Sittings · Compare
What changed
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
– having regard to Rules 60 and 58 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A100000/2025),(A10-0109/2025),
1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;
Proposal for a regulation
Title 1
Or. en
Amendment 2
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 62
Or. en
Amendment 3
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 3
Or. en
Amendment 4
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7 b (new)
Recital 4
Or. en
Amendment 5
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7 c (new)
Recital 5
Or. en
Amendment 6
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 96
Or. en
Amendment 7
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)
Recital 7
Or. en
Amendment 8
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 7 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
To clarify that no additional structures need be established should they already exist.
Amendment 9
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 147 ab (new)
Or. en
Amendment 10
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 7 c (new)
Or. en
Amendment 11
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 7 d (new)
Or. en
Amendment 12
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 198
Or. en
Amendment 13
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19 a (new)
Recital 9
Or. en
Amendment 14
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19 b (new)
Recital 13
Or. en
Justification
Harmonises the applicable liability rules with other EU Agencies, such as Eurojust
Amendment 15
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19 c (new)
Recital 14
Or. en
Amendment 16
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 14 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
Deletion in accordance with Ireland's announced intention to participate in this Regulation
Amendment 17
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 14 b (new)
Or. en
Amendment 18
Proposal for a regulation
Chapter I
Recital 14 c (new)
Or. en
Justification
Deletion of the self-standing Regulation. Some of the provisions are repositioned as amendments to the existing Europol Regulation.
Amendment 19
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3
Recital 15
Or. en
Justification
Deletion of the self-standing Regulation. Some of the provisions are repositioned as amendments to the existing Europol Regulation.
Amendment 20
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4
Recital 16
Or. en
Justification
Deletion of the self-standing Regulation. Some of the provisions are repositioned as amendments to the existing Europol Regulation.
Amendment 21
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5
Recital 17
Or. en
Justification
Deletion of the self-standing Regulation. Some of the provisions are repositioned as amendments to the existing Europol Regulation.
Amendment 22
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6
Recital 18
Or. en
Justification
Deletion of the self-standing Regulation. Some of the provisions are repositioned as amendments to the existing Europol Regulation.
Amendment 23
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7
Recital 19
Or. en
Justification
Deletion of the self-standing Regulation. Some of the provisions are repositioned as amendments to the existing Europol Regulation.
Amendment 24
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8
Recital 19 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
Deletion of the self-standing Regulation. Some of the provisions are repositioned as amendments to the existing Europol Regulation.
Amendment 25
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Recital 20
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point y
Or. en
Amendment 26
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Recital 21
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point y a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 27
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a – point iii
Recital 22
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point l
Or. en
Justification
Consequence of deleting the self-standing Regulation and the addition of Article 16a
Amendment 28
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a – point iv a (new)
Recital 23 a (new)
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point y a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 29
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a – point v
Recital 24
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point za
Or. en
Amendment 30
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Chapter I
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 5a – paragraph 3
Or. en
Justification
Deletion in order to avoid excessive regulation and ensure greater flexibility of operational task forces. It is proposed to leave greater scope for the Management Board, based on a proposal from the Executive Director, to decide upon the details of operational task force implementation (paragraph 8).
Amendment 31
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Chapter II
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 5a – paragraph 4
Or. en
Justification
Deletion in order to avoid excessive regulation and ensure greater flexibility of operational task forces. It is proposed to leave greater scope for the Management Board, based on a proposal from the Executive Director, to decide upon the details of operational task force implementation (paragraph 8).
Amendment 32
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Chapter III
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 5a – paragraph 5
Or. en
Amendment 33
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Chapter IV - Title
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 5a – paragraph 6
Or. en
Justification
Deletion in order to avoid excessive regulation and ensure greater flexibility of operational task forces. It is proposed to leave greater scope for the Management Board, based on a proposal from the Executive Director, to decide upon the details of operational task force implementation (paragraph 8).
Amendment 34
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 31 – introductory part
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 5a – paragraph 8
Or. en
Amendment 35
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 31
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 5b – paragraph 1
Article 2, point w
Or. en
Amendment 36
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 31
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 5b – paragraph 2
Article 2, point x
Or. en
Justification
Deletion in order to avoid excessive regulation and ensure greater flexibility of Europol deployments. It is proposed to leave greater scope for the Management Board, based on a proposal from the Executive Director, to decide upon the details of Europol deployments (paragraph 9).
Amendment 37
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 31
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 5b – paragraph 3
Article 2, point y
Or. en
Justification
Deletion in order to avoid excessive regulation and ensure greater flexibility of Europol deployments. It is proposed to leave greater scope for the Management Board, based on a proposal from the Executive Director, to decide upon the details of Europol deployments (paragraph 9).
Amendment 38
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 31
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 5b – paragraph 5
Article 2, point y a (new)
Or. en
Justification
Deletion in order to avoid excessive regulation and ensure greater flexibility of Europol deployments. It is proposed to leave greater scope for the Management Board, based on a proposal from the Executive Director, to decide upon the details of Europol deployments (paragraph 9).
Amendment 39
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 32 – point a – point i
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 5b – paragraph 6
Article 4, paragraph 1, point c, point iii
Or. en
Amendment 40
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 32 – point a – point i
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 5b – paragraph 9
Article 4, paragraph 1, point c, point iv
Or. en
Amendment 41
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 32 – point a (new)– point ii
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 8 a (new)
Article 4, paragraph 1, point h
Or. en
Amendment 42
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 32 b– (new)point a – point iii
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Section 2 a (new) – Article 16a (new)
Article 4, paragraph 1, point l
Or. en
Justification
Proposes to establish the European Centre Against Migrant Smuggling within the Europol Regulation. It is proposed to leave greater scope for the Management Board, based on a proposal from the Executive Director, to decide upon the detailed tasks of the Centre and the involvement of other entities (paragraph 4).
Amendment 43
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 42 – point a (new)– point iv
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 49 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 4, paragraph 1, point s
Or. en
Amendment 44
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 42 b– point a – point iv a (new)
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 50
Article 4, paragraph 1, point y a (new)
Or. en
Justification
Harmonises the applicable liability and compensation regime with other agencies (cf. Article 46 Eurojust Regulation)
Amendment 45
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 42 c– (new)point a – point v
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 53
Article 4, paragraph 1, point za
Or. en
Amendment 46
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 42 d– (new)point b
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 54 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 4, paragraph 5, sub–paragraph 1
Or. en
Justification
Proposes to harmonise the term of office of the Executive Management with that of other JHA Agencies such as Frontex, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and eu-LISA
Amendment 47
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 42 e– (new)point b
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 54 –4, paragraph 45, sub–paragraph 2
Or. en
Justification
Proposes to harmonise the term of office of the Executive Management with that of other JHA Agencies such as Frontex, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and eu-LISA
Amendment 48
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 42 f– (new)point b
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 63 a (new)
Article 4, paragraph 5, sub–paragraph 3
Or. en
Amendment 49
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 42 g– (new)point b
Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Article 4, paragraph 5, sub–paragraph 3 a (new)
Amendment 50
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Regulation 2016/794
Articles 5a and 5b
Amendment 51
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 3a (new)
Regulation 2016/794
Section 2a (new)
Amendment 52
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 3 b (new)
Regulation 2016/794
Section 2 a – Article 16 a (new)
Amendment 53
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 3 c (new)
Regulation 2013/794
Section 2 a – Article 16 b (new)
Amendment 54
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 4 a (new)
Regulation 2016/794
Article 53
Amendment 55
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 4 b (new)
Regulation 2016/794
Article 74 c (new)
Or. en
Justification
To allow the specified agency staff and Executive Management already in place at the time of the entry into force of this amending Regulation to benefit from the new rules.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
More than 90% of people arriving in the EU irregularly rely on smugglers to facilitate part of, or their entire journey. These smugglers are ruthless criminals for whom a human life is merely a business opportunity. A cynical business model that takes advantage of vulnerable people, often putting their lives in danger on perilous journeys and subjecting them to violence and abuse. After facilitating the crossing of the EU external borders, the criminal networks continue their activity by facilitating unauthorised secondary movements within the EU. Smuggling networks adapt quickly to external developments by flexibly allocating resources and using new routes, technologies and modus operandi. Investigations revealed that migrant smugglers often use existing infrastructure of parallel criminal activities such as drug, firearms or human trafficking in combination with abuse of legal instruments and business structures.
These criminal networks generate a staggering amount of EUR 4.7 to EUR 6 billion annually in revenue. Therefore, all Member State authorities, EU agencies and key actors, such as travel and transport companies and civil society organisations, have a legal duty and a moral responsibility to make every effort to prevent migrant smuggling.smuggling and trafficking in human beings.
The European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) plays an essential role to coordinate these efforts, which is underscored by European Commission President von der Leyen, who emphasised that police should be able to work across Europe without borders. The Commission also proposed to double Europol's staff and strengthen its mandate in order for Europol to become a truly operational police agency. Being part of the revised Facilitators Package, the Proposal for a Regulation on Enhancing police cooperation in relation to the prevention, detection and investigation of migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings, and on enhancing Europol’s support to preventing and combating such crimes and amending Regulation (EU) 2016/794, represents an important step forward in achieving these goals and systematically addressing the crime of migrant smuggling both within the EU and from third countries. The European Commission estimated that an additional budget of EUR 50 million and 50 additional posts are required for the overall period of the current Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027. This Regulation will release these much needed additional funds and create these extra posts for Europol to fully and efficiently carry out the new strategic and operational tasks assigned to itit, as well as its revised mandate.
This Draft Report’sreport’s key aspects to enhance the effective implementation of the legislative proposal include the following:
– The report aims to simplify and clarify the structure of the Commission proposal, by deleting the self-standing regulation and repositioning some of those provisions as amendments to the existing Europol Regulation. This reduces legal complexity, improves readability and ensures that the governance of the agency is managed by a single EU Regulation.
– By its nature, migrant smuggling has a cross-border dimension. Therefore, dismantling smuggling networks requires more efficient and effective data sharing and cross-border cooperation between Member States, EU agencies and with third countries. In this respect, Europol should be the Union criminal information hub and act as a service provider. This Report also endorses the proposals to enhance the responsibility of Member States to share data with Europol and with each other, including verified information transmitted by Immigration Liaison Officers deployed in third countries, where that information falls within the scope of Europol’s legal framework. It is also proposed to emphasise the role of the Secure Information Exchange Network Application (SIENA), which is managed by Europol and facilitates the exchange of information between Member States, Europol, other Union bodies, third countries and international organisations.
– By its nature, migrant smuggling has a cross-border dimension. Therefore, dismantling smuggling networks requires more efficient and effective data sharing and cross-border cooperation between Member States, EU agencies and with third countries. This Draft Report endorses the Commission proposals to enhance the responsibility of Member States to share data in this respect.
- The report also provides that the Member States shall seek to establish or strengthen dedicated structures or mechanisms within their competent authorities to prevent and combat migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings.
– In order to enhance police cooperation in relation to the prevention, detection and investigation of migrant smuggling, Europol has a comprehensive toolbox at its disposal. This Draft Report supports the Commission proposal to codify these tools and structures for legal clarity and to provide general direction, while maintaining the much needed flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances, leaving sufficient scope for Europol’s Management Board to decide upon the details of the functioning of these tools and structures. To reinforce the role of the Europol Executive Director, it is also proposed that these implementing rules shall be based upon the Executive Director’s proposal. The tools and structures include the following:
- To enhance Europol’s capabilities in the fight against migrant smuggling and trafficking and human beings, this report proposes the formal establishment, within Europol, of the European Centre Against Migrant Smuggling as a Union centre of specialised expertise. It shall carry out operational and strategic tasks in order to support Member States in preventing and combating migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings. The Centre shall be composed of representatives from the Member States' national structures or mechanisms dedicated to preventing and combating migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings, where applicable. It shall also be composed of permanent representatives from Frontex and Eurojust. It is proposed to leave up to the Agencies themselves to decide on whether to relocate these representatives in the interests of their tasks.
The European Centre Against Migrant Smuggling, which shall be established within Europol as a Union centre of specialised expertise. It shall support Member States in the prevention and combating of migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings by carrying out operational and strategic tasks. The Centre shall be composed of representatives from the national specialised services dedicated to preventing and combating migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings. It shall also be composed of permanent representatives from Frontex and Eurojust. It is proposed to leave up to the Agencies themselves to decide on whether to relocate these representatives in the interests of their tasks.
– The report supports the intention to include the processing of biometric data within the agency’s tasks and proposes to reinforce this. The rules also ensure that any such processing is in line with existing EU data protection rules and proportionate to a specific goal, and adhering to minimum quality standards. Given that migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings are often committed using the internet, including through social media platforms, it is also proposed to encourage Europol’s cooperation with Member State authorities in investigating these activities.
In the context of Europol deployments for operational support, Europol shall set up a mandatory reserve pool of Member States’ highly qualified law enforcement experts with specialised profiles that can be placed at the immediate disposal of Europol for operational deployment to provide specialised support, in proportion to their capacity and operational needs.
- The LIBE report also proposes to clarify the rules governing Europol staff’s powers to independently process data related to investigations, which shall always be in liaison with and in agreement with national authorities.
Member States should be able to set up operational task forces to reinforce law enforcement cooperation with the support of Europol. Also the Executive Director must have the prerogative to propose operational task forces to the Member States.
- Regarding the structure, the report simplifies and clarifies the Commission proposal, by deleting the proposed self-standing regulation and repositioning some of those provisions as amendments to the existing Europol Regulation. This reduces legal complexity, improves readability and ensures that the governance of the agency is managed by a single EU Regulation.
Member States shall designate specialised services to prevent and combat migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings. These services shall share all relevant information resulting from criminal investigations as soon as possible with Europol and other Member States. No additional structures need to be established should they already exist.
– Finally, for Europol to successfully and effectively carry out its mandate, internal staff aspects should be improved when needed. This report includes amendments to the rules governing the length of service of Europol staff hired directly from the national competent authorities, whilst ensuring the transitional arrangements are in place to allow for this amendment to support all staff affected, including those already in post.
The Rapporteur supports the Commission’s intention to include the processing of biometric data within the agency’s tasks and proposes to reinforce this. Given the role played in the facilitation and instigation of migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings by online services, it is also proposed to clarify Europol’s support to countering the online dimension of these criminal activities.
– For Europol to successfully and effectively carry out its mandate, procedural and internal staff aspects should be improved when needed. This draft report includes amendments to harmonise the term of office of the Executive Management and staff, and applicable liability and compensation regimes with other agencies such as Frontex, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and eu-LISA, while safeguarding the rights of any person potentially affected. It also clarifies the rules concerning witness testimony by Europol staff, since the current legal framework is insufficient and may generate misinterpretations regarding the legal status of Europol staff members in national courts or regarding the scope of their testimony.
ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT
Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that he received input from the following entities or persons in the preparation of the draftreport, report:prior to the adoption thereof in committee:
The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.
Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteur declares that he has submitted to the concerned natural persons the European Parliament's Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.
24.4.2025
BUDGETARY ASSESSMENT BY THE COMMITTEE ON BUDGETS
for the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on enhancing police cooperation in relation to the prevention, detection and investigation of migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings, and on enhancing Europol’s support to preventing and combating such crimes and amending Regulation (EU) 2016/794
(COM(2023)0754 – C90431/2023 – 2023/0438(COD))
Rapporteur for budgetary assessment: Hélder Sousa Silva
The Committee on Budgets has carried out a budgetary assessment of the proposal under Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure and has reached the following conclusions:
A. whereas the estimated financial impact of the proposal for the period 2025-2027 amounts to EUR 48.9 million of operational appropriations under Heading 5, and EUR 1.1 million of administrative appropriations under Heading 7, which is under pressure due to increasing needs and negative margins;
B. whereas operational appropriations will be made available in part through the margin (EUR 20 million) and in part via budgetary offsetting against the Border Management and Visa Instrument (BMVI) and the Internal Security Fund (ISF) programmes;
C. whereas the required administrative appropriations will be covered by appropriations from the Directorate-General (DG) that are already assigned to management of the action and/or have been redeployed within the DG;
D. whereas the proposal requires the use of human resources for the parent DG, which will be met by staff from the DG who are already assigned to management of the action and/or have been redeployed within the DG, together if necessary with any additional allocation which may be granted to the managing DG under the annual allocation procedure and in the light of budgetary constraints;
1. Welcomes the increase of 50 full-time equivalent posts (FTEs) proposed for Europol for the period 2025-2027 but disagrees with the distribution of these posts to 10 administrator-grade (AD) temporary agents, 20 contract agents and 20 seconded national experts owing to differences in the nature of the functions that staff on these contract types can undertake and the requirements of Europol’s new mandate; points out the greater need for temporary agents and therefore calls for the distribution to be modified in the following way: 20 AD temporary agents, 10 contract agents and 20 seconded national experts; considers that this distribution would better enable the efficient implementation of the Regulation, in line with Article 53(2) of the Europol Regulation and Europol internal procedures;
2. Notes that the 50 FTEs proposed will be offset by a reduction in the future reinforcement of Frontex staff according to the Commission’s proposal; underlines that redeployments from other programmes and priorities should be limited and examined with due care; voices its concern that, according to the proposal, Europol and Frontex would need to agree on the concrete modalities of the transfer of staff between the two agencies, while respecting the criteria and timeline established by the co-legislators; calls on the Commission to include in the proposal the criteria for staff transfers; emphasises that these modalities should be set by the co-legislators;
3. Voices concern about the continuous transfer of funding between EU home affairs funds, particularly in recent years, namely affecting the BMVI and the ISF; calls on the Commission to provide a justified explanation to co-legislators and specify the amounts redeployed from each programme clearly in the legislative financial statement; notes the impact of the staffing increase of 50 FTEs being offset by a reduction in the future reinforcement of Frontex staff;
4. Determines that the proposal is compatible with the ceilings of the multiannual financial framework and the system of own resources;
5. Determines that the proposal is compatible with the Interinstitutional Agreement, but regrets the fact that before presenting this proposal, the Commission did not produce an impact assessment concerning the proposed measures or offer a plausible explanation for not doing so despite the proposal’s impact on the resources of Europol, Eurojust, Frontex, and the parent DG; emphasises that impact assessments should ensure that policy changes remain cost-effective and do not compromise the effectiveness of justice and home affairs agencies; regrets that, in the absence of a prior impact assessment presented by the Commission, Parliament therefore commissioned its own alternative analysis;
6. Determines that the proposal is compatible and should be implemented in accordance with the budgetary principles laid down in Title II of the Financial Regulation;
7. Calls for further clarifications to be made to the European Parliament and the Council on the legislative financial statement accompanying the proposal, and more specifically on the redeployment of financial and human resources from other programmes, agencies and the parent DG;
8. Reiterates that any new tasks entrusted to decentralised justice and home affairs agencies should be financed through fresh appropriations, and that redeployments from other programmes and priorities should be limited, duly justified and examined with due care.
AMENDMENT
As part of its budgetary assessment, the Committee on Budgets also submits the following amendment to the proposal:
Amendment 1
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23 a (new)
ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR FOR BUDGETARY ASSESSMENT HAS RECEIVED INPUT
Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur for budgetary assessment declares that he received input from the following entities or persons in the preparation of the budgetary assessment, prior to the adoption thereof in committee:
The list is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur for budgetary assessment.
Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteur for budgetary assessment declares that he has submitted to the natural persons concerned the European Parliament’s Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR BUDGETARY ASSESSMENT
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR BUDGETARY ASSESSMENT
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE