls furthermore on Member States to require insurers, as part of the pre-contractual information package, to provide comprehensive information to consumers on how the claims representative system works and what are its uses and benefits to the insured party;

18.  Urges the Commission to continue to monitor the functioning of the system, and to coordinate and help where needed or where national authorities ask for assistance;

19.  Considers furthermore, in relation to Motor Third Party Liability insurance, that the compulsory cover of legal costs would create a clear disincentive for resorting to out-of-court settlements, would potentially increase the number of court proceedings and therefore lead to an unjustified increase in the workload for the judiciary, and would risk destabilising the functioning of the existing and evolving voluntary legal expenses insurance market;

20.  Considers therefore on balance that the negative effects of introducing a system of compulsory cover of legal costs in Motor Third Party Liability insurance would outweigh the potential benefits;

21.  Urges the Commission to take, in partnership with Member States, the further steps necessary to raise awareness of legal protection insurance, as well as other insurance products, particularly in the new Member States, focussing on informing consumers of the advantages of being offered and holding one or another type of insurance cover;

22.  Considers in this context the role of national regulatory bodies to be crucial for the implementation of best practices from other Member States;

23.  Calls therefore on the Commission to strengthen consumer protection primarily by urging Member States to encourage their national regulatory bodies and national insurance companies to raise awareness of the availability of voluntary legal expenses insurance;

24.  Considers that pre-contractual information on motor insurance could include information concerning the option to take out legal expenses coverage;

25.  Calls on Member States to urge national regulatory bodies and intermediaries to inform customers of possible risks and of additional voluntary insurance which might benefit them, such as, for example, legal expenses insurance, assistance cover and insurance for theft;

26.  Calls on those Member States that do not have established alternative dispute resolution systems for settling claims to consider introducing such systems based on best practice from other Member States;

27.  Asks the Commission not to prejudge the outcome of the studies commissioned on differential personal injury damages following on from the adoption of the Rome II Regulation(2), which studies may suggest an insurance-based solution and consequent amendment of the Fourth motor insurance Directive;

28.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission.

(1) OJ L 181, 20.7.2000, p. 65.
(2) Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 40).


Coordinated strategy to improve the fight against fiscal fraud
PDF 139kWORD 61k
European Parliament resolution of 2 September 2008 on a coordinated strategy to improve the fight against fiscal fraud (2008/2033(INI))
P6_TA(2008)0387A6-0312/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 31 May 2006 concerning the need to develop a co-ordinated strategy to improve the fight against fiscal fraud (COM(2006)0254),

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 23 November 2007 concerning some key elements contributing to the establishment of the VAT anti-fraud strategy within the EU (COM(2007)0758),

–   having regard to the Commission report of 16 April 2004 on the use of administrative cooperation arrangements in the fight against VAT fraud (COM(2004)0260),

–   having regard to the Council conclusions following its meetings on 14 May 2008, 5 June 2007, 28 November 2006 and 7 June 2006,

–   having regard to the Court of Auditors" Special Report No 8/2007 concerning administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax(1),

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 25 October 2005 on the contribution of taxation and customs policies to the Lisbon Strategy (COM(2005)0532),

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 22 February 2008 on measures to change the VAT system to fight fraud (COM(2008)0109),

–   having regard to the proposals from the Commission of 17 March 2008 for a Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax to combat tax evasion connected with intra-Community transactions and for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 to combat tax evasion connected with intra-Community transactions (COM(2008)0147),

–   having regard to Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

–   having regard to the recommendations in the Council conclusions following its meeting on 14 May 2008 on tax issues related to agreements to be concluded by the Community and its Member States with third countries,

–   having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0312/2008),

A.   whereas tax fraud has serious consequences for Member States' budgets and the European Union's resource system, leads to violations of the principle of fair and transparent taxation, and is liable to bring about distortions of competition, thereby affecting the operation of the internal market; whereas honest businesses have competitive disadvantages because of tax fraud, and the loss of tax revenue is ultimately replenished by the European taxpayer through other forms of taxation,

B.   whereas fiscal fraud jeopardises equity and fiscal justice, since the loss of income to public finance is often compensated for by increases in tax, which hit the least affluent and most honest taxpayers who do not have the option or the intention of evading or infringing their tax obligations,

C.   whereas the growth of cross-border trade triggered by the establishment of the internal market has resulted in an increasing number of transactions in which the place of taxation and the place of establishment of the person liable to pay the VAT are in two different Member States,

D.   whereas those using new forms of tax fraud linked to cross-border transactions, such as carousel or missing-trader intra-Community fraud, have taken advantage of the fragmentation and loopholes of the current tax systems, and whereas changes in the way that VAT operates are necessary,

E.   whereas VAT evasion and fraud have an impact on the financing of the budget of the European Union, as they result in an increased need to call on Member States" own resources based on gross national income,

F.   whereas combating fraud, while for the most part within Member State competence, is not a problem that can be solved at national level alone,

G.   whereas globalisation has led to increasing difficulties in combating fiscal fraud at an international level, given the increased involvement of undertakings established in third countries in carousel fraud, the expansion of electronic commerce and the globalisation of the services markets; whereas those factors militate strongly in favour of improving international cooperation, in particular as regards VAT,

H.   whereas the extent of tax fraud in the European Union is due to the current transitional system of VAT, which is too complex, making intra-Community transactions difficult to track, opaque and thus open to abuse,

I.   whereas when examining options to tackle fiscal fraud, the Commission and the Member States should, to the greatest extent possible, avoid measures that could lead to a disproportionate administrative burden on businesses and tax administrations or that could discriminate between traders,

J.   whereas both the Commission and the Court of Auditors have consistently stated that the system for exchanging information between Member States on intra-Community supplies of goods does not provide relevant or timely information for tackling VAT fraud efficiently; whereas this calls for clearer and more binding rules on cooperation between Member States and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF),

K.   whereas the use of all available technologies, including the electronic storage and transmission of certain data for VAT and excise duties, is indispensable for the proper functioning of Member States" tax systems; whereas the conditions for the exchange of, and direct access of Member States to, electronically stored data in each Member State should be improved; whereas Member States" tax authorities should handle personal data with due care for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law,

L.   whereas traders can often obtain only very fragmented information on the VAT status of their customers,

M.   whereas the strengthening of the means of detecting tax fraud should be accompanied by the reinforcement of the existing legislation on assistance in the recovery of taxes, equality in tax treatment and practicability for businesses,

An EU fiscal fraud strategy

1.  Notes that the purpose of an EU fiscal fraud strategy must be to tackle tax losses due to fiscal fraud by identifying the areas in which improvements to both EC legislation and administrative cooperation between Member States can be made, which effectively promote the reduction of tax fraud, to the greatest extent possible without creating unnecessary burdens both for tax administrations and tax payers;

2.  Calls on the Member States finally to take the fight against fiscal fraud seriously;

3.  Recalls that the establishment of a VAT system based on the "origin principle", which implies that transactions between Member States liable to VAT bear the tax charged in the country of origin rather than being zero-rated, remains a long-term solution for combating tax fraud effectively; notes that the "origin principle" would make it unnecessary to exempt from VAT goods traded in the internal market and to tax them subsequently in the country of destination; recalls that in order to be operational, a VAT system based on the "origin principle" requires the establishment of a clearing system, as originally proposed by the Commission in 1987;

4.  Regrets the blockading attitude of some Member States in the last ten years, which has thwarted any effective EU strategy to counter fiscal fraud;

5.  Regrets that in spite of repeated analyses, demands, and objections, the Council has not yet adopted an effective strategy for the fight against fiscal fraud;

6.  Urges the Commission not to desist from tackling the problem head-on, despite repeated failures in past decades;

General issues: extent of fiscal fraud and its consequences

7.  Acknowledges that estimates of overall (direct and indirect) tax losses due to fiscal fraud range from EUR 200 to 250 billion, which is equal to 2 to 2,25 % of GDP in the European Union, EUR 40 billion of that being due to VAT fraud, estimated to comprise 10 % of VAT receipts, 8 % of the total excise duty receipts on alcoholic beverages in 1998 and 9 % of the total excise duty receipts on tobacco products; regrets, however, that no precise figures are available because national reporting standards vary so widely;

8.  Calls for a uniform data survey in all the Member States as the basis for transparency and national measures against tax fraud;

9.  Regrets, due to the lack of data collected at national level, that the real extent of the problem cannot be properly assessed and the monitoring of changes, whether positive or negative, cannot be properly evaluated;

10.  Calls on the Commission to consider a harmonised European system for collecting data and producing statistics on fiscal fraud, so as to reach an assessment of the full extent of the phenomenon that is as accurate as possible;

11.  Recalls that the elimination of the informal economy cannot be realised without the implementation of appropriate incentives; suggests, moreover, that Member States should report, via the Lisbon scoreboard, the extent to which they have succeeded in reducing their informal economies;

The current VAT system and its weaknesses

12.  Notes that VAT-related tax fraud is a matter of particular concern for the functioning of the internal market in so far as it has a direct cross-border impact, involves substantial loss of revenue and directly affects the EU budget;

13.  Reiterates that the current VAT system, established in 1993, was intended to be only a transitional system and that Parliament has requested that the Commission put forward proposals aimed at making a final decision on the definitive VAT system by 2010;

14.  Asserts that the free circulation of persons, goods, services and capital within the internal market since 1993, as well as advances in new technology as regards small, high-value goods, have combined to make it increasingly difficult to combat VAT fraud, this being exacerbated by the complexity and fragmented nature of the current system which makes transactions difficult to track and thus more open to abuse;

15.  Notes the increasing occurrence of missing-trader fraud and the deliberate abuse of the VAT system by criminal gangs who set up such schemes to take advantage of the failures in the system; and highlights the VAT carousel fraud case launched by Eurojust, involving 18 Member States and tax fraud amounting to an estimated EUR 2,1 billion;

16.  Supports the Commission in its efforts to bring about a fundamental change to the current VAT system; welcomes the fact that Member States do now regard this as a matter of some priority and urges Member States to be prepared to take substantive measures in this context;

17.  Considers the current system to be outdated and in need of radical overhaul without over-burdening honest businesses with red tape; believes that maintaining the status quo is not an option;

Alternative systems to the current VAT system
Reverse-charge system

18.  Notes that in a reverse-charge system VAT is accounted for by the taxable customer instead of the supplier; recognises that that system has the advantage of removing the opportunity to engage in missing-trader fraud, by designating the taxable person to whom the goods are supplied as the person liable to pay the VAT;

19.  Notes that the creation of a double-VAT system would run counter to the efficient operation of the internal market and would be the source of a more complex environment that could discourage business investment, which would be overcome in the long term only by a generalised, mandatory reverse-charge system, as opposed to an optional or selected supplies-only system;

20.  Notes, furthermore, that the reverse-charge system does not allow for fractionated payment and that total VAT is paid only at the end of the supply chain, removing the self-policing control mechanism of VAT; warns that new forms of fraud may appear including increased tax losses at the retail level and the misuse of VAT identification numbers, and that combating such fraud through the introduction of additional verification could result in additional administrative burdens for honest traders; consequently urges caution and serious consideration before the introduction of a reverse-charge system; notes, nevertheless, that the application of a threshold in order to limit the risk of untaxed final consumption helps combat fraud and considers the EUR 5 000 threshold suggested by the Council to be reasonable;

Pilot project

21.  Notes, while remaining wary and critical, that a pilot project may help Member States better to understand the inherent risks of the reverse-charge system, and urges the Commission and the Member States to lay down appropriate guarantees to ensure that neither the participating Member State nor any other Member State is exposed to major risks during the operation of the pilot project;

Taxation of intra-Community supplies

22.  Believes that the best solution to tackling VAT fraud related to cross-border supplies would be to introduce a system in which the VAT exemption for intra-Community supplies is replaced by taxation at the rate of 15 %; notes that the operation of such a system would be better served if the variety and complexity of reduced rates were substantially simplified, minimising the administrative burden on both businesses and tax authorities; notes that individual reductions of VAT rates put in place before 1992 should be carefully examined and assessed with respect to whether their persistence is justified on economic grounds;

23.  Recognises that because of differential VAT rates, the taxation of intra-Community supplies would require rebalancing payments between Member States; considers that such rebalancing should be made through a clearing house that would facilitate the passing of revenue between Member States; stresses that the operation of a clearing house is technically feasible;

24.  Believes that a decentralised clearing house system may be more appropriate and could be developed more rapidly, in so far as it opens up possibilities for Member States to agree details of importance bilaterally, taking into account their individual balance of trade, similarities in the operation of their VAT system and control mechanisms, and mutual trust;

25.  Emphasises that it should be the responsibility of the tax administration of the Member State of supply to collect the VAT from its supplier and to make a transfer via the clearing system to the tax administration where the intra-Community acquisition has taken place; recognises that it is necessary to build mutual trust between tax administrations;

Administrative cooperation and mutual assistance in the field of VAT, excise duties and direct taxation

26.  Stresses that Member States cannot combat cross-border tax fraud in isolation; believes that exchanges of information and cooperation between Member States and with the Commission have been insufficient to combat tax fraud effectively as regards either substance or speed; considers that direct contact between local or national anti-fraud offices is neither developed nor sufficiently implemented, leading to inefficiency, under-use of the arrangements for administrative cooperation and delays in communication;

27.  Insists that in order to protect the fiscal revenue of all the Member States in relation to the internal market, Member States should take comparable measures against fraudsters, regardless of where losses of revenue take place; calls on the Commission to propose possible mechanisms to promote such cooperation between Member States;

28.  Welcomes the Commission's proposals for the amendment of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax(2) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 of 7 October 2003on administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax(3) to speed up the collection and exchange of information on intra-Community transactions from 2010 onwards; recognises that the proposed reporting rules of one month will add an administrative burden to businesses that provide only services which are presently not subject to that rule, but accepts that this is necessary in view of the possibility of carousel fraud in some services;

29.  Urges the Council to adopt proposed measures quickly and invites the Commission to submit further proposals on the automated access by all other Member States to certain non-sensitive data held by Member States on their own taxable persons (such as, in the business sector, certain data concerning turnover), and on the harmonisation of the procedures for the registration and de-registration of persons liable for VAT to ensure the swift detection and de-registration of fake taxable persons; stresses that Member States must take responsibility for keeping their data up to date, in particular, as regards de-registration and the detection of fraudulent registrations;

30.  Recalls that tax havens might represent a barrier to the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy, if they put excessive downward pressure on tax rates and, in general, on tax revenues;

31.  Stresses also that in times of budgetary discipline any erosion of the fiscal base will jeopardise Member States" ability to comply with the reformed Stability and Growth Pact;

32.  Stresses that removing tax havens requires, inter alia, a three-pronged strategy: tackling tax avoidance, widening the scope of Council Directive 2003/48/EC of 3 June 2003 on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments(4) and requesting that the OECD, through its members, sanction non-cooperative tax havens;

Tax evasion

33.  Regrets that the Member States are hindering reform of the Directive 2003/48/EC by their continual new objections and delaying tactics and urges the Commission to put forward its proposals as soon as possible in spite of the signs of resistance;

34.  Points out that reform of Directive 2003/48/EC must tackle its various loopholes and deficiencies, as they prevent discovery of tax evasion and fiscal fraud operations;

35.  Calls on the Commission, in the context of reform of Directive 2003/48/EC, to examine options for reform, including investigating some widening of the scope of the Directive with regard to types of legal entity and sources of financial revenue;

36.  Urges the European Union to keep the elimination of tax havens at a worldwide level on the agenda, having regard to their detrimental effects on the tax revenue of individual Member States; invites the Council and the Commission to use the leverage of EU trade power when negotiating trade and cooperation agreements with the governments of tax havens, in order to persuade them to eliminate tax provisions and practices that favour tax evasion and fraud; welcomes, as a first step, the recommendations set out in the Council conclusions following its meeting on 14 May 2008 to include in trade agreements a clause on good governance in tax matters; asks the Commission to put forward such a clause with immediate effect in its negotiations of future trade agreements;

o
o   o

37.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

(1) OJ C 20, 25.1.2008, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 347, 11.12.2006, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 264, 15.10.2003, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 157, 26.6.2003, p. 38.


Involvement of the chairs of subcomittees (interpretation of Rule 182)
PDF 98kWORD 30k
European Parliament decision of 2 September 2008 on interpretation of Rule 182 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure on the involvement of the chairs of subcommittees

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the letter of 22 July 2008 from the chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs,

–   having regard to Rule 201 of its Rules of Procedure,

1.  Decides to append the following interpretation to Rule 182(1):

  

This Rule 182(1) does not preclude the chair of the main committee from involving the chairs of the subcommittees in the work of the bureau or from permitting them to chair debates on issues specifically dealt with by the subcommittees in question – indeed, it allows this – provided that this way of proceeding is submitted to the bureau in its entirety for its consideration and that it receives the bureau's agreement

   2. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and the Commission, for information.


Announcing 2011 as the European Year of Volunteering
PDF 135kWORD 63k
Declaration of the European Parliament on announcing 2011 as the European Year of Volunteering
P6_TA(2008)0389P6_DCL(2008)0030

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to its resolution of 22 April 2008 on the role of volunteering in contributing to economic and social cohesion(1),

–   having regard to the resolution of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council of 16 May 2007 on implementing the common objectives for voluntary activities of young people(2),

–   having regard to Rule 116 of its Rules of Procedure,

A.   whereas there are more than 100 million Europeans of all ages, beliefs and nationalities who volunteer,

B.   whereas a Eurobarometer survey published in February 2007 revealed that 3 out of 10 Europeans claim to be active in a voluntary capacity and that close to 80% of respondents feel that voluntary activities are an important part of democratic life in Europe(3),

C.   whereas the voluntary sector contributes an estimated 5% to the gross domestic product of Member States' economies, and develops innovative actions to detect, voice and respond to needs arising in society,

D.   whereas the European Volunteer Centre, the European Youth Forum, the Association of Voluntary Service Organisations, the World Organisation of the Scout Movement, the Red Cross/European Union Office, volonteurope, the European Older People's Platform (AGE), Solidar, Caritas Europa, ENGAGE, Johanniter International, the European Non-Governmental Sports Organisation and others – together representing thousands of organisations involving millions of volunteers – have all called upon the institutions of the European Union to announce 2011 as the European Year of Volunteering,

1.  Calls upon the Commission, supported by all the institutions of the EU, to announce 2011 as the European Year of Volunteering;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories, to the Commission and the Council.

List of signatories

Adamos Adamou, Gabriele Albertini, Jim Allister, Alexander Alvaro, Jan Andersson, Georgs Andrejevs, Alfonso Andria, Laima Liucija Andrikienė, Emmanouil Angelakas, Roberta Angelilli, Stavros Arnaoutakis, Francisco Assis, Elspeth Attwooll, Marie-Hélène Aubert, Margrete Auken, Liam Aylward, Mariela Velichkova Baeva, Enrique Barón Crespo, Alessandro Battilocchio, Katerina Batzeli, Edit Bauer, Jean Marie Beaupuy, Zsolt László Becsey, Angelika Beer, Ivo Belet, Jean-Luc Bennahmias, Rolf Berend, Pervenche Berès, Sergio Berlato, Giovanni Berlinguer, Thijs Berman, Adam Bielan, Guy Bono, Josep Borrell Fontelles, Victor Boştinaru, Catherine Boursier, Bernadette Bourzai, John Bowis, Sharon Bowles, Emine Bozkurt, Iles Braghetto, Mihael Brejc, Frieda Brepoels, André Brie, Elmar Brok, Danutė Budreikaitė, Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, Ieke van den Burg, Colm Burke, Philip Bushill-Matthews, Cristian Silviu Buşoi, Simon Busuttil, Jerzy Buzek, Martin Callanan, Mogens Camre, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Marie-Arlette Carlotti, Giorgio Carollo, Paulo Casaca, Michael Cashman, Carlo Casini, Françoise Castex, Giuseppe Castiglione, Pilar del Castillo Vera, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, Zdzisław Kazimierz Chmielewski, Ole Christensen, Sylwester Chruszcz, Philip Claeys, Luigi Cocilovo, Carlos Coelho, Richard Corbett, Giovanna Corda, Titus Corlăţean, Jean Louis Cottigny, Michael Cramer, Corina Creţu, Gabriela Creţu, Brian Crowley, Marek Aleksander Czarnecki, Ryszard Czarnecki, Daniel Dăianu, Dragoş Florin David, Chris Davies, Bairbre de Brún, Jean-Luc Dehaene, Panayiotis Demetriou, Gérard Deprez, Proinsias De Rossa, Marielle De Sarnez, Marie-Hélène Descamps, Harlem Désir, Albert Deß, Mia De Vits, Jolanta Dičkutė, Koenraad Dillen, Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos, Alexandra Dobolyi, Beniamino Donnici, Den Dover, Avril Doyle, Mojca Drčar Murko, Petr Duchoň, Andrew Duff, Árpád Duka-Zólyomi, Constantin Dumitriu, Michl Ebner, Lena Ek, Saïd El Khadraoui, James Elles, Maria da Assunção Esteves, Edite Estrela, Harald Ettl, Jill Evans, Robert Evans, Göran Färm, Richard Falbr, Markus Ferber, Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, Francesco Ferrari, Elisa Ferreira, Ilda Figueiredo, Petru Filip, Hélène Flautre, Alessandro Foglietta, Hanna Foltyn-Kubicka, Glyn Ford, Janelly Fourtou, Armando França, Duarte Freitas, Ingo Friedrich, Urszula Gacek, Michael Gahler, Milan Gaľa, Gerardo Galeote, Vicente Miguel Garcés Ramón, Eugenijus Gentvilas, Georgios Georgiou, Bronisław Geremek, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Adam Gierek, Maciej Marian Giertych, Neena Gill, Ioannis Gklavakis, Bogdan Golik, Ana Maria Gomes, Donata Gottardi, Genowefa Grabowska, Dariusz Maciej Grabowski, Vasco Graça Moura, Nathalie Griesbeck, Lissy Gröner, Elly de Groen-Kouwenhoven, Mathieu Grosch, Lilli Gruber, Ignasi Guardans Cambó, Ambroise Guellec, Pedro Guerreiro, Umberto Guidoni, Zita Gurmai, Fiona Hall, David Hammerstein, Małgorzata Handzlik, Gábor Harangozó, Malcolm Harbour, Marian Harkin, Rebecca Harms, Joel Hasse Ferreira, Satu Hassi, Anna Hedh, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Esther Herranz García, Jim Higgins, Jens Holm, Milan Horáček, Richard Howitt, Ján Hudacký, Stephen Hughes, Alain Hutchinson, Filiz Hakaeva Hyusmenova, Monica Maria Iacob-Ridzi, Sophia in 't Veld, Mikel Irujo Amezaga, Ville Itälä, Lily Jacobs, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Stanisław Jałowiecki, Mieczysław Edmund Janowski, Lívia Járóka, Elisabeth Jeggle, Rumiana Jeleva, Anne E. Jensen, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Jelko Kacin, Filip Kaczmarek, Gisela Kallenbach, Othmar Karas, Sajjad Karim, Ioannis Kasoulides, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Tunne Kelam, Glenys Kinnock, Evgeni Kirilov, Ewa Klamt, Wolf Klinz, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Silvana Koch-Mehrin, Eija-Riitta Korhola, Miloš Koterec, Holger Krahmer, Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis, Urszula Krupa, Wiesław Stefan Kuc, Jan Jerzy Kułakowski, Sepp Kusstatscher, Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk, Joost Lagendijk, Jean Lambert, Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, Vytautas Landsbergis, Esther De Lange, Anne Laperrouze, Romano Maria La Russa, Vincenzo Lavarra, Henrik Lax, Johannes Lebech, Bernard Lehideux, Lasse Lehtinen, Jörg Leichtfried, Jo Leinen, Katalin Lévai, Janusz Lewandowski, Bogusław Liberadzki, Marcin Libicki, Eva Lichtenberger, Alain Lipietz, Pia Elda Locatelli, Andrea Losco, Caroline Lucas, Sarah Ludford, Astrid Lulling, Elizabeth Lynne, Linda McAvan, Arlene McCarthy, Mary Lou McDonald, Mairead McGuinness, Edward McMillan-Scott, Jamila Madeira, Eugenijus Maldeikis, Toine Manders, Ramona Nicole Mănescu, Vladimír Maňka, Thomas Mann, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Catiuscia Marini, Sérgio Marques, Maria Martens, David Martin, Jean-Claude Martinez, Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez, Jan Tadeusz Masiel, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Marios Matsakis, Yiannakis Matsis, Maria Matsouka, Manolis Mavrommatis, Hans-Peter Mayer, Erik Meijer, Íñigo Méndez de Vigo, Emilio Menéndez del Valle, Marianne Mikko, Miroslav Mikolášik, Gay Mitchell, Nickolay Mladenov, Claude Moraes, Eluned Morgan, Luisa Morgantini, Elisabeth Morin, Roberto Musacchio, Cristiana Muscardini, Joseph Muscat, Sebastiano (Nello) Musumeci, Riitta Myller, Pasqualina Napoletano, Michael Henry Nattrass, Robert Navarro, Cătălin-Ioan Nechifor, Bill Newton Dunn, Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, James Nicholson, Angelika Niebler, Lambert van Nistelrooij, Ljudmila Novak, Vural Öger, Jan Olbrycht, Seán Ó Neachtain, Gérard Onesta, Janusz Onyszkiewicz, Ria Oomen-Ruijten, Dumitru Oprea, Miroslav Ouzký, Siiri Oviir, Doris Pack, Maria Grazia Pagano, Borut Pahor, Justas Vincas Paleckis, Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, Marco Pannella, Pier Antonio Panzeri, Dimitrios Papadimoulis, Georgios Papastamkos, Neil Parish, Aldo Patriciello, Vincent Peillon, Alojz Peterle, Maria Petre, Markus Pieper, Sirpa Pietikäinen, João de Deus Pinheiro, Józef Pinior, Mirosław Mariusz Piotrowski, Umberto Pirilli, Hubert Pirker, Paweł Bartłomiej Piskorski, Lapo Pistelli, Gianni Pittella, Zita Pleštinská, Anni Podimata, Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański, Samuli Pohjamo, Lydie Polfer, Mihaela Popa, Nicolae Vlad Popa, Miguel Portas, Vittorio Prodi, John Purvis, Luís Queiró, Reinhard Rack, Alexander Radwan, Bilyana Ilieva Raeva, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, Karin Resetarits, José Ribeiro e Castro, Marco Rizzo, Bogusław Rogalski, Zuzana Roithová, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Dariusz Rosati, Wojciech Roszkowski, Libor Rouček, Paul Rübig, Heide Rühle, Leopold Józef Rutowicz, Eoin Ryan, Aloyzas Sakalas, Katrin Saks, Antolín Sánchez Presedo, Manuel António dos Santos, Sebastiano Sanzarello, Amalia Sartori, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, Toomas Savi, Luciana Sbarbati, Christel Schaldemose, Pierre Schapira, Agnes Schierhuber, Margaritis Schinas, Frithjof Schmidt, Olle Schmidt, Pál Schmitt, Elisabeth Schroedter, Inger Segelström, Esko Seppänen, Czesław Adam Siekierski, José Albino Silva Peneda, Brian Simpson, Kathy Sinnott, Marek Siwiec, Nina Škottová, Alyn Smith, Csaba Sógor, Bogusław Sonik, María Sornosa Martínez, Sérgio Sousa Pinto, Jean Spautz, Bart Staes, Grażyna Staniszewska, Margarita Starkevičiūtė, Dirk Sterckx, Struan Stevenson, Catherine Stihler, Ulrich Stockmann, Dimitar Stoyanov, Robert Sturdy, Margie Sudre, David Sumberg, László Surján, Eva-Britt Svensson, József Szájer, István Szent-Iványi, Konrad Szymański, Hannu Takkula, Charles Tannock, Andres Tarand, Salvatore Tatarella, Britta Thomsen, Marianne Thyssen, Silvia-Adriana Ţicău, Gary Titley, Patrizia Toia, László Tőkés, Ewa Tomaszewska, Witold Tomczak, Jacques Toubon, Antonios Trakatellis, Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, Claude Turmes, Evangelia Tzampazi, Feleknas Uca, Vladimir Urutchev, Inese Vaidere, Nikolaos Vakalis, Frank Vanhecke, Johan Van Hecke, Anne Van Lancker, Ioannis Varvitsiotis, Armando Veneto, Donato Tommaso Veraldi, Bernadette Vergnaud, Cornelis Visser, Oldřich Vlasák, Diana Wallis, Graham Watson, Henri Weber, Manfred Weber, Anja Weisgerber, Åsa Westlund, Anders Wijkman, Glenis Willmott, Iuliu Winkler, Janusz Wojciechowski, Anna Záborská, Zbigniew Zaleski, Mauro Zani, Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski, Stefano Zappalà, Tomáš Zatloukal, Tatjana Ždanoka, Gabriele Zimmer, Marian Zlotea, Jaroslav Zvěřina, Tadeusz Zwiefka

(1) Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2008)0131.
(2) OJ C 241, 20.9.2008, p. 1.
(3) "European Social Reality", Special Eurobarometer 273, Wave 66.3


Devoting more attention to youth empowerment in EU policies
PDF 135kWORD 57k
Declaration of the European Parliament on devoting more attention to youth empowerment in EU policies
P6_TA(2008)0390P6_DCL(2008)0033

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Rule 116 of its Rules of Procedure,

A.   whereas, the Commission in its White Paper 'A new impetus for European youth' (COM(2001)0681), which Parliament examined in its resolution of 14 May 2002(1), adopted the objective of devoting more attention to young people in other policy fields, especially education and lifelong learning, employment, social integration, health, youth autonomy, mobility, fundamental rights and non-discrimination,

B.   whereas the European Council of 22 - 23 March 2005 adopted a 'European Youth Pact' as one of the instruments contributing to the Lisbon objectives, and renewed its commitment in March 2008, insisting on the need to invest in youth now and in the future,

C.   whereas the Commission reflected the need for the mainstreaming of youth issues in its Communication of 5 September 2007 on 'Promoting young people´s full participation in education, employment and society' (COM(2007)0498),

D.   whereas it adopted its resolutions of 19 June 2007 on a regulatory framework for measures enabling young women in the European Union to combine family life with a period of studies(2) and of 21 February 2008 on the demographic future of Europe(3), thus highlighting the need to take greater account of youth,

1.  Calls on the Commission, when preparing legislative proposals, to consider and incorporate the impact on youth and the results of the structured dialogue with youth organisations, in particular in the policy fields referred to in recital A;

2.  Calls on the Member States to focus on youth when implementing the Lisbon national reform programmes and to take youth into account in the relevant policy fields;

3.  Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories, to the Council, the Commission and the European Youth Forum.

List of signatories

Adamos Adamou, Vincenzo Aita, Gabriele Albertini, Alexander Alvaro, Jan Andersson, Georgs Andrejevs, Alfonso Andria, Laima Liucija Andrikienė, Emmanouil Angelakas, Roberta Angelilli, Kader Arif, Stavros Arnaoutakis, Francisco Assis, John Attard-Montalto, Elspeth Attwooll, Jean-Pierre Audy, Margrete Auken, Liam Aylward, Pilar Ayuso, Peter Baco, Maria Badia i Cutchet, Mariela Velichkova Baeva, Enrique Barón Crespo, Alessandro Battilocchio, Katerina Batzeli, Jean Marie Beaupuy, Zsolt László Becsey, Ivo Belet, Jean-Luc Bennahmias, Monika Beňová, Giovanni Berlinguer, Thijs Berman, Šarūnas Birutis, Sebastian Valentin Bodu, Herbert Bösch, Guy Bono, Victor Boştinaru, Bernadette Bourzai, John Bowis, Sharon Bowles, Emine Bozkurt, Iles Braghetto, Mihael Brejc, Frieda Brepoels, Jan Březina, André Brie, Danutė Budreikaitė, Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, Wolfgang Bulfon, Udo Bullmann, Ieke van den Burg, Colm Burke, Niels Busk, Cristian Silviu Buşoi, Philippe Busquin, Simon Busuttil, Jerzy Buzek, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, David Casa, Paulo Casaca, Michael Cashman, Carlo Casini, Giuseppe Castiglione, Jean-Marie Cavada, Alejandro Cercas, Ole Christensen, Luigi Cocilovo, Carlos Coelho, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Richard Corbett, Dorette Corbey, Giovanna Corda, Titus Corlăţean, Thierry Cornillet, Jean Louis Cottigny, Michael Cramer, Jan Cremers, Gabriela Creţu, Brian Crowley, Magor Imre Csibi, Marek Aleksander Czarnecki, Daniel Dăianu, Joseph Daul, Dragoş Florin David, Chris Davies, Antonio De Blasio, Bairbre de Brún, Arūnas Degutis, Jean-Luc Dehaene, Panayiotis Demetriou, Marie-Hélène Descamps, Albert Deß, Christine De Veyrac, Mia De Vits, Jolanta Dičkutė, Alexandra Dobolyi, Beniamino Donnici, Bert Doorn, Brigitte Douay, Avril Doyle, Mojca Drčar Murko, Petr Duchoň, Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop, Árpád Duka-Zólyomi, Constantin Dumitriu, Michl Ebner, Lena Ek, Saïd El Khadraoui, Maria da Assunção Esteves, Edite Estrela, Harald Ettl, Jill Evans, Göran Färm, Richard Falbr, Carlo Fatuzzo, Claudio Fava, Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, Francesco Ferrari, Elisa Ferreira, Ilda Figueiredo, Petru Filip, Věra Flasarová, Alessandro Foglietta, Hanna Foltyn-Kubicka, Nicole Fontaine, Glyn Ford, Brigitte Fouré, Janelly Fourtou, Juan Fraile Cantón, Armando França, Monica Frassoni, Duarte Freitas, Milan Gaľa, Vicente Miguel Garcés Ramón, Iratxe García Pérez, Patrick Gaubert, Jean-Paul Gauzès, Eugenijus Gentvilas, Georgios Georgiou, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Claire Gibault, Ioannis Gklavakis, Ana Maria Gomes, Donata Gottardi, Vasco Graça Moura, Martí Grau i Segú, Louis Grech, Nathalie Griesbeck, Lissy Gröner, Elly de Groen-Kouwenhoven, Matthias Groote, Mathieu Grosch, Françoise Grossetête, Lilli Gruber, Ignasi Guardans Cambó, Ambroise Guellec, Pedro Guerreiro, Zita Gurmai, Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines, Fiona Hall, David Hammerstein, Benoît Hamon, Małgorzata Handzlik, Marian Harkin, Rebecca Harms, Joel Hasse Ferreira, Satu Hassi, Anna Hedh, Gyula Hegyi, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Jim Higgins, Jens Holm, Mary Honeyball, Milan Horáček, Stephen Hughes, Alain Hutchinson, Filiz Hakaeva Hyusmenova, Sophia in 't Veld, Ville Itälä, Carlos José Iturgaiz Angulo, Lily Jacobs, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Mieczysław Edmund Janowski, Anne E. Jensen, Dan Jørgensen, Pierre Jonckheer, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Jelko Kacin, Filip Kaczmarek, Gisela Kallenbach, Othmar Karas, Ioannis Kasoulides, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Metin Kazak, Tunne Kelam, Glenys Kinnock, Ewa Klamt, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Silvana Koch-Mehrin, Jaromír Kohlíček, Maria Eleni Koppa, Miloš Koterec, Sergej Kozlík, Guntars Krasts, Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis, Wiesław Stefan Kuc, Jan Jerzy Kułakowski, Sepp Kusstatscher, Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk, Joost Lagendijk, André Laignel, Alain Lamassoure, Jean Lambert, Vytautas Landsbergis, Esther De Lange, Anne Laperrouze, Henrik Lax, Johannes Lebech, Stéphane Le Foll, Roselyne Lefrançois, Bernard Lehideux, Lasse Lehtinen, Jörg Leichtfried, Jo Leinen, Marcin Libicki, Eva Lichtenberger, Marie-Noëlle Lienemann, Alain Lipietz, Pia Elda Locatelli, Caroline Lucas, Sarah Ludford, Florencio Luque Aguilar, Elizabeth Lynne, Marusya Ivanova Lyubcheva, Jules Maaten, Linda McAvan, Arlene McCarthy, Mary Lou McDonald, Mairead McGuinness, Edward McMillan-Scott, Jamila Madeira, Ramona Nicole Mănescu, Vladimír Maňka, Mario Mantovani, Catiuscia Marini, Helmuth Markov, Sérgio Marques, Maria Martens, David Martin, Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez, Jan Tadeusz Masiel, Marios Matsakis, Yiannakis Matsis, Manolis Mavrommatis, Manuel Medina Ortega, Erik Meijer, Íñigo Méndez de Vigo, Emilio Menéndez del Valle, Marianne Mikko, Miroslav Mikolášik, Claude Moraes, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Luisa Morgantini, Elisabeth Morin, Roberto Musacchio, Joseph Muscat, Sebastiano (Nello) Musumeci, Riitta Myller, Pasqualina Napoletano, Robert Navarro, Cătălin-Ioan Nechifor, Catherine Neris, Angelika Niebler, Ljudmila Novak, Raimon Obiols i Germà, Vural Öger, Jan Olbrycht, Seán Ó Neachtain, Gérard Onesta, Dumitru Oprea, Josu Ortuondo Larrea, Siiri Oviir, Borut Pahor, Justas Vincas Paleckis, Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, Vladko Todorov Panayotov, Pier Antonio Panzeri, Dimitrios Papadimoulis, Atanas Paparizov, Georgios Papastamkos, Neil Parish, Ioan Mircea Paşcu, Aldo Patriciello, Vincent Peillon, Maria Petre, Sirpa Pietikäinen, Rihards Pīks, João de Deus Pinheiro, Józef Pinior, Umberto Pirilli, Hubert Pirker, Paweł Bartłomiej Piskorski, Gianni Pittella, Francisca Pleguezuelos Aguilar, Zita Pleštinská, Anni Podimata, Samuli Pohjamo, Bernard Poignant, José Javier Pomés Ruiz, Mihaela Popa, Nicolae Vlad Popa, Miguel Portas, Christa Prets, Pierre Pribetich, Vittorio Prodi, John Purvis, Luís Queiró, Reinhard Rack, Bilyana Ilieva Raeva, Miloslav Ransdorf, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, Karin Resetarits, José Ribeiro e Castro, Teresa Riera Madurell, Frédérique Ries, Karin Riis-Jørgensen, Maria Robsahm, Bogusław Rogalski, Zuzana Roithová, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, Libor Rouček, Paul Rübig, Heide Rühle, Leopold Józef Rutowicz, Eoin Ryan, Tokia Saïfi, Aloyzas Sakalas, Katrin Saks, José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Antolín Sánchez Presedo, Manuel António dos Santos, Sebastiano Sanzarello, Salvador Domingo Sanz Palacio, Amalia Sartori, Gilles Savary, Toomas Savi, Luciana Sbarbati, Christel Schaldemose, Agnes Schierhuber, Carl Schlyter, Frithjof Schmidt, Pál Schmitt, Elisabeth Schroedter, Inger Segelström, Adrian Severin, José Albino Silva Peneda, Brian Simpson, Csaba Sógor, Søren Bo Søndergaard, Bogusław Sonik, María Sornosa Martínez, Sérgio Sousa Pinto, Jean Spautz, Bart Staes, Grażyna Staniszewska, Gabriele Stauner, Petya Stavreva, Dirk Sterckx, Catherine Stihler, Ulrich Stockmann, Theodor Dumitru Stolojan, Dimitar Stoyanov, Daniel Strož, Margie Sudre, Eva-Britt Svensson, Hannes Swoboda, József Szájer, István Szent-Iványi, Csaba Sándor Tabajdi, Antonio Tajani, Hannu Takkula, Andres Tarand, Britta Thomsen, Marianne Thyssen, Silvia-Adriana Ţicău, Gary Titley, Patrizia Toia, László Tőkés, Ewa Tomaszewska, Witold Tomczak, Jacques Toubon, Antonios Trakatellis, Catherine Trautmann, Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, Claude Turmes, Evangelia Tzampazi, Feleknas Uca, Vladimir Urutchev, Nikolaos Vakalis, Johan Van Hecke, Anne Van Lancker, Ioannis Varvitsiotis, Donato Tommaso Veraldi, Bernadette Vergnaud, Alejo Vidal-Quadras, Kristian Vigenin, Oldřich Vlasák, Dominique Vlasto, Johannes Voggenhuber, Sahra Wagenknecht, Graham Watson, Henri Weber, Renate Weber, Åsa Westlund, Jan Marinus Wiersma, Anders Wijkman, Glenis Willmott, Iuliu Winkler, Janusz Wojciechowski, Corien Wortmann-Kool, Francis Wurtz, Luis Yañez-Barnuevo García, Anna Záborská, Zbigniew Zaleski, Mauro Zani, Tatjana Ždanoka, Dushana Zdravkova, Marian Zlotea, Jaroslav Zvěřina, Tadeusz Zwiefka

(1) OJ C 180E, 31.7.2003, p.145.
(2) OJ C 146E, 12.6.2008, p.112.
(3) Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2008)0066.


Emergency cooperation in recovering missing children
PDF 132kWORD 49k
Declaration of the European Parliament on emergency cooperation in recovering missing children
P6_TA(2008)0391P6_DCL(2008)0036

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Rule 116 of its Rules of Procedure,

A.   whereas the abduction of a child is amongst the most inhumane of crimes,

B.   whereas the commission of such crimes is increasing in Europe and may involve transporting victims across state borders,

C.   whereas the prospects of saving the life of an abducted child decrease as time passes,

D.   whereas there is no Europe-wide system of alert for child disappearances nor any local or national systems throughout much of the European Union,

1.  Calls on Member States to introduce a missing child alert system, which, when activated, would require the immediate forwarding to the relevant news media, border authorities and customs and law enforcement agencies of:

   details of the missing child, with a photograph if available,
   information relevant to the disappearance and the suspected abductor(s),
   a telephone number to call with information (116 000, where operational);

2.  Calls on the Member States to reach cooperation agreements with all bordering states to ensure the capability of raising an alert rapidly across any relevant territories;

3.  Calls for the development of a common organisation to provide assistance and training to national bodies;

4.  Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories, to the Council and the Commission.

List of signatories

Adamos Adamou, Vittorio Agnoletto, Vincenzo Aita, Gabriele Albertini, Jim Allister, Alexander Alvaro, Georgs Andrejevs, Emmanouil Angelakas, Roberta Angelilli, Stavros Arnaoutakis, Richard James Ashworth, Robert Atkins, John Attard-Montalto, Elspeth Attwooll, Marie-Hélène Aubert, Margrete Auken, Liam Aylward, Mariela Velichkova Baeva, Paolo Bartolozzi, Domenico Antonio Basile, Gerard Batten, Alessandro Battilocchio, Katerina Batzeli, Jean Marie Beaupuy, Christopher Beazley, Zsolt László Becsey, Ivo Belet, Irena Belohorská, Jean-Luc Bennahmias, Sergio Berlato, Thijs Berman, Slavi Binev, Sebastian Valentin Bodu, Herbert Bösch, Jens-Peter Bonde, Vito Bonsignore, Graham Booth, Mario Borghezio, Costas Botopoulos, Catherine Boursier, Bernadette Bourzai, John Bowis, Sharon Bowles, Iles Braghetto, Mihael Brejc, Frieda Brepoels, André Brie, Danutė Budreikaitė, Paul van Buitenen, Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, Udo Bullmann, Ieke van den Burg, Colm Burke, Philip Bushill-Matthews, Niels Busk, Cristian Silviu Buşoi, Philippe Busquin, Simon Busuttil, Jerzy Buzek, Milan Cabrnoch, Martin Callanan, Mogens Camre, Marco Cappato, Marie-Arlette Carlotti, Giorgio Carollo, David Casa, Paulo Casaca, Michael Cashman, Carlo Casini, Giuseppe Castiglione, Giusto Catania, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, Giles Chichester, Ole Christensen, Fabio Ciani, Derek Roland Clark, Luigi Cocilovo, Carlos Coelho, Richard Corbett, Giovanna Corda, Titus Corlăţean, Thierry Cornillet, Paolo Costa, Jean Louis Cottigny, Paul Marie Coûteaux, Michael Cramer, Gabriela Creţu, Brian Crowley, Marek Aleksander Czarnecki, Hanne Dahl, Daniel Dăianu, Chris Davies, Bairbre de Brún, Panayiotis Demetriou, Gérard Deprez, Proinsias De Rossa, Marielle De Sarnez, Marie-Hélène Descamps, Harlem Désir, Albert Deß, Nirj Deva, Christine De Veyrac, Mia De Vits, Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos, Alexandra Dobolyi, Beniamino Donnici, Bert Doorn, Brigitte Douay, Den Dover, Avril Doyle, Mojca Drčar Murko, Petr Duchoň, Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop, Andrew Duff, Árpád Duka-Zólyomi, Constantin Dumitriu, Michl Ebner, Lena Ek, James Elles, Edite Estrela, Jill Evans, Jonathan Evans, Robert Evans, Nigel Farage, Markus Ferber, Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, Francesco Ferrari, Ilda Figueiredo, Petru Filip, Roberto Fiore, Věra Flasarová, Hélène Flautre, Alessandro Foglietta, Hanna Foltyn-Kubicka, Glyn Ford, Brigitte Fouré, Janelly Fourtou, Milan Gaľa, Elisabetta Gardini, Giuseppe Gargani, Evelyne Gebhardt, Georgios Georgiou, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Maciej Marian Giertych, Neena Gill, Ioannis Gklavakis, Ana Maria Gomes, Donata Gottardi, Genowefa Grabowska, Louis Grech, Nathalie Griesbeck, Lissy Gröner, Elly de Groen-Kouwenhoven, Mathieu Grosch, Françoise Grossetête, Lilli Gruber, Ignasi Guardans Cambó, Ambroise Guellec, Pedro Guerreiro, Catherine Guy-Quint, Fiona Hall, Benoît Hamon, Małgorzata Handzlik, Gábor Harangozó, Malcolm Harbour, Marian Harkin, Joel Hasse Ferreira, Satu Hassi, Christopher Heaton-Harris, Anna Hedh, Roger Helmer, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Jim Higgins, Mary Honeyball, Richard Howitt, Ján Hudacký, Ian Hudghton, Stephen Hughes, Jana Hybášková, Filiz Hakaeva Hyusmenova, Sophia in 't Veld, Iliana Malinova Iotova, Mikel Irujo Amezaga, Marie Anne Isler Béguin, Caroline Jackson, Lily Jacobs, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Lívia Járóka, Anne E. Jensen, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Ona Juknevičienė, Jelko Kacin, Filip Kaczmarek, Syed Kamall, Sajjad Karim, Ioannis Kasoulides, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Robert Kilroy-Silk, Glenys Kinnock, Evgeni Kirilov, Wolf Klinz, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Maria Eleni Koppa, Eija-Riitta Korhola, Guntars Krasts, Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis, Urszula Krupa, Sepp Kusstatscher, Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk, Joost Lagendijk, Alain Lamassoure, Jean Lambert, Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, Vytautas Landsbergis, Anne Laperrouze, Romano Maria La Russa, Vincenzo Lavarra, Henrik Lax, Johannes Lebech, Kurt Lechner, Bernard Lehideux, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Jo Leinen, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Bogusław Liberadzki, Marcin Libicki, Pia Elda Locatelli, Andrea Losco, Caroline Lucas, Sarah Ludford, Astrid Lulling, Elizabeth Lynne, Marusya Ivanova Lyubcheva, Jules Maaten, Linda McAvan, Arlene McCarthy, Mary Lou McDonald, Mairead McGuinness, Edward McMillan-Scott, Jamila Madeira, Toine Manders, Ramona Nicole Mănescu, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Catiuscia Marini, David Martin, Jan Tadeusz Masiel, Véronique Mathieu, Yiannakis Matsis, Mario Mauro, Manolis Mavrommatis, Erik Meijer, Marianne Mikko, Gay Mitchell, Viktória Mohácsi, Claude Moraes, Eluned Morgan, Luisa Morgantini, Philippe Morillon, Elisabeth Morin, Jan Mulder, Roberto Musacchio, Cristiana Muscardini, Joseph Muscat, Sebastiano (Nello) Musumeci, Pasqualina Napoletano, Robert Navarro, Cătălin-Ioan Nechifor, Catherine Neris, Bill Newton Dunn, Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, James Nicholson, null Nicholson of Winterbourne, Vural Öger, Seán Ó Neachtain, Gérard Onesta, Dumitru Oprea, Josu Ortuondo Larrea, Miroslav Ouzký, Siiri Oviir, Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, Pier Antonio Panzeri, Dimitrios Papadimoulis, Atanas Paparizov, Georgios Papastamkos, Neil Parish, Aldo Patriciello, Vincent Peillon, Maria Petre, Willi Piecyk, Rihards Pīks, João de Deus Pinheiro, Józef Pinior, Umberto Pirilli, Lapo Pistelli, Gianni Pittella, Zita Pleštinská, Rovana Plumb, Guido Podestà, Anni Podimata, Samuli Pohjamo, Lydie Polfer, José Javier Pomés Ruiz, Mihaela Popa, Pierre Pribetich, Vittorio Prodi, Jacek Protasiewicz, John Purvis, Luís Queiró, Reinhard Rack, Bilyana Ilieva Raeva, Miloslav Ransdorf, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, Karin Resetarits, José Ribeiro e Castro, Frédérique Ries, Karin Riis-Jørgensen, Giovanni Rivera, Giovanni Robusti, Bogusław Rogalski, Zuzana Roithová, Luca Romagnoli, Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, Libor Rouček, Martine Roure, Heide Rühle, Leopold Józef Rutowicz, Eoin Ryan, Tokia Saïfi, Aloyzas Sakalas, Manuel António dos Santos, Amalia Sartori, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, Toomas Savi, Christel Schaldemose, Margaritis Schinas, György Schöpflin, Jürgen Schröder, Inger Segelström, Adrian Severin, José Albino Silva Peneda, Brian Simpson, Kathy Sinnott, Peter Skinner, Nina Škottová, Alyn Smith, Søren Bo Søndergaard, Bogusław Sonik, Jean Spautz, Bart Staes, Grażyna Staniszewska, Margarita Starkevičiūtė, Dirk Sterckx, Struan Stevenson, Catherine Stihler, Dimitar Stoyanov, Daniel Strož, Robert Sturdy, Margie Sudre, David Sumberg, Konrad Szymański, Hannu Takkula, Charles Tannock, Andres Tarand, Salvatore Tatarella, Britta Thomsen, Silvia-Adriana Ţicău, Jeffrey Titford, Gary Titley, Patrizia Toia, László Tőkés, Ewa Tomaszewska, Witold Tomczak, Antonios Trakatellis, Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, Claude Turmes, Evangelia Tzampazi, Feleknas Uca, Vladimir Urutchev, Inese Vaidere, Nikolaos Vakalis, Frank Vanhecke, Anne Van Lancker, Geoffrey Van Orden, Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna, Ari Vatanen, Yannick Vaugrenard, Armando Veneto, Riccardo Ventre, Donato Tommaso Veraldi, Bernadette Vergnaud, Alejo Vidal-Quadras, Cornelis Visser, Oldřich Vlasák, Dominique Vlasto, Diana Wallis, Graham Watson, Manfred Weber, Renate Weber, Åsa Westlund, Anders Wijkman, Glenis Willmott, Iuliu Winkler, Janusz Wojciechowski, Corien Wortmann-Kool, Anna Záborská, Jan Zahradil, Iva Zanicchi, Stefano Zappalà, Tatjana Ždanoka, Dushana Zdravkova, Vladimír Železný, Gabriele Zimmer, Marian Zlotea, Jaroslav Zvěřina, Tadeusz Zwiefka

Legal notice - Privacy policy