Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online - general approach - Main contents

Document date	05-12-2018
Publication date	06-12-2018
Reference	14978/18 COR 1
From	Presidency
External link	original article
Original document in PDF

Council of the European Union Brussels, 5 December 2018 (OR. en)

14978/18

Interinstitutional File: COR 1

2018/0331(COD)

CT 194 ENFOPOL 595 JAI 1232 COTER 170 CYBER 303 TELECOM 440 FREMP 216 AUDIO 112 DROIPEN 189 CODEC 2160

NOTE

From: Presidency

To: Council

No. prev. doc.: 14570/18

Subject: Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online - general

approach

On page 2, pt. 4, second sentence:

– For: "Following this thorough examination of the draft Directive at expert level, …"

read: "Following this thorough examination of the draft Regulation at expert level, …"

On page 5:

– For: "7. The Czech Republic, Denmark and Finland maintain a parliamentary scrutiny reservation on the proposal."

read: "7. The Czech Republic and Denmark and Finland maintain a parliamentary scrutiny reservation on the proposal."

– A sentence should be added to pt. 9, as follows: "The European Parliament has appointed

Ms Helga Stevens (ECR, BE), Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), as rapporteur. On 3 December 2018, Daniel Dalton (ECR, UK), was appointed rapporteur replacing Helga Stevens."

On page 21, recital 27, 6th line:

– For: " … Where a competent authority is informed by a competent authority in another

Member State of an existing removal order, a duplicate order should not be issued. When deciding upon issuing a removal order, the competent authority should give due consideration to any notification of an interference with an investigative interests ("de-confliction"). Where a competent authority is informed by a competent authority in another Member State of an existing removal order, a duplicate order should not be issued. …"

read: " …Where a competent authority is informed by a competent authority in another

Member State of an existing removal order, a duplicate order should not be issued. When

deciding upon issuing a removal order, the competent authority should give due

consideration to any notification of an interference with an investigative interests

("de-confliction"). Where a competent authority is informed by a competent authority in

another Member State of an existing removal order, a duplicate order should not be issued.

…"