Summary of the meeting of the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), held in Brussels on 4-5 November 2008

Inhoud

Delen

enveloppe
  1. Tekst
  2. Originele weergave
  1. Meer informatie

1.

Tekst

API 78 JUR 489 NOTE from :

General Secretariat of the Council

to : Delegations

Subject: Summary of the meeting of the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), held in Brussels on 4-5 November 2008

It should be noted that the joint debate on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending

Regulation (EC) No.2182/2004 concerning medals and tokens similar to euro coins and the

proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No.2183/2004 extending to the non-

participating Member States the application of Regulation (EC) No. 2182/2004 concerning medals

and tokens similar to euro coins was withdrawn from the agenda. Furthermore, the adoption of a

draft report on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council

amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 2252/2004 on standards for security features and biometrics

in passports and travel documents issued by Member States was postponed until the next meeting.

I. Consideration of reports as leading committee

  • a) 
    The situation of fundamental rights in the European Union 2004 - 2007

2007/2145(INI)

Rapporteur: Giusto CATA IA (GUE/ GL, IT)

Mr CATANIA stated that he would come up with compromise amendments in order to

allow for the adoption of the report. He admitted that the report was too long, but remarked

that many amendments made it even longer.

Ms ROURE (PSE, FR) welcomed the fact that specific Member States or specific situations

would not be singled out. She suggested introducing references to social rights.

Ms GÁL (PPE-DE, HU) agreed as regards the importance of the report being finally

adopted.

Mr FRANÇA (PPE-DE, PT) suggested shortening the report, which would make it easier to

reach an agreement and which would lead to more people reading it.

  • b) 
    Draft wind-up resolution on EU-PNR (Passenger Name Record)

Rapporteur: Sophia I 'T VELD (ALDE, L)

Ms IN 'T VELD expressed the opinion that the justification for the introduction of an EU-

PNR was insufficient. Harmonisation of national schemes was a non-argument, as there was

only one at present. The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and the Fundamental

Rights Agency (FRA) had also raised concerns. She urged that the resolution be adopted at

the November plenary, because the Council planned conclusions for the end of November.

Mr BRADBOURN (PPE-DE, UK) defended his proposal to defer the adoption stating that

in the TRAN committee, a number of issues had been raised, concerning particularly the

terms "serious crime" or "organised crime". He suggested getting a clear view of potential

conflicts with the Council.

Ms ROURE (PSE, FR) agreed with Ms In 't Veld in that he preferred adoption before end of

November. She suggested direct contacts with the Council.

Mr WEBER (PPE-DE, DE) welcomed the broad consensus which took a sceptical view of

the proposal, mentioning doubts regarding its conformity with the subsidiarity and

proportionality principles. He suggested sending a strong signal to the Council.

For the Presidency of the Council, Mr PIC stated that the approach of the Council on the

matter was to hear experts before each debate - in this way, the EDPS and the FRA had been

asked for advice. The Council had arrived at certain guidelines, particularly concerning the

objectives, which had to be limited. It had now commenced the examination of the data

protection regime. Concerning subsidiarity, he explained that the Member States

successively set up national PNR schemes, and third countries demanded the transfer of

PNR data. Therefore, a European PNR was necessary to avoid a PNR being imposed by

others. Furthermore, 80% of the drug seizures at the airports of Paris resulted from the use

of PNR data.

Ms LUDFORD regretted that the Council did not provide a decent study, while Mr

CASHMAN (PSE, UK) agreed with the view of the Presidency of the Council and

expressed the opinion that a PNR system with adequate data protection guarantees could

enhance and reinforce civil liberties.

Ms IN 'T VELD regretted that an oral question tabled to the Council had been withdrawn

from the agenda of the October plenary session by the Conference of Presidents. She stated

that she was not against the proposal as such, but had a number of specific questions,

particularly concerning the purpose. That PNR data could be used for the fight against

terrorism was a myth. Nor could third countries asking for PNR data be a justification for

the introduction of an EU-PNR either.

Timetable:

Deadline for tabling amendments: 7 ovember 2008

reception of asylum seekers: visits by the committee on civil liberties 2005-2008

2008/2235(INI)

Rapporteur: Martine ROURE (PSE, FR)

Ms ROURE stated that the report drew conclusions from the individual reports. She did not

want to point to individual Member States, but noted that in spite of the Directive 2003/9/EC

on minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, the situation varied

considerably. The directive was too vague, left too much room for interpretation and was in

some cases badly implemented. She deplored the increased use of detention by Member

States. Because the reports had been much appreciated, she proposed the establishment of a

permanent visit system.

Timetable:

Second exchange of views: 2 December 2008 Deadline for tabling amendments: 12 December 2008

  • d) 
    LIBE delegation to Rome, 18 - 20 September 2008

A representative of the Legal Service of the Parliament replied to questions put by the

Chairman . To the first question he answered that stricter penal sanctions against the illegal

residence of a national of another Member State was contrary to EU law because it would in

effect penalise irregular presence, which was in turn contrary to the directive on the right of

citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory

of the Member States (2004/38/EC) and to the principle of proportionality. To the second

question, he answered that EU law did not forbid a more stringent sanction against on non-

EU citizens, as neither Article 19 of the EC Treaty nor the aforementioned directive were

applicable.

Ms CALIA (PPE-DE, IT) observed that the draft Italian law in question was applicable only

to non-EU citizens. Similarly, the intended offence of illegal entry into Italian territory was

applicable only to non-EU citizens.

Ms ANGELILLI (UEN, IT) asked what had to be understood by serious grounds of public

policy or public security, as conditions for expulsion of an EU citizen.

The representative of the Legal Service of the Parliament replied that such decision could

only be taken based on the personal conduct of the individual. Furthermore, there had to be a

genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat which affected fundamental interests of

society. Therefore, the conditions were very restrictive. Procedural safeguards included a

right to judicial redress. The decision could only be applied in accordance with these rules

and could not be attached to a judicial decision.

Timetable:

Deadline for tabling amendments: 13 ovember 2008 Exchange of views in Committee: December 2008

  • e) 
    Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and

enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance

obligations

5199/06

2005/0259 (CNS)

COM(2005) 649

Rapporteur: Genowefa GRABOWSKA (PSE, PL)

Ms GRABOWSKA welcomed the good cooperation with the French Council Presidency.

The compromise found was the result of long negotiations. She expressed the opinion that

the compromise was a good one and took into account the position of the Parliament. In

particular, the Council agreed that the need for a recognition procedure on maintenance

decisions in another Member State should be removed. Free legal aid could have been

achieved for people under 21. She regretted that the Council had not agreed to a rapid

enforcement by direct recourse to (Martin, the last sentence is my interpretation) the debtors'

accounts, but the Commission had suggested issuing a separate proposal on trans-border

execution.

The Commission representative expressed her satisfaction with the compromise achieved.

She agreed that the refusal of rapid enforcement was regrettable, but promised that the

Commission would come back to this in a separate proposal.

Timetable:

Deadline for tabling amendments: 10 ovember 2008

Vote in committee: 17 ovember 2008

Vote in plenary: December mini-plenary

  • f) 
    Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding

public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents 9200/08+COR 1

2008/0090 (COD)

COM(2008) 229

Rapporteur: Michael CASHMA (PSE, UK)

Mr CASHMAN expressed the opinion that citizens felt disconnected from Europe's

decisions, in particular as regards the Council, because of a lack of information. One reason

put forward for rejecting the Lisbon Treaty by the Irish population was that they did not

know what they were voting on. Therefore the Council had a lot to gain from transparency.

National Parliaments should be able to make ministers accountable for decisions, which was

not the case today. He deplored that the Commission proposal was a step backwards, in

particular the new definition of the term "document". But he welcomed the that access for

non-EU citizens residing in the EU is widened. He mentioned the example of the Mexican

legislation on public access to documents which could be taken as a model.

Ms CEDERSCHIÖLD (PPE-DE, SE) agreed to suggest the Mexican model, which had done

muchto combat corruption. She approved most of the report, but commented on some

details.

Mr CAPPATO (ALDE, IT) suggested particular attention to be paid to databases. The

distinction between information and documentation was often used by institutions to refuse

access. Information about legislative debates in the Council should be made available.

II. Consideration of a report as committee for opinion

The protection of consumers, in particular minors, in respect of the use of video games

2008/2173(INI)

COM(2008)0207

Draftswoman: Roberta Angelilli (UE , IT)

Ms ANGELILLI stated that computer games should not be demonised, they could also have

positive effects. But there were also dangers. The objective of the Commission was to

protect young consumers by the introduction of a classification scheme by self-regulation.

For the Commission, M. BOULOGNE stated that the Commission had pointed out a number

of recommendations, which struck the balance between freedom and protection of minors.

The system used in most Member States appeared to be working well, but could be

improved. In particular, parents had to use the tools provided. A cross-European media age

ranking system would be wonderful, but taking into account the existing differences, it

would be difficult to harmonise the systems. Therefore, the Commission focused on the

exchange of best practices.

III. Vote on reports as leading committee

  • a) 
    Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council providing for

sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals

9871/07

2007/0094 (COD)

COM(2007) 249

Rapporteur: Claudio FAVA (PSE, IT)

The orientation text for negotiations with the Council was adopted with 25 votes in favour, 3

against and 16 abstentions (PPE-DE group), including amendments 3, 5, 8-10, 16, 31, 42,

54, 68, 69, 72, 83, 115 and 126, the compromise amendments 1-7 and the amendments 6,

12, 13, 24 and 38 of the EMPL Committee, the amendment 9 of the FEMM Committee and

the amendments 14 and 16 of the AGRI Committee.

  • b) 
    Proposal for a Council Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-

country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment 14490/07

2007/0228 (CNS)

COM(2007) 637

Rapporteur: Ewa KLAMT (PPE-DE, DE)

The draft report was adopted with 33 votes in favour, none against and 11 abstentions,

including the amendments 1, 2, 7, 48, 65, 10-15, 17, 18, 22, 25, 29, 36-39, 41, 42, 80, 81,

85, 87, 89, 99, 100, 102, 104, 111, 117, 119, 122, 127 and 144-146, as well as all

compromise amendments (1-8, compromise amendments 2, 6 and 7 including oral

amendments), further oral amendments concerning Article 8, paragraph 2 a (new) and

Recital 15a (new), and the amendments 2, 11, 18, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31 and 46 of the EMPL

Committee.

  • c) 
    Proposal for a Council Directive on a single application procedure for a single permit

for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and

on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member

State

14491/07

2007/0229 (CNS)

COM(2007) 638

Rapporteur: Patrick Gaubert (PPE-DE, FR)

The draft report was adopted 44 against 2 votes, one abstention, with amendments 2, 3, 6, 8,

10, 12-14, 17, 22, 23, 26, 28, 31 (first part only), 32 (first part only), 33, 36, 37, 39, 44, 46,

47, 54, 67, 69, 72-74, 76, 77, 83, 85, 87, 89, 93 and 95 as well as the compromise

amendment 1.

  • d) 
    Evaluation and future development of the FRONTEX Agency and the European

Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR)

2008/2157(INI)

COM(2008)0067

Rapporteur: Javier MORE O SÁ CHEZ (PSE, ES)

The draft report was adopted 40 against 2 votes with 4 abstentions, including amendments 1,

2, 4, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15 (first part only), 16, 17, 19, 20, 23-27, 34, 37, 39, 40, 41, 44, 47-50,

52, 53, 55, 56, 59, 61, 65, 69, 70, 74 (with an oral amendment), all compromise amendments

(1-5), as well as amendments 6, 14 and 15 of the DEVE Committee.

  • e) 
    Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending

Council Decision 2001/470/EC establishing a European Judicial Network in civil and

commercial matters

11108/08

2008/0122 (COD)

COM(2008) 380

Rapporteur: Ona JUK EVICIE (ALDE, LT)

The orientation text for negotiations with the Council was adopted 43 against one vote,

including amendments 9, 10, 13, 14, 32, 33-37 and 41-47, all compromise amendments (A-

G), as well as amendments 15 and 22 of the JURI Committee.

IV. Vote on reports as committee for opinion

  • a) 
    Legal protection of adults: cross-border implications

2008/2123(INI)

Rapporteur: Urszula GACEK (PPE-DE, PL)

The draft opinion was adopted unanimously with all amendments (1-9).

  • b) 
    E-justice

2008/2125(INI)

Rapporteur: Luca ROMAG OLI ( I, IT)

The draft opinion was adopted with 23 votes in favour, none against and 2 abstentions,

including amendments 2-5, 6 (second part only), 7 and 8.

V. FRONTEX (European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the

External Borders of the Member States of the European Union)

Mr LAITINEN, Executive Director of Frontex, presented the 2009 working programme. In

comparison to the 2008 programme, he underlined the long -term approach. He commented on

developments in focal areas of Frontex, noting improvements in the western Mediterranean, but

negative developments in central and eastern Mediterranean. The main challenge for Frontex

remained Member States' willingness to provide equipment. The HERA and POSEIDON

operations could continue in 2009 without interruption, while for the NAUTILUS operation, the

peak season was over so that a pause was justified. Negotiations with TR remained difficult,

especially those with Libya. He explained the Jupiter and Saturn joint operations at the eastern

land border, as well as the Hammer and Hubble joint operations at airports. As regards the s

results of Frontex operations, he referred firstly to the fact that human lives could be saved; the

estimate was between 10 000 and 20 000 persons. Furthermore, there was notable success on

the Canaries, but also at the eastern land borders. The awareness of the situation as well as the

quality of operations had improved.

Ms DÜHRKOP DÜHRKOP (PSE, ES) suggested studying the lifting of reservations as soon as

possible.

Mr CATANIA (GUE/NGL, IT) wondered why most of the funds was spent on protecting the

sea borders, while only 16% of illegal immigrants arrived by sea. He also raised the issue of the

use of arms by French soldiers during a Frontex operation.

Mr LAITINEN replied that the allocation was made on the basis of a risk-assessment, that some

operations were more expensive than others. According to his information, the use of weapons

by French soldiers had been made to calm down the situation in the interest of the migrants. It

was a natural part of border control that officers had to protect their security and sometimes the

one of their customers.

VI. In Camera: Evolution of the negotiation with the US in the FSJ area by Jonathan FAULL,

Director-General European Commission, DG JLS

See separate report.

VII. Migration policy and intercultural dialogue

Mr. Chedly NEFFATI, Deputy Secretary-General of the League of Arab States addressed the

Committee. He regretted that migration was often accompanied by uprooting and that it led to

Arab countries losing talent. He explained the common Arab migration policy which had an

institutional aspect, with, inter alia, the appointment of two high representatives by the Arab

League, but also the coordination of migration policies. He regretted that in Europe,

immigration was an issue present in all elections, across the political spectrum. This did not

help when it came to finding adequate solutions.

VIII. EMCDDA - European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addictions, Lisbon

Mr Marcel REIMEN, chairman of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug

Addiction (EMCDDA) management board, stated that 2008 was a year of reflection and

evaluation with a first impact assessment of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) ( 8652/1/05

REV 1) and the setting up of a new plan for 2009-2012. Also Member States had made an

evaluation of the last ten years which is expected by March 2009 for a round-up. He highlighted

three points for the future: firstly, there was a lack of clear sight into the drug market. It was

therefore necessary to acquire the capacity to reduce f supply, as had been done for the

reduction of demand. Secondly, polydrug use was becoming ever more important. Finally, a

conference would be held in Lisbon on the occasion of the 15th anniversary of the Monitoring

Centre in 2009.

Mr Wolfgang GÖTZ, executive director of the EMCDDA, presented the annual report on the

state of the drugs problem in Europe. He stated that the expectations of the previous report had

been confirmed. There were positive developments in the attitude of young persons concerning

drugs, and Europe was more visible in the drugs debate. Cannabis consumption, in particular by

young , had decreased, but more and more cannabis was cultivated in Europe, which made it

more difficult to seize. Opiate consumption remained stable, amphetamines and ecstasy were

stable or decreasing, while cocaine consumption increased in particular in Southwest-Europe.

Two thirds of the cocaine seizures took place in Spain and Portugal. There were still 7 000 to 8

000 drug-related deaths in Europe, and overdose remained one of the most common cause of

death for young people. Further improvement in the situation required research and

development efforts. Drug prevention and treatment had to be directed specifically towards

vulnerable persons. Mr GÖTZ welcomed the fact that the EU had a clear, consistent position at

the international level.

At the suggestion of the Chairman Mr DEPREZ (ALDE, BE) , the Committee extended the

mandate of the European Parliament's representatives in the Monitoring Centre by acclamation

until the end of the year.

Ms DÜHRKOP DÜHRKOP (PSE, ES) was particularly concerned about drug use by young

people. She asked about possibilities for action in schools and which national programmes were

effective. Mr CATANIA (GUE/NGL, IT) observed that the 2005 report had stated that

consumption of cannabis in the Netherlands was below average. He suggested establishing a

credible project with Afghanistan, the world's biggest opium producer.

Mr GÖTZ replied that the evaluation of national programmes was explicitly excluded from the

EMCDDA's mandate, but proposals were made for their establishment. There was little

evidence of the effectiviteness of action in schools, and the tendency was to concentrate on

certain groups, where it was less the drug problem than the vulnerability which should be seen

as the starting point for prevention.

IX. European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS)

Mr Docksey, Ms Kotschy, Mr Hustinx, Mr Buttarelli and Mr Renaudière were interviewed as

candidates for the posts European Data Protection Supervisor and Assistant European Data

Protection Supervisor.

X. Date and P lace of the next meeting 13 November 2008 in Brussels.

____________________

2.

Originele weergave

afbeelding document
 
 

3.

Meer informatie