3.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 353/1

—

having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), in particular Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 21 thereof,

—

having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 18 and 19 thereof,

—

having regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and the protocols thereto,

—

having regard to the relevant UN human rights instruments, in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984 and the relevant protocols thereto, and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance of 20 December 2006,

—

having regard to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 of 27 June 2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (1),

—

having regard to the ‘Stockholm Programme – An Open and Secure Europe Serving and Protecting Citizens’ (2) and to the Commission communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 20 April 2010 on ‘Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe’s citizens: Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme’ (COM(2010)0171),

—

having regard to the Guidelines to EU Policy Towards Third countries on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and to the EU Guidelines on the Death Penalty,

—

having regard to the Declaration of Brussels of 1 October 2010, adopted at the 6th Conference of the Parliamentary Committees for the Oversight of Intelligence and Security Services of the European Union Member States,

—

having regard to the UN Joint study on global practices in relation to secret detention in the context of countering terrorism, prepared by: the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin; the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak; the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, represented by its Vice-Chair, Shaheen Sardar Ali; and the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, represented by its Chair, Jeremy Sarkin (3),

—

having regard to the UN Human Rights Council Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, focusing on commissions of inquiry in response to patterns or practices of torture or other forms of ill-treatment (4),

—

having regard to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, entitled ‘Compilation of good practices on legal and institutional frameworks and measures that ensure respect for human rights by intelligence agencies while countering terrorism, including on their oversight’ (5),

—

having regard to the contributions from the Council of Europe, in particular the work of the former Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammarberg, and of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), as well as to the relevant resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in particular those entitled ‘Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states’ (6), and ‘Secret detentions and illegal transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states: second report’ (7), and to the report of the Parliamentary Assembly’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights entitled ‘Abuse of state secrecy and national security: obstacles to parliamentary and judicial scrutiny of human rights violations’ (8),

—

having regard to the European Court of Human Rights cases al-Nashiri v. Poland, Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania, Abu Zubaydah v. Poland and el-Masri v. ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’, which was heard by the Grand Chamber on 16 May 2012,

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2009 on the Commission communication to Parliament and the Council entitled ‘An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen – Stockholm programme’ (9),

—

having regard to its resolutions of 14 February 2007 (10) and 19 February 2009 (11) on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners,

—

having regard to its resolutions on Guantánamo, in particular those of 9 June 2011 on ‘Guantánamo: imminent death penalty decision’ (12), of 4 February 2009 on the return and resettlement of the Guantánamo detention facility inmates (13) and of 13 June 2006 on the situation of prisoners at Guantánamo (14), and to its recommendation to the Council of 10 March 2004 on the Guantánamo detainees’ right to a fair trial (15),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2010 on ‘the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (2009) – effective implementation after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon’ (16),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 December 2011 on ‘the EU counter-terrorism policy: main achievement and future challenges’ (17),

—

having regard to the speech given by Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission, in Strasbourg on 17 September 2008 (18),

—

having regard to the statements made by the Commission on the need for the Member States concerned to conduct investigations into allegations of involvement in the CIA rendition and secret detention programme, and to the documents communicated to the rapporteur by the Commission, including four letters sent to Poland, four to Romania and two to Lithuania between 2007 and 2010,

—

having regard to the Commission communication to the Council and Parliament of 15 October 2003 on ‘Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union: Respect for and promotion of values on which the Union is based’ (COM(2003)0606),

—

having regard to the letter of 29 November 2005 from the EU Presidency to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, requesting any ‘clarification the US can give about these reports [on the alleged detention or transportation of terrorists suspects in or through some EU Member States] in the hope that this will allay parliamentary and public concerns’,

—

having regard to the 2748th/2749th meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council of 15 September 2006, which debated the item ‘Fight against terrorism – Secret detention facilities’,

—

having regard to the EU statement made on 7 March 2011 at the 16th session of the Human Rights Council regarding the aforementioned UN joint study on secret detention,

—

having regard to the article entitled ‘Counter-terrorism and human rights’ by Villy Sovndal, Gilles de Kerchove and Ben Emmerson, published in the 19 March 2012 issue of European Voice,

—

having regard to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s reply of 5 December 2005 to the EU Presidency’s letter of 29 November 2005, stating that ‘[…] rendition is a vital tool in combating terrorism. Its use is not unique to the United States, or to the current administration’, denying allegations of direct US involvement in torture and emphasising that the ‘purpose’ of rendition was not that the person rendered be tortured, and to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s statements confirming that ‘we [the United States] are respecting the sovereignty of our partners’ (19),

—

having regard to former US President George W. Bush’s acknowledgement, in his speech from the East Room of the White House of 6 September 2006, of the existence of a CIA-led programme of rendition and secret detention, including overseas operations,

—

having regard to George W. Bush’s memoirs, which were published on 9 November 2010,

—

having regard to the unclassified version, released in August 2009, of CIA Inspector General John Helgerson’s 2004 report on the CIA’s Bush-era interrogation operations,

—

having regard to the 2007 report of the International Committee of the Red Cross on the treatment of 14 high-value detainees in CIA custody, which became publicly accessible in 2009,

—

having regard to the various initiatives at national level to account for Member States’ involvement in the CIA rendition and secret detention programme, including the ongoing inquiry in Denmark and past inquiries in Sweden, the ongoing criminal investigations in Poland and the United Kingdom, past criminal proceedings in Italy, Germany, Lithuania, Portugal and Spain, the all-party group parliamentary investigation in the United Kingdom and past parliamentary investigations in Germany, Lithuania, Poland and Romania,

—

having regard to the two-year Portuguese judicial inquiry, which was suddenly closed in 2009,

—

having regard to the conclusions of the national inquiries already conducted in some Member States,

—

having regard to the numerous media reports and acts of investigative journalism, in particular – but not limited to – the 2005 (20) and 2009 (21) ABC News reports and the 2005 (22) Washington Post reports, without which the acts of rendition and detention would have remained truly secret,

—

having regard to the research and investigations carried out, and the reports produced, by independent researchers, civil society organisations and national and international non-governmental organisations since 2005, most notably by Human Rights Watch (23), Amnesty International and Reprieve,

—

having regard to the hearings of its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) held on 27 March 2012 and of its Subcommittee on Human Rights held on 12 April 2012, the LIBE delegation’s visit to Lithuania of 25-27 April 2012, the rapporteur’s visit to Poland of 16 May 2012 and all the written and oral contributions received by the rapporteur,

—

having regard to the joint request for flight data submitted to the Director of Eurocontrol by the Chair of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the rapporteur on 16 April 2012 and to the comprehensive response received from Eurocontrol on 26 April 2012,

—

having regard to the DG IPOL note entitled ‘The results of the inquiries into the CIA’s programme of extraordinary rendition and secret prisons in European states in light of the new legal framework following the Lisbon Treaty’,

—

having regard to Rules 48 and 50 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 Foreign Affairs (A7-0266/2012),

A.

whereas Parliament has condemned the US-led CIA rendition and secret detention programme involving multiple human rights violations, including unlawful and arbitrary detention, torture and other ill-treatment, violations of the non-refoulement principle, and enforced disappearance; whereas its Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners (hereinafter the ‘Temporary Committee’) has documented the use of European airspace and territory by the CIA, and whereas Parliament has since repeated its demand for full investigations into the collaboration of national governments and agencies with the CIA programme;

B.

whereas Parliament has repeatedly called for the fight against terrorism fully to respect human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms, including in the context of international cooperation in the field, on the basis of the European Convention of Human Rights, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and national constitutions and fundamental rights legislation, and whereas it reiterated this call most recently in its report on EU counter-terrorism policy, in which it also stated that respect for human rights is a precondition for ensuring the policy’s effectiveness;

C.

whereas Parliament has repeatedly and strongly condemned illegal practices including ‘extraordinary rendition’, abduction, detention without trial, disappearance, secret prisons and torture, and has demanded full investigations into the alleged degree of involvement of some Member States in collaboration with US authorities, notably the CIA, including involvement on EU territory;

D.

whereas the purpose of this resolution is to ‘follow up politically the proceedings of the Temporary Committee and to monitor the developments, and in particular, in the event that no appropriate action has been taken by the Council and/or the Commission, to determine whether there is a clear risk of a serious breach of the principles and values on which the European Union is based, and to recommend to it any resolution, taking as a basis Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty on European Union, which may prove necessary in this context’ (24);

E.

whereas the EU is founded on a commitment to democracy, the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity and international law, not only in its internal policies, but also in its external dimension; whereas the EU’s commitment to human rights, reinforced by the entry into force of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the process of accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, must be reflected in all policy areas in order to make EU human rights policy effective and credible;

F.

whereas a proper accountability process is essential in order to preserve citizens’ trust in the democratic institutions of the EU, to protect and promote human rights effectively in the EU’s internal and external policies, and to ensure legitimate and effective security policies based on the rule of law;

G.

whereas no Member State has so far wholly fulfilled its obligations to protect, preserve and respect international human rights and prevent violations thereof;

H.

whereas the instruments governing the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the two Optional Protocols thereto, the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and the Optional Protocol thereto, the European Convention on Human Rights, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which together not only mandate an absolute ban on torture but also entail a positive obligation to investigate allegations of torture and provide remedies and reparation; whereas the guidelines to EU policy on torture provide the framework for the EU’s efforts ‘to prevent and eradicate torture and ill-treatment in all parts of the world’;

I.

whereas, in order to ensure the promotion of international law and respect for human rights, all association, trade and cooperation agreements contain human rights clauses, and whereas the EU also engages in political dialogues with third countries on the basis of human rights guidelines, which include combating the death penalty and torture; whereas, in the framework of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), the EU supports civil society organisations that fight torture and provide support for the rehabilitation of victims of torture;

J.

whereas secret detention, which is a form of enforced disappearance, may amount, if widely or systematically practised, to a crime against humanity; whereas states of emergency and the fight against terrorism constitute an enabling environment for secret detention;

K.

whereas, although the EU has demonstrated its commitment to avoiding collusion in torture through Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 (25), most recently amended in December 2011 (26), which prohibits any export or import of goods that have no practical use other than for the purpose of capital punishment, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, more work still needs to be done to ensure comprehensive coverage;

L.

whereas relying on diplomatic assurances alone to authorise the extradition or deportation of a person to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that individuals would be in danger of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment is incompatible with the absolute prohibition of torture in international law, EU law and the national constitutions and laws of the Member States (27);

M.

whereas the Council admitted on 15 September 2006 that ‘the existence of secret detention facilities where detained persons are kept in a legal vacuum is not in conformity with international humanitarian law and international criminal law’, but has so far failed to recognise and condemn the involvement of Member States in the CIA programme, even though the use of European airspace and territory by the CIA has been acknowledged by the political and judicial authorities of Member States;

N.

whereas there are enduring human rights violations due to the CIA programme, as evidenced in particular by the ongoing administrative detention in Guantánamo Bay of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who have been granted victim status in the Polish criminal investigation into CIA secret prisons;

O.

whereas research by the UN, the Council of Europe, national and international media, investigative journalists and civil society has brought to light new, concrete information on the location of secret CIA detention sites in Europe, rendition flights through European airspace and the persons transported or detained;

P.

whereas the commission of illegal acts on EU territory may have developed in the context of NATO multilateral or bilateral agreements;

Q.

whereas national inquiries and international research prove that members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) agreed to commit themselves to measures in the campaign against terrorism which enabled secret airline traffic and use of EU Member States’ territory in the CIA-led programme of rendition, indicating collective knowledge of the programme by Member States which are also members of NATO;

R.

whereas the UN Joint study on global practices in relation to secret detention in the context of countering terrorism (A/HRC/13/42), prepared by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, detailed the use of secret detention sites on EU Member States’ territory as part of the CIA programme, and whereas follow-up letters were sent to Member States requesting additional information as detailed in the communications reports of the Special Procedures, including that of 23 February 2012 (28);

S.

whereas the 2011 Council of Europe report states that the data obtained from the Polish agencies in 2009 and 2010 ‘provide definite proof’ that seven CIA-associated aircraft landed in Poland, and whereas Polish media reported that charges had been brought against former Polish intelligence chiefs, and revealed possible contacts between intelligence officers and the Polish Government concerning the use of a CIA detention facility on Polish territory; whereas in 2011 Romanian investigative journalists sought to demonstrate the existence of a 'black site' in the Romanian national registry office for classified information (29), on the basis of information provided by former CIA employees; whereas the existence of this ‘black site’ has been denied by the Romanian authorities and was not demonstrated by the inquiry conducted by the Romanian parliament; whereas former Libyan dissidents have started legal proceedings against the UK for the direct involvement of MI6 in their own and their family members’ rendition, secret detention and torture;

T.

whereas the Lithuanian authorities have endeavoured to shed light on Lithuania’s involvement in the CIA programme by carrying out parliamentary and judicial inquiries; whereas the parliamentary investigation by the Seimas Committee on National Security and Defence concerning the alleged transportation and confinement of persons detained by the CIA on Lithuanian territory established that five CIA-related aircraft landed in Lithuania between 2003 and 2005 and that two tailored facilities suitable for holding detainees in Lithuania (Projects Nos 1 and 2) were prepared at the request of the CIA; whereas the LIBE delegation thanks the Lithuanian authorities for welcoming Members of the European Parliament to Vilnius in April 2012 and allowing the LIBE delegation access to Project No 2; whereas the layout of the buildings and installations inside appears to be compatible with the detention of prisoners; whereas many questions relating to CIA operations in Lithuania remain open despite the subsequent judicial investigation conducted in 2010 and closed in January 2011; whereas the Lithuanian authorities have expressed their readiness to re-launch investigations if other new information were to come to light, and whereas the Prosecutor’s Office has offered to provide further information on the criminal investigation in response to a written request from Parliament;

U.

whereas the Portuguese authorities have yet to provide clarification of the substantial number of elements indicating that many flights, identified inter alia by the Temporary Committee, served to carry out transfers between Bagram, Diego Garcia, secret prisons and Guantánamo;

V.

whereas research and court findings on the logistics involved in covering up these illegal operations, including dummy flight plans, civil and military aircraft classified as state flights and the use of private aviation companies to conduct CIA renditions, have further revealed the systematic nature and the extent of European involvement in the CIA programme; whereas an analysis of the new data provided by Eurocontrol supports in particular the argument that, in order to conceal the origin and destination of transfers of prisoners, contractors operating renditions missions switched from one plane to another mid-route;

W.

whereas the EU has developed internal security and counter-terrorism policies based on police and judicial cooperation and the promotion of intelligence-sharing; whereas these policies should be grounded in respect for fundamental rights and the rule of law and effective democratic parliamentary oversight of intelligence services;

X.

whereas, according to the CPT, ‘the interrogation techniques applied in the CIA-run overseas detention facilities have certainly led to violations of the prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment’ (30);

Y.

whereas EU-US relations are based on a strong partnership and cooperation in many fields, on the basis of common shared values of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights; whereas the EU and the US have strengthened their engagement in the fight against terrorism since the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, notably through the Joint Declaration on Counter-terrorism of 3 June 2010, but whereas it is necessary to ensure compliance in practice with declared commitments and to overcome divergences between EU and US policies in the fight against terrorism;

Z.

whereas in December 2011 the US authorities passed the National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA), which codifies in law the indefinite detention of persons suspected of engaging in terrorist actions within the US and undermines the right to due process and a fair trial; whereas the scope of the NDAA is the subject of a legal challenge;

AA.

whereas, on 22 January 2009, President Obama signed three executive orders banning torture during interrogations, establishing an inter-agency task force to conduct a systematic review of detention policies and procedures and review all individual cases and ordering the closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention facility;

AB.

whereas, however, the Guantánamo Bay detention facility has yet to be closed on account of strong opposition from the US Congress; whereas, in order to hasten its closure, the US has called on EU Member States to host Guantánamo detainees; whereas the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed deep disappointment at the failure to close the Guantánamo Bay detention facility and at the entrenchment of a system of arbitrary detention;

AC.

whereas Guantánamo detainees are still subjected to trials by military tribunals, notably following the US President’s decision of 7 March 2011 to sign the executive order lifting a two-year freeze on new military trials and the law of 7 January 2012 barring transfers of Guantánamo detainees to the US for trial;

1.

Recalls that counter-terrorism strategies can be effective only if they are conducted in strict compliance with human rights obligations, in particular the right to due process;

2.

Reiterates that effective counter-terrorism measures and respect for human rights are not contradictory, but are complementary and mutually reinforcing aims; points out that respect for fundamental rights is an essential element in successful counter-terrorism policies;

3.

Highlights the extremely sensitive nature of anti-terrorism policies; believes that only genuine grounds of national security can justify secrecy; recalls, however, that in no circumstance does state secrecy take priority over inalienable fundamental rights and that therefore arguments based on state secrecy can never be employed to limit states’ legal obligations to investigate serious human rights violations; considers that definitions of classified information and state secrecy should not be overly broad and that abuses of state secrecy and national security constitute a serious obstacle to democratic scrutiny;

4.

Stresses that special procedures ought not to be applied to persons suspected of terrorism; points out that everyone must be able to benefit from all the guarantees included in the principle of a fair trial as laid down in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

5.

Reiterates its condemnation of the practices of extraordinary rendition, secret prisons and torture, which are prohibited under domestic and international legislation stipulating respect for human rights and which breach inter alia the rights to liberty, security, humane treatment, freedom from torture, non-refoulement, presumption of innocence, a fair trial, legal counsel and equal protection under the law;

6.

Stresses the need to provide guarantees in order to avoid, in the future, any infringement of fundamental rights when anti-terrorism policies are implemented;

7.

Considers that Member States have stated their willingness to abide by international law, but until now have not properly fulfilled the positive obligation incumbent upon all Member States to investigate serious human rights violations connected with the CIA programme, and regrets the delays in shedding full light on this case in order to afford full redress to victims as quickly as possible, including apologies and compensation where appropriate;

8.

Believes that the difficulties encountered by Member States in conducting inquiries result in a failure to comply fully with their international obligations, which undermines mutual trust in fundamental rights protection and thus becomes the responsibility of the EU as a whole;

9.

Reiterates that the commitment of Member States and of the EU to investigate European involvement in the CIA programme is in line with the principle of sincere and loyal cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) of the TEU;

10.

Expresses concerns regarding the obstacles encountered by national parliamentary and judicial investigations into some Member States’ involvement in the CIA programme, as documented in detail by the 2011 Council of Europe report on abuse of state secrecy and national security, including lack of transparency, classification of documents, prevalence of national and political interests, narrow remits for investigations, restriction of victims’ right to effective participation and defence, and lack of rigorous investigative techniques and of cooperation between investigative authorities across the EU; calls on the Member States to avoid basing their national criminal proceedings on such legal grounds, which enable and lead to the termination of criminal proceedings by invoking clauses of the statute of limitations and lead to impunity, and to respect the principle of international customary law, which recognises that the statute of limitations cannot and should not be applied to cases of serious human rights violations;

11.

Urges those Member States which have not fulfilled their positive obligation to conduct independent and effective inquiries to investigate human rights violations, taking into account all the new evidence that has come to light; calls in particular on Member States to investigate whether there are secret prisons on their territory or whether operations have taken place whereby people have been held under the CIA programme in facilities on their territory;

12.

Notes that the parliamentary inquiry carried out in Romania concluded that no evidence could be found to demonstrate the existence of a secret CIA detention site on Romanian territory; calls on the judicial authorities to open an independent inquiry into alleged CIA secret detention sites in Romania, in particular in the light of the new evidence on flight connections between Romania and Lithuania;

13.

Encourages Poland to persevere in its ongoing criminal investigation into secret detention, but deplores the lack of official communication on the scope, conduct and state of play of the investigation; calls on the Polish authorities to conduct a rigorous inquiry with due transparency, allowing for the effective participation of victims and their lawyers;

14.

Notes that the parliamentary and judicial inquiries that took place in Lithuania between 2009 and 2011 were not able to demonstrate that detainees had been secretly held in Lithuania; calls on the Lithuanian authorities to honour their commitment to reopen the criminal investigation into Lithuania’s involvement in the CIA programme if new information should come to light, in view of new evidence provided by the Eurocontrol data showing that plane N787WH, alleged to have transported Abu Zubaydah, did stop in Morocco on 18 February 2005 on its way to Romania and Lithuania; notes that analysis of the Eurocontrol data also reveals new information through flight plans connecting Romania to Lithuania, via a plane switch in Tirana, Albania, on 5 October 2005, and Lithuania to Afghanistan, via Cairo, Egypt, on 26 March 2006; considers it essential that the scope of new investigations cover, beyond abuses of power by state officials, possible unlawful detention and ill-treatment of persons on Lithuanian territory; encourages the Prosecutor-General’s Office to substantiate with documentation the affirmations made during the LIBE delegation’s visit that the ‘categorical’ conclusions of the judicial inquiry are that ‘no detainees have been detained in the facilities of Projects No 1 and No 2 in Lithuania’;

15.

Notes the criminal investigation launched in the UK on renditions to Libya, and welcomes the decision to continue the wider inquiry into the UK’s responsibility in the CIA programme once the investigation has been concluded; calls on the UK to conduct this inquiry with due transparency, allowing the effective participation of victims and civil society;

16.

Acknowledges that Member States’ investigations have to be based on solid judicial evidence and on respect for national judicial systems and EU law, not just on media and public speculation;

17.

Calls on Member States such as Finland, Denmark, Portugal, Italy, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Ireland, Greece, Cyprus, Romania and Poland, which were mentioned in the Temporary Committee’s report, to disclose all necessary information on all suspect planes associated with the CIA and their territory; calls on all Member States to respect the right to freedom of information and to respond appropriately to requests for access to information; expresses concern, in the light of this, that most Member States, with the exception of Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland and Lithuania, have failed to respond appropriately to requests from Reprieve and from Access Info Europe for access to information for the purposes of their investigations into extraordinary rendition cases;

18.

Urges the Member States to revise any provisions or interpretations that are sympathetic to torture, such as Michael Wood’s legal opinion (referred to in Parliament’s aforementioned resolution of 14 February 2007), which, in defiance of international case law, argues that it is legitimate to receive and use information obtained by torture as long as there is no direct responsibility for it (thereby motivating and justifying the outsourcing of torture);

19.

Calls on all Member States to sign and ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance;

20.

Calls on the Member States, in the light of the increased cooperation and exchange of information between their secret intelligence and security agencies, to ensure full democratic scrutiny of those agencies and their activities through appropriate internal, executive, judicial and independent parliamentary oversight, preferably through specialised parliamentary committees with extensive remits and powers, including the power to require information, and with sufficient investigative and research resources to be able to examine not only issues such as policy, administration and finances, but also the operational work of the agencies;

21.

Regards it as essential that the EU condemn all abusive practices in the fight against terrorism, including any such acts committed on its territory, so that it can not only live up to its values but also advocate them credibly in its external partnerships;

22.

Recalls that the Council has never formally apologised for having violated the principle enshrined in the Treaties of loyal cooperation between the Union institutions when it incorrectly attempted to persuade Parliament to provide deliberately shortened versions of the minutes of the meetings of COJUR (the Council Working Group on Public International Law) and COTRA (the Council Working Party on Transatlantic Relations) with senior North American officials; expects apologies from the Council;

23.

Expects the Council finally to issue a declaration acknowledging Member States’ involvement in the CIA programme and the difficulties encountered by Member States in the context of inquiries;

24.

Calls on the Council to give its full support to the truth-finding and accountability processes in the Member States by formally addressing the issue at JHA meetings, sharing all information, providing assistance to inquiries and, in particular, acceding to requests for access to documents;

25.

Calls on the Council to hold hearings with relevant EU security agencies, in particular Europol, Eurojust and the EU Counter-terrorism Coordinator, to clarify their knowledge of Member States’ involvement in the CIA programme and the EU’s response; also calls on the Council to propose safeguards so as to guarantee respect for human rights in intelligence-sharing, and a strict delimitation of roles between intelligence and law-enforcement activities so that intelligence agencies are not permitted to assume powers of arrest and detention, and to report to Parliament within a year;

26.

Calls on the Council to encourage Member States to share best practice with regard to parliamentary and judicial supervision of intelligence services, involving national parliaments and the European Parliament in this effort;

27.

Reiterates its call on the Council and Member States to exclude, as a basis for the extradition or deportation of persons deemed to threaten national security, reliance on unenforceable diplomatic assurances where there is a real risk of subjection to torture or ill-treatment or of a trial using evidence thus extracted;

28.

Calls on the relevant authorities not to invoke state secrecy in relation to international intelligence cooperation in order to block accountability and redress, and insists that only genuine national security reasons can justify secrecy, which is in any case overridden by non-derogable fundamental rights obligations such as the absolute prohibition on torture;

29.

Urges the relevant authorities to ensure that a strict distinction is made between the activities of intelligence and security services, on the one hand, and law enforcement agencies, on the other, so as to ensure that the general principle of nemo iudex in sua causa is upheld;

30.

Stresses that the Temporary Committee which conducted the investigation underpinning Parliament’s resolutions of 14 February 2007 and 19 February 2009 exposed the ways in which the procedures for authorisation and control of civilian aircraft overflying the Member States’ airspace or landing in their territory were extremely flawed, thus not only lending themselves to being abused in the CIA’s ‘extraordinary renditions’, but also to being easily evaded by operators of organised crime, including terrorist networks; also recalls the Union’s competence in the field of transport security and safety and Parliament’s recommendation to the Commission that it regulate and monitor the management of EU airspace, airports and non-commercial aviation; calls on the EU and its Member States, therefore, to delay no longer a thorough review of their implementation of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention) as regards authorisation and inspections of civilian aircraft overflying the Member States’ airspace or landing in their territory, in order to make sure that security is enhanced and checks systematically exercised, requiring anticipated identification of passengers and crews and ensuring that any flights classified as ‘state flights’ (which are excluded from the scope of the Chicago Convention) are given prior and proper authorisation; also recalls Parliament’s recommendation that the Tokyo Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft be effectively enforced by Member States;

31.

Notes the Commission’s initiatives in response to Parliament’s recommendations; considers it regrettable, however, that they have not been part of a wider agenda and strategy to ensure accountability for human rights violations committed in the context of the CIA programme and the necessary redress and compensation for victims;

32.

Calls on the Commission to investigate whether EU provisions, in particular those on asylum and judicial cooperation, have been breached by collaboration with the CIA programme;

33.

Calls on the Commission to facilitate and support human-rights-compliant mutual legal assistance and judicial cooperation between investigating authorities and cooperation between lawyers involved in accountability work in Member States, and in particular to ensure that important information is exchanged and to promote the effective use of all available EU instruments and resources;

34.

Calls on the Commission to adopt within a year a framework, including reporting requirements for Member States, for monitoring and supporting national accountability processes, including guidelines on human-rights-compliant inquiries, to be based on the standards developed by the Council of Europe and the UN;

35.

Calls on the Commission, in the light of the institutional deficiencies revealed in the context of the CIA programme, to adopt measures aimed at strengthening the EU’s capacity to prevent and redress human rights violations at EU level and to provide for the strengthening of Parliament’s role;

36.

Calls on the Commission to consider proposing measures for permanent cooperation and exchange of information between the European Parliament and parliamentary committees for the oversight of intelligence and security services of the Member States in cases which indicate that joint actions by Member States’ intelligence and security services have been undertaken on EU territory;

37.

Calls on the Commission to put forward proposals for developing arrangements for democratic oversight of cross-border intelligence activities in the context of EU counter-terrorism policies; intends to make full use of its own parliamentary powers to scrutinise counter-terrorism policies, in line with the recommendations drawn up by Parliament’s study department (PE453.207);

38.

Calls on the European Ombudsman to investigate the failures of the Commission, the Council and the EU security agencies, notably Europol and Eurojust, to respect fundamental rights and the principles of good administration and loyal cooperation in their response to the TDIP recommendations;

39.

Calls on the EU to ensure that its own international obligations are wholly honoured and that EU policies and foreign policy instruments, such as the guidelines on torture and the human rights dialogues, are implemented fully, so that it is in a stronger position to call for the rigorous implementation of human rights clauses in all the international agreements it signs and to urge its major allies, including the US, to comply with their own domestic and international law;

40.

Reaffirms that the international fight against terrorism and bilateral or multilateral international cooperation in this area, including as part of NATO or between intelligence and security services, must be conducted only with full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and with appropriate democratic and judicial oversight; calls on the Member States, the Commission, the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the Council to ensure that these principles are applied in their foreign relations, and insists that they should make a thorough assessment of their counterparts’ human rights records before entering into any new agreement, notably on intelligence cooperation and information-sharing, review existing agreements where those counterparts fail to respect human rights, and inform Parliament of the conclusions of such assessments and reviews;

41.

Urges that foreign special services’ interference in the affairs of sovereign EU Member States must not recur in the future and that the fight against terrorism must be conducted with full respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule of law;

42.

Recalls that the Optional Protocol to the CAT requires the setting-up of monitoring systems covering all situations of deprivation of liberty, and stresses that adhering to this international instrument adds a layer of protection; strongly encourages EU partner countries to ratify the Optional Protocol, to create independent national preventive mechanisms that comply with the Paris Principles and to ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance;

43.

Reiterates its call, in accordance with international law, in particular Article 12 of the CAT, for all states faced with credible allegations to make every effort to provide the necessary clarification and, if the indications persist, to conduct thorough investigations and inquiries into all alleged acts of extraordinary rendition, secret prisons, torture and other serious human rights violations, so as to establish the truth and, if necessary, determine responsibility, ensure accountability and avoid impunity, including by bringing individuals to justice where there is evidence of criminal liability; calls on the VP/HR and the Member States, in this connection, to take all the necessary measures to ensure proper follow-up to the UN Joint study on global practices in relation to secret detention in the context of countering terrorism, in particular with regard to the follow-up letter sent to 59 states by the Special Procedures mandate-holders on 21 October 2011, asking their respective governments to provide an update on the implementation of the recommendations contained in that study;

44.

Calls on the EU to ensure that its Member States, associates and partners (in particular those covered by the Cotonou Agreement) which have agreed to host former Guantánamo detainees actually afford them full support as regards living conditions, efforts to facilitate their integration into society, medical treatment including psychological recovery, access to identification and travel documents, the exercise of the right to family reunification and all other fundamental rights granted to people holding political asylum status;

45.

Is particularly concerned by the procedure conducted by a US military commission in respect of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who could be sentenced to death if convicted; calls on the US authorities to rule out the possibility of imposing the death penalty on Mr al-Nashiri and reiterates its long-standing opposition to the death penalty in all cases and under all circumstances; notes that Mr al-Nashiri’s case has been before the European Court of Human Rights since 6 May 2011; calls on the authorities of any country in which Mr al-Nashiri was held to use all available means to ensure that he is not subjected to the death penalty; urges the VP/HR to raise the case of Mr al-Nashiri with the US as a matter of priority, in application of the EU Guidelines on the Death Penalty;

46.

Reiterates that full application of the human rights clause of agreements with third countries is fundamental in relations between the EU and its Member States and those countries, and considers that there is real momentum to revisit the way European governments have cooperated with dictatorships’ apparatus of repression in the name of countering terrorism; considers, in this connection, that the newly revised European Neighbourhood Policy must provide strong support for security sector reform, which must, in particular, ensure a clear separation between intelligence and law enforcement functions; calls on the EEAS, the Council and the Commission to step up their cooperation with the CPT and other relevant Council of Europe mechanisms in the planning and implementation of counter-terrorism assistance projects with third countries and in all forms of counter-terrorism dialogue with third countries;

47.

Calls on the Government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) to ascertain responsibility and ensure accountability for the abduction, apparently through mistaken identity, of Khaled el-Masri, which led to his illegal detention and alleged torture; deplores the lack of action by the Skopje Prosecutor’s Office with a view to conducting a criminal investigation into Mr el-Masri’s complaint; notes that the European Court of Human Rights has taken up this case and that the Grand Chamber held its first hearing on 16 May 2012; considers that the FYROM Government’s alleged conduct in this case is inconsistent with the EU’s founding principles of fundamental rights and the rule of law and must be duly raised by the Commission in connection with the FYROM’s candidacy for EU accession;

48.

Calls on NATO and the US authorities to conduct their own investigations, to cooperate closely with EU and Member State parliamentary or judicial inquiries on these issues (31), including, where relevant, by responding promptly to requests for mutual legal assistance, to disclose information on extraordinary rendition programmes and other practices that violate human rights and fundamental freedoms and to provide suspects’ legal representatives with all the necessary information to defend their clients; calls for confirmation that all NATO agreements and NATO-EU and other transatlantic arrangements respect fundamental rights;

49.

Pays tribute to US civil society initiatives to set up an independent bipartisan taskforce in 2010 to examine the US Government’s policy and actions relating to the capture, detention and prosecution of ‘suspected terrorists’ and US custody during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations;

50.

Calls on the US, given the cardinal role of the transatlantic partnership and of the United States’ leadership in this area, to investigate fully, and secure accountability for, any abuses it has practised, to ensure that relevant domestic and international law is applied fully with a view to ending legal black holes, to end military trials, to apply criminal law fully to terrorist suspects and to restore review of detention, habeas corpus, due process, freedom from torture and non-discrimination between foreign and US citizens;

51.

Calls on President Obama to honour the pledge he made in January 2009 to close the Guantánamo Bay detention facility, to allow any detainee who is not to be charged to return to his or her home country or to go to another safe country as quickly as possible, to try Guantánamo detainees against whom sufficient admissible evidence exists without delay in a fair and public hearing by an independent, impartial tribunal and to ensure that, if convicted, they are imprisoned in the US in accordance with the applicable international standards and principles; calls, similarly, for an investigation into human rights violations in Guantánamo and for clarification of responsibility;

52.

Calls for any detainees who are not to be charged but cannot be repatriated owing to a real risk of torture or persecution in their home country to be given the opportunity of resettlement in the US under humanitarian protection and afforded redress (32), and urges the Member States also to be willing to host such former Guantánamo detainees;

53.

Calls on the US authorities to repeal the power of indefinite detention without charge or trial under the NDAA;

54.

Calls on the Conference of Delegation Chairs to ensure the initiation of parliamentary dialogues on the protection of fundamental rights while countering terrorism, on the basis of the findings of the UN Joint study on global practices in relation to secret detention in the context of countering terrorism and the follow-up thereto, and of the UN Compilation of good practices on legal and institutional frameworks and measures that ensure respect for human rights by intelligence agencies while countering terrorism, including on their oversight;

55.

Undertakes to devote its next joint parliamentary meeting with national parliaments to reviewing the role of parliaments in ensuring accountability for human rights violations in the context of the CIA programme, and to promoting stronger cooperation and regular exchange between national oversight bodies in charge of scrutinising intelligence services, in the presence of the relevant national authorities, EU institutions and agencies;

56.

Is determined to continue fulfilling the mandate given to it by the Temporary Committee, pursuant to Articles 2, 6 and 7 TEU; instructs its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, together with the Subcommittee on Human Rights, to address Parliament in plenary on the matter a year after the adoption of this resolution; considers it essential now to assess the extent to which the recommendations adopted by Parliament have been followed and, where they have not been followed, to analyse why this is the case;

57.

Requests the Council, the Commission, the European Ombudsman, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, of the candidate states and of the associated countries, the Council of Europe, NATO, the United Nations and the Government and two Houses of Congress of the United States to keep Parliament informed of any development that may take place in the fields falling within the remit of this report;

58.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European Ombudsman, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, of the candidate states and of the associated countries, and to the Council of Europe, NATO, the United Nations and the Government and two Houses of Congress of the United States.

3.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 353/16

—

having regard to Articles 67(2), 78 and 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the communication of 2 December 2011 from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum - An EU agenda for better responsibility-sharing and more mutual trust (COM(2011)0835),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2009 on the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council – An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen – Stockholm programme (1),

—

having regard to the communication of 6 April 2005 from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament establishing a framework programme on solidarity and management of migration flows for the period 2007-2013 (COM(2005)0123),

—

having regard to the conclusions of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 8 March 2012 on a Common Framework for genuine and practical solidarity towards Member States facing particular pressures on their asylum systems, including through mixed migration flows, during the 3151st Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting,

—

having regard to international and European human rights instruments including in particular the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the ECHR), and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter),

—

having regard to the Commission’s Green Paper of 6 June 2007 on the future Common European Asylum System (COM(2007)0301),

—

having regard to the Commission Policy Plan on Asylum of 17 June 2008: An integrated approach to protection across the EU (COM(2008)0360),

—

having regard to Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (2),

—

having regard to the 18-month programme of the Council of 17 June 2011, prepared by the Polish, Danish and Cypriot Presidencies,

—

having regard to the Commission proposal for a regulation of 15 November 2011 establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund (COM(2011)0751),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0248/2012),

A.

whereas the European Union has committed itself to completing the establishment of a Common European Asylum System (CEAS) in 2012;

B.

whereas solidarity has been recognised as an essential component and a guiding principle of the CEAS from the outset, as well as constituting a core principle in EU law according to which Member States should share both advantages and burdens in an equal and fair manner;

C.

whereas solidarity must go hand in hand with responsibility, and Member States must ensure that their asylum systems are able to meet the standards laid down in international and European law, in particular those of the Geneva Convention on Refugees of 1951 and its additional protocol of 1967, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

D.

whereas providing support in carrying out asylum procedures in the sense of efficient solidarity and fairly shared responsibility must be perceived as a means to assist Member States so that they comply with their obligation to provide protection to those in need of international protection and assistance to third countries hosting the largest numbers of refugees, with the aim of strengthening the common area of protection as a whole;

E.

whereas, notwithstanding the obligation to examine individual asylum applications on a case-by-case basis, if joint processing is to lead to common decisions it is necessary that due respect be accorded to the common EU concepts of safe country of origin and safe third countries, respecting the conditions and safeguards included in Parliament’s first reading position of 6 April 2011 on the Commission’s proposal for a revised Asylum Procedures Directive;

1.

Welcomes the Commission communication on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum, which calls for the translation of solidarity and responsibility-sharing into concrete measures, and for Member States to fulfil their responsibility for ensuring their own asylum systems meet both international and European standards;

2.

Emphasises the central role and horizontal effect of solidarity and responsibility-sharing in the establishment of a CEAS; reiterates the need to ensure the efficient and uniform application of the Union’s asylum acquis and implementation of legislation in order to ensure high levels of protection;

3.

Recalls that the right to international protection is a fundamental right enshrined in international and Union law which is complemented by a series of additional rights and principles, such as the principle of non-refoulement, the right to dignity, the prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, the protection of women from violence and all forms of discrimination, the right to an effective remedy and the right to private and family life;

4.

Underlines that the principle of solidarity and responsibility-sharing is enshrined in the Treaties, and that an effective solidarity framework includes, at the least, the duty on the part of the EU institutions and agencies and the Member States to cooperate in order to find ways to give effect to this principle; asserts that solidarity is not limited to Member States’ relations with each other, but is also aimed at asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection;

5.

Underlines the fact that while the number of asylum seekers increased during 2011, the last decade has seen a significant overall decrease in the number of asylum applications in the EU; stresses that certain Member States face a disproportionate number of asylum requests compared to others, owing to various factors including their geographical characteristics, and that asylum applications are unevenly spread across the EU; recalls that in 2011, ten Member States accounted for more than 90 % of asylum applications, that up to the summer of 2011 only 227 beneficiaries of international protection were relocated within the EU from Malta, to six other Member States, and that in 2011 in the whole EU, only 4 125 refugees were resettled to just ten Member States, representing approximately 6,6 % of all persons resettled during that year; stresses that it is crucial to identify these inequalities by, inter alia, comparing absolute numbers with capacity indicators, and that the Member States most affected by asylum applications must have greater assistance from the EU, both administratively and financially;

6.

Stresses that a high level of protection for asylum applicants and beneficiaries of international protection cannot be achieved, and solid asylum decisions cannot be made, if the discrepancies between the proportion of asylum applications and individual Member States’ absorption capacity in technical and administrative terms are not redressed and if the support measures in place in Member States are ill-adapted to respond to varying asylum flows;

7.

Reiterates that Member States should ensure that fair and efficient asylum systems are put in place in order to respond to varying asylum flows; takes the view that although the number of asylum applications is not constant, there is evidence of specific entry points at the EU’s external borders which constitute ‘hot spots’, and where it is reasonably predictable that a large number of asylum applications may be lodged; calls for measures to boost the preparedness of the asylum systems of those Member States located at the main EU entry points, as a sign of practical solidarity;

8.

Emphasises that all Member States have the obligation to fully implement and apply both EU law and their international obligations on asylum; notes that Member States at the external borders of the Union face different challenges under the CEAS than do those without external borders, hence also needing different forms of support in order to carry out their respective tasks adequately; points out that Article 80 TFEU requires the activation of existing measures as well as the development of new measures so as to assist those Member States when necessary;

9.

Calls for the optimisation of the use of existing measures, as well as for the development of new targeted measures and tools in order to respond to ever-changing challenges in a flexible yet effective manner; such optimisation is particularly timely given the acute financial crisis afflicting the EU, which is putting additional strain on Member States’ efforts to cope efficiently with asylum procedures, particularly in the case of those receiving disproportionate numbers of asylum seekers;

10.

Notes that in the light of growing needs with respect to refugees at a global level, cooperation with third countries in the context of environmental and development policies can play a vital role in the construction of relationships guided by solidarity;

11.

Underlines the importance of collecting, analysing and putting in perspective reliable, accurate, comprehensive, comparable and up-to-date quantitative and qualitative data, in order to monitor and evaluate measures and acquire a sound understanding of asylum-related issues; encourages Member States, therefore, to provide EASO and the Commission with relevant data on asylum issues, in addition to the data provided under the Migration Statistics Regulation and the EASO Regulation; all statistical data where possible should be broken down by gender;

12.

Regrets the rise of xenophobia and racism and of negative and misinformed assumptions about asylum seekers and refugees accompanying socio-economic insecurity in the EU; recommends that Member States undertake awareness-raising campaigns on the actual situation of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection;

13.

Stresses that the establishment of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) has the potential to promote closer practical cooperation among Member States in order to help reduce significant divergences in asylum practices, with a view to creating better and fairer asylum systems in the EU; believes that such active and practical cooperation must go hand in hand with the legislative harmonisation of European asylum policies;

14.

Recalls the need for EASO to provide technical support and specific expertise to Member States in their implementation of the asylum legislation, in cooperation with civil society and the UNHCR; stresses that it is important that the Commission should use the information gathered by EASO to identify potential shortcomings in Member States’ asylum systems; such information collected by EASO pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 439/2010 is also pertinent in the framework of the mechanism for early warning, preparedness and crisis management which will form part of the amended Dublin Regulation; underlines the importance of presenting regular reports and drawing up action plans in order to promote targeted solutions and recommendations for improving the CEAS and remedying potential deficiencies; notes, in particular, the agency’s role in coordinating and supporting common action in order to assist Member States whose asylum systems and reception facilities are subject to particular pressure, by means of measures including the secondment of officials to the Member States in question and the deployment of asylum expert teams and of social workers and interpreters who can be mobilised quickly in crisis situations; recalls that the impact of EASO will depend on the willingness of Member States to make full use of its potential;

15.

Calls on EASO, taking into account its duties as well as its limited budget, resources and experience, to optimise its available resources by engaging in close dialogue and cooperation with international organisations and civil society with a view to exchanging information and pooling knowledge in the field of asylum, collecting data, exchanging best practice, developing comprehensive guidelines on gender-related asylum issues, developing training, and creating pools of experts, case workers and interpreters who could be mobilised at short notice to provide assistance; further recommends that EASO ensure a broad representation of organisations participating in the consultative forum;

16.

Stresses that EASO’s activities should focus on both long-term preventive objectives and short-term reactive measures, in order to respond adequately to different situations; considers, therefore, that while EASO should support capacity-building measures for underdeveloped or dysfunctional asylum systems, it should give priority to emergency situations and to Member States facing particular or disproportionate pressures; emphasises, in this respect, the crucial role of Asylum Expert Teams in assisting with heavy caseloads and backlogs, providing training, undertaking project management, advising and recommending concrete measures, and monitoring and implementing follow-up measures;

17.

Takes note of the operational plan in place to support the Greek asylum system and improve the situation of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection in Greece; underlines that despite some progress achieved, additional efforts are needed from both the EU and the Greek authorities to improve the asylum system and ensure that asylum seekers’ rights are respected in full; recalls that measures to reduce the budget deficit preclude allocating national funds to hire more officials, and recommends that this problem be addressed, since a well-functioning asylum authority is necessary to enable Greece to fulfil its obligations under international and EU law;

18.

Takes note of the recommendation of the Commission and Council regarding inter-agency cooperation between EASO and Frontex, and stresses that the full and swift implementation of Frontex’s Fundamental Rights Strategy is a sine qua non for any such cooperation in the context of international protection, including the appointment of a Human Rights Officer, setting up the consultative forum with civil society, and inviting international organisations to participate in its activities as human rights observers; emphasises that any cooperation must be viewed in the context of upholding the standards set by European and international norms thus increasing in practice the quality of protection provided to asylum seekers; calls, therefore, on the EASO to support Frontex with respect to its obligations related to access to international protection, in particular the principle of non-refoulement; stresses that border measures should be applied in a protection-sensitive manner;

19.

Recognises the need to review EASO’s mandate regularly, in order to ensure adequate responsiveness to the different challenges faced by asylum systems; bearing in mind that all action undertaken by EASO depends on Member States’ goodwill, suggests considering the possibility of introducing structural safeguards within EASO’s mandate so as to ensure that practical cooperation and technical assistance are provided where necessary;

20.

Encourages Member States to make full use of the possibilities available under the European Refugee Fund (ERF) in terms of undertaking targeted actions for the improvement of asylum systems; recommends that Member States take action to address issues such as cumbersome bureaucratic procedures, absorption delays and liquidity problems, in order to ensure an effective and swift distribution of funds;

21.

Notes that Member States must ensure that full use is made of the opportunities afforded by the European Refugee Fund, and that all appropriations allocated can be disbursed so that project leaders do not face problems when implementing funded projects;

22.

Welcomes the creation as from 2014 of a simpler and more flexible Asylum and Migration Fund (AMF), which will replace the European Refugee Fund, the European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals and the European Return Fund, and underlines the need to allocate sufficient resources to support the protection of beneficiaries of international protection and asylum seekers; stresses, in this respect, the importance of including safeguards within the AMF, in order to prevent excessive allocation of funds to only one policy area at the expense of the CEAS as a whole; considers it necessary, in the context of the reform of allocation of funds in the home affairs area for the MFF 2014-2020, to also allocate sufficient resources for border protection in order to achieve greater solidarity in this area too; recalls that there should always be sufficient resources to fund international protection and solidarity measures for Member States;

23.

Emphasises the need for the Asylum and Migration Fund to be sufficiently flexible and easy to mobilise as well as offering rapid access, in order to be able to respond rapidly and appropriately to unforeseen pressures or emergency situations affecting one or several Member States; proposes in this respect to reserve, where necessary, a certain percentage of the AMF’s amount earmarked in the framework of the mid-term review for measures aimed at helping Member States to fully implement and apply the existing EU asylum acquis and to adhere to all international obligations in this field;

24.

Welcomes the home affairs policy dialogues with individual Member States on their use of the funds preceding multiannual programming; stresses the importance of participatory action to achieve optimal results, and recommends reinforcing the partnership principle by including civil society, international organisations and local and regional authorities, as well as relevant stakeholders, as their experience on the ground is essential for setting realistic priorities and developing sustainable programmes; their input in terms of the development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the objectives and programmes is therefore important and should be taken into account by the Member States;

25.

Underlines the importance of financial responsibility-sharing in the field of asylum, and recommends creating a well-resourced mechanism for receiving larger numbers of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection, in either absolute or proportional terms, and for helping those with less developed asylum systems; considers that further research is required to identify and quantify the real costs of hosting and processing asylum claims; calls, therefore, on the Commission to undertake a study in order to assess the funds that should be allocated according to the responsibility borne by each Member State, on the basis of indicators such as: the number of first asylum applications, the number of positive decisions granting refugee status or subsidiary protection, the number of resettled and relocated refugees, the number of return decisions and operations, and the number of apprehended irregular migrants;

26.

Recommends that Member States make use of the financial incentives available through the AMF for relocation activities, acknowledging that financial assistance through the fund and technical assistance through the EASO are important; suggests introducing priority areas to address urgent situations and provide more substantial financial assistance to Member States wishing to participate in relocation initiatives, in order to alleviate the related financial costs;

27.

Believes that the establishment of a clearer and more effective system of financial incentives for Member States participating in relocation activities and proactive strategies aimed at improving the infrastructures of national asylum systems will have a long-term positive effect on the convergence of standards in the EU and the quality of the CEAS;

28.

Welcomes the possibility of increasing the Commission’s contribution to up to 90 % of the total eligible expenditure for projects that could otherwise not have been implemented; considers that a clear added value should emerge from projects funded by the Commission; stresses that EU funding should under no circumstances be a substitute for national budgets allocated to asylum policies;

29.

Underlines the problems currently linked to the funding of activities in terms of obstacles to access to accurate information and funding, the setting-up of realistic and tailored objectives, and the implementation of effective follow-up measures; suggests introducing safeguards to avoid duplication, clear allocation of funding, and thorough examination of activities’ added value and the results achieved;

30.

Stresses the importance of strict oversight with regard to the funds’ use and management, on the basis of quantitative and qualitative indicators and specific criteria, in order to avoid the misallocation of human and financial resources and guarantee compliance with the objectives established; welcomes, in this respect, the setting-up of a common evaluation and monitoring system;

31.

Urges the Member States, with the assistance of the Commission, to ensure the full exploitation of existing complementarities between other available financial instruments such as the European Social Fund and other Structural Funds, in order to achieve a holistic funding approach for asylum-related policies;

32.

Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to performing a comprehensive evaluation of the Dublin system in 2014, reviewing its legal, economic, social and human rights effects, including the effect on the situation of women asylum seekers; considers that further reflection is needed on the development of an equitable responsibility-sharing mechanism for determining which Member State should be responsible for processing asylum applications, which would allow for quick and effective practical support for Member States in emergency situations and facing disproportionate burdens;

33.

Considers that the Dublin Regulation, which governs the allocation of responsibility for asylum applications, places a disproportionate burden on Member States constituting entry points into the EU, and does not foresee for a fair distribution of asylum responsibility among Member States; notes that the Dublin system as it has been applied so far, in a context characterised by very different asylum systems and insufficient levels of asylum acquis implementation, has led to the unequal treatment of asylum seekers while also having an adverse impact on family reunification and integration; stresses, moreover, its shortcomings in terms of efficiency and cost-effectiveness, since more than half of agreed transfers never take place and there are still significant numbers of multiple applications; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that asylum-seekers who are returned to a Member State on the basis of the Dublin II Regulation are not discriminated against for the sole reason of being Dublin II transferees;

34.

Stresses that the relevant case-law is already in the process of undermining the rationale behind the Dublin system; considers that while providing an answer to individual cases, the case-law fails to overcome the deficiencies that exist in the implementation of the asylum acquis; while recognising the need for Member States to ensure that their asylum systems comply with EU and international norms, welcomes, therefore, the efforts to include additional criteria in Dublin II in order to mitigate the system’s unwanted adverse effects; believes that discussions for the determination of the Member State responsible must take account of the fact that some Member States are already facing disproportionate pressures and some asylum systems are partially or fully dysfunctional;

35.

Deems it essential to engage in further dialogue with regard to responsibility-sharing towards asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection, including on the use of tools such as the joint processing of asylum applications (hereinafter ‘joint processing’) and relocation schemes;

36.

Considers that joint processing could constitute a valuable tool for solidarity and responsibility-sharing in various cases, in particular where Member States face significant or sudden influxes of asylum seekers or there is a substantial backlog of applications which delays and undermines the asylum procedure at the expense of asylum applicants; joint processing could prevent or rectify capacity problems, reduce the burdens and costs related to asylum processing, expedite the processing time of claims and ensure a more equitable sharing of responsibility for the processing of asylum applications; emphasises that joint processing requires a clear allocation of responsibilities between the Member States involved in order to avoid responsibility-shifting, and that decision-making remains the responsibility of the Member State; notes that this would need to be complemented by a system to ensure a more equitable sharing of responsibility once applications are processed;

37.

Welcomes the feasibility study launched by the Commission to investigate the legal and practical implications of joint processing on Union territory, since clarification is needed with respect to a series of issues;

38.

Notes that joint processing does not necessarily entail a common decision, but could involve support and common processing with respect to other aspects of the asylum procedure, such as identification, preparation of first-instance procedures, interviews, or assessment of the political situation in the country of origin;

39.

Emphasises that joint processing should offer added value with respect to the quality of the decision-making process, ensuring and facilitating fair, efficient and rapid procedures; underlines the fact that improving asylum procedures from the outset (frontloading) can reduce the length and cost of the procedure, therefore benefiting both asylum seekers and Member States;

40.

Stresses that a joint processing scheme should fully respect the rights of applicants and contain strong guarantees to that end; insists that joint processing must in no circumstances be used to accelerate the asylum procedure at the expense of its quality; takes the view that joint processing could lead to more efficient asylum procedures, also benefiting individual asylum seekers since with increased administrative capacities their protection needs could be recognised faster;

41.

Considers that EASO’s role could be valuable in putting together, training and coordinating asylum support teams which would provide assistance, advice, and recommendations for first-instance procedures;

42.

Recommends that the envisaged schemes with regard to joint processing should prioritise options involving the deployment and cooperation of the relevant authorities, rather than the transfer of asylum seekers;

43.

Calls for EASO to encourage, facilitate and coordinate exchanges of information and other activities in connection with joint processing;

44.

Underlines that EU resettlement and intra-EU relocation schemes are complementary measures aimed at reinforcing the protection of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection while showing both intra- and extra-EU solidarity;

45.

Stresses that, under certain conditions, the physical relocation of beneficiaries of international protection and asylum seekers is one of the most concrete forms of solidarity and can make a significant contribution to a more equitable CEAS; emphasises that while it also represents a solid expression of commitment to international protection and the promotion of human rights, so far few Member States have engaged in relocation initiatives;

46.

Stresses the importance of projects such as the European Union’s Relocation Project for Malta (Eurema) and its extension, under which beneficiaries of international protection have been, and are being, relocated from Malta to other Member States, and advocates developing more initiatives of this kind; regrets that this project has not been as successful as expected because Member States were reluctant to participate; calls on Member States to participate more actively in the Eurema project in a spirit of solidarity and responsibility-sharing; welcomes the Commission’s commitment to undertake a thorough evaluation of the Eurema project and submit a proposal for a permanent EU Relocation Mechanism;

47.

Calls on the Commission to take into consideration, in its legislative proposal for a permanent and effective intra-EU Relocation Mechanism, the use of an EU Distribution Key for the relocation of beneficiaries of international protection, based on appropriate indicators relating to Member States’ reception and integration capacities, such as Member States’ GDP, population and surface area and beneficiaries’ best interest and integration prospects; this EU Distribution Key could be taken into account for Member States which are facing specific and disproportionate pressures on their national asylum systems or during emergency situations; underlines that relocation will always depend on the consent of beneficiaries of international protection and that the introduction of an EU Distribution Key would be without prejudice to each Member State’s obligation to implement and apply the existing EU asylum acquis in terms of qualification for protection, reception conditions and procedural guarantees, and to adhere to all international obligations in this field;

48.

Calls on the Commission to include strong procedural safeguards and clear criteria in its proposal for a permanent EU relocation scheme, in order to guarantee potential beneficiaries’ best interests and relieve migratory pressure in the Member States particularly exposed to migration flows; recommends involving the host community, civil society and local authorities from the outset in relocation initiatives;

49.

Underlines that while relocation can both offer lasting solutions for beneficiaries of international protection and alleviate Member States’ asylum systems, it must not result in responsibility-shifting; insists that relocation should include strong commitments from Member States benefiting from it to effectively address protection gaps in their asylum systems and to guarantee high levels of protection for those remaining in the sender Member States in terms of reception conditions, asylum procedures and integration;

50.

Welcomes the funding possibilities provided under the AMF for relocating asylum seekers, and encourages Member States to engage in voluntary initiatives, while fully respecting asylum seekers’ rights and the need for their consent; calls on the Commission to investigate the feasibility of developing an EU system for relocating asylum seekers, examining, inter alia, the feasibility of basing it on an EU distribution key which would take into consideration objectively verifiable criteria such as Member States’ GDP, population and surface area and asylum seekers’ best interest and integration prospects; such a programme could be applied as a solidarity measure in situations where the number of asylum seekers is disproportionally high in relation to the capacity of a Member State’s asylum system, or in emergencies;

51.

Recalls EASO’s mandate with regard to promoting the relocation of beneficiaries of international protection amongst Member States, and calls on the Agency to build its capacity in order to actively support relocation programmes and activities in close cooperation with the UNHCR, through exchange of information and best practice and coordination and cooperation activities;

52.

Notes that the Commission has indicated that it will always consider activating the mechanism of the Temporary Protection Directive when the appropriate conditions are met, in particular in the event of a mass influx or imminent mass influx of displaced persons unable to return to their country of origin in safe and durable conditions; calls on the Commission to make it possible for this Directive to be activated even in cases where the relevant influx constitutes a mass influx for at least one Member State and not only when it constitutes such an influx for the EU as a whole;

53.

Insists that mutual trust is based on a shared understanding of responsibilities; stresses that compliance with EU law is an indispensable element for trust among Member States;

54.

Stresses that if Member States fulfil their obligations regarding legal and fundamental rights, this will strengthen both trust and solidarity;

55.

Stresses the importance of laying solid foundations for mutual trust among Member States, since this is quintessentially linked to the development of the CEAS and to genuine and practical solidarity;

56.

Acknowledges that while compliance with international protection obligations enhances mutual trust, this does not necessarily result in a uniform application of rules, given that the interpretation and application of international and EU asylum law still varies widely among Member States, as is clear from the recent ECHR and CJEU case-law relating to the Dublin Regulation; emphasises that it is the responsibility of the Commission and the courts to monitor and evaluate the application of asylum rules in accordance with international and EU law;

57.

Believes that early warning mechanisms introduced to detect and address emerging problems before they lead to crises can constitute a valuable tool; considers, nevertheless, that complementary solutions should also be envisaged, so as to avoid infringing fundamental rights and ensure the proper functioning of asylum systems;

58.

Stresses that while infringement proceedings should be more readily used to draw attention to Member States’ responsibilities and their failure to adhere to the existing asylum acquis, they should be accompanied by preventive measures, operational plans and oversight mechanisms in order to yield results; underlines the importance of regular evaluations, constructive dialogue, and exchange of best practice, as crucial elements that are more likely to produce positive developments in asylum systems where deficiencies are identified; different forms of financial and practical assistance can thus be provided in order to achieve the full and correct implementation of European asylum legislation;

59.

Notes that the Dublin system is based on mutual trust and that its implementation amounts to a mutual recognition of rejection decisions among Member States, given that an asylum claim can only be considered in the EU once; calls on the Commission to submit a communication on a framework for the transfer of protection of beneficiaries of international protection and mutual recognition of asylum decisions by 2014, in line with the Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme;

60.

Underlines that migration management can increase mutual trust and solidarity measures only if coupled with a protection-sensitive approach under which border measures are carried out without prejudice to the rights of refugees and persons requesting international protection;

61.

Stresses that visa regimes govern a multitude of entry and exit authorisations and that those entry and exit rules do not place any restrictions on the legal obligation to provide access to asylum;

62.

Recalls the Commission’s commitment to facilitate the orderly arrival in the EU of persons in need of protection, and calls on it to explore new approaches to access to asylum procedures; welcomes, in this respect, the Commission’s commitment to adopt a ‘Communication on new approaches concerning access to asylum procedures targeting main transit countries’ by 2013;

63.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Parliaments of the Member States, and the Council of Europe.

3.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 353/25

—

having regard to the forthcoming Communication on the Commission Work Programme for 2013,

—

having regard to the existing Framework Agreement on relations between Parliament and the Commission and, in particular, Annex 4 thereto,

—

having regard to its resolution of 4 July 2012 on the June 2012 European Council meeting (1),

—

having regard to Rule 35(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas the scale and nature of the sovereign debt, financial and economic crisis are testing the governance of the European Union as never before;

B.

whereas the EU is at a critical point and the crisis will not be overcome without a significant deepening of European integration, in particular in the euro area, with a corresponding reinforcement of democratic control and accountability;

C.

whereas the role of the Commission is to promote the general interest of the Union, to take appropriate initiatives to that end, to ensure the application of the Treaties, to oversee the implementation of Union law, to exercise coordinating, executive and management functions and to initiate legislation;

1.

Urges the Commission to use all its powers to the full and to provide the political leadership required to meet the numerous challenges thrown up by the continuing crisis, while aiming to achieve financial stability and economic recovery based on increased competitiveness and a sustainable, effective and socially just anti-crisis agenda;

2.

Recalls its demand of 4 July 2012 that the Commission table a package of legislative proposals by September, in line with the Community method, on the basis of the four building blocks identified in the report entitled ‘Towards a Genuine Economic and Monetary Union’;

3.

Insists that the Commission play a full part in formulating the reports to the European Council meetings in October and December 2012, which must establish a clear roadmap and schedule for the consolidation of economic and monetary union, including an integrated financial, fiscal and economic policy framework, and which must lead in due course to a stronger political union, and in particular to greater democratic accountability and legitimacy on the basis of Treaty change;

4.

Points to Parliament’s position on the ‘two-pack’ legislation, which will strengthen budgetary surveillance and enhance budgetary policy in the euro area and which contains provisions allowing for a differentiated path for budgetary consolidation in the event of a severe economic downturn;

5.

Urges the Commission to put forward proposals to implement the commitments outlined in the Compact for Growth and Jobs, notably with a view to stimulating sustainable growth-oriented investment, improving the competitiveness of a European economy geared towards the Europe 2020 objectives, in particular those of resource efficiency and sustainability, and deepening the single market; calls on the Commission to use its Work Programme for 2013 to set out a detailed growth agenda which focuses on encouraging business and entrepreneurs to develop the industries and services that will deliver long-term jobs and prosperity; stresses, in this context, the importance of significantly scaling up European project bonds on the basis of cooperation between the EU budget and the European Investment Bank;

6.

Points, furthermore, to the need for a sustained and symmetrical reduction of excessive macro-economic imbalances and calls for concrete changes in EU tax law to tackle all aspects of tax havens and fiscal evasion;

7.

Calls on the Commission to do its utmost to facilitate the speedy adoption of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and the related multiannual legislative programmes, with full involvement of Parliament and due respect for its co-decision rights; strongly supports the commitment to make the EU budget a catalyst for growth and jobs around Europe; calls on the Commission, in this connection, to defend its proposal to ensure that the Union’s budget reflects more directly its needs and political objectives;

8.

Insists, however, that the reform of the own-resources system, including the creation of new own resources, is an essential element without which the prospects for an agreement on the new MFF are poor; asks the Commission to support the request by several Member States for enhanced cooperation in this area; underlines the desirability, nevertheless, of reaching an overall agreement by the end of this year;

9.

Urges the Commission to improve the coherence of its legislative programme, to raise the quality of its legislative drafting, to strengthen its impact assessment of draft laws, to propose wherever appropriate the use of correlation tables with a view to better transposition of EU law, and to back Parliament in its negotiations with the Council on the use of delegated implementing acts; reiterates its repeated calls for the 2003 Interinstitutional Agreement on better lawmaking to be renegotiated;

10.

Calls on the Commission to take due note of the sector-specific positions of Parliament as set out in Part 2 below;

11.

Emphasises the importance of the proper and timely implementation of EU law through national legislation, and urges the Commission, if necessary, to open infringement proceedings in order to ensure proper transposition and effective enforcement;

12.

Urges the Commission to propose the introduction of compulsory national management declarations, signed at the appropriate political level, covering EU funds under shared management; urges continued action on simplifying the EU’s programmes, particularly in the field of research and innovation; calls on the Commission to monitor closely the use of financial engineering instruments (FEIs); calls for systematic, regular and independent evaluations, to ensure that all spending is achieving the desired outcomes in a cost-effective manner;

13.

Expects the Commission to submit in good time the draft amending budgets necessary to ensure that payment levels are in line with the measures agreed at the June 2012 European Council to stimulate growth and are sufficient to honour outstanding commitments;

14.

Calls on the Commission to continue to focus on improving the governance of the single market, to renew its drive to achieve administrative simplification, to give due consideration to proposing, where appropriate, regulations rather than directives in order to ensure the proportionality of proposed measures, and to monitor progress with a view to the full implementation of the single market acquis, especially in the services sector, including the possibility of ‘fast-track’ infringement procedures; stresses that due account must be taken of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of the single market;

15.

Looks forward to the Commission’s Single Market Act II proposals for priority actions to boost growth, employment and confidence in the single market; encourages the use of enhanced cooperation where appropriate and necessary;

16.

Calls on the Commission to be more systematic in assessing the impact of its proposals on SMEs, on which Europe relies for many new jobs; urges the Commission, in this regard, actively to discourage the ‘gold-plating’ of EU law at national level, which distorts the level playing field in the internal market; calls for the bureaucratic burden to be further reduced;

17.

Confirms its support for the Commission’s emphasis on the digital agenda; urges proposals to provide more cross-border services to consumers throughout the EU;

18.

Recalls the need for a solid revision of the General Product Safety Directive (Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) that guarantees consumer health and safety but also facilitates trade in goods, especially for SMEs; calls on the Commission to propose a cross-cutting regulation on market surveillance for all products; calls, furthermore, for effective redress in retail financial services and a common horizontal, coordinated approach in order to protect consumers;

19.

Urges the Commission to improve its regulatory behaviour towards SMEs and micro-enterprises by tailoring legislation to SME needs and also furthering the introduction of appropriate exemptions;

20.

Urges the Commission to pursue its copyright reform, which should be fit for the internet environment and based on social legitimacy, with due respect for fundamental rights, including the completion of industrial property rights reform to boost Europe’s growth and job creation; calls on the Commission to take account of the legal problems that came to light in the controversy surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) when presenting its proposal on the revision of EU trademark law;

21.

Insists on the need to implement the roadmap to a resource-efficient Europe in order to create incentives for the development of the green economy, the fostering of biodiversity and the fight against climate change, including the integration of resource-efficiency measures as envisaged in the Europe 2020 strategy;

22.

Believes that the European Semester must provide the opportunity for each Member State to account for its own commitments regarding the EU 2020 strategy, the Euro Plus Pact, the Single Market Act and other major EU objectives;

23.

Calls on the Commission to bring forward without delay proposals to address the weaknesses of the current Emissions Trading System in order to prevent its collapse;

24.

Calls on the Commission to present a detailed action plan of measures designed to achieve a fully integrated and interconnected single market in energy, and emphasises the importance of providing the EU with a modern grid infrastructure;

25.

Calls on the Commission to implement the Roadmap for moving to a competitive low-carbon economy in 2050, including mid-term milestones;

26.

Requests that the Commission draw up a strategy to address the impact of rising energy prices on members of society;

27.

Believes that the crisis should be used as an opportunity to transform our development model of society with a view to creating a highly efficient, renewable-based and climate-resilient economy; underlines the need for the Commission to come forward with proposals for a 2030 energy and climate package based on the current three pillars, i.e. greenhouse gas reductions, renewable energy sources and energy efficiency;

28.

Supports the Commission’s emphasis on the need to modernise Europe’s multimodal transport network, which is vital for the success of the internal market; calls on the Commission to stick to its commitment to railways and to extend the competences of the European Railway Agency in the field of safety certification and harmonisation of rolling stock;

29.

Regrets the failure to implement in full the Single European Sky initiative, and calls on the Commission to renew its efforts in this regard;

30.

Strongly welcomes the Commission’s focus on youth employment and its proposals to expand the Union’s capacity to boost education and training; expects, as part of the umbrella communication on the employment package, clear targets and timetables and concrete proposals in the areas of youth mobility, the ‘Youth Guarantee’, the quality framework for internships, language skills and youth entrepreneurship, in order to fight high youth unemployment; also expects concrete measures to reduce poverty, reform the labour market and establish social standards, so that a balanced ‘flexicurity’ approach can be implemented in those Member States that so desire, and calls for greater emphasis to be placed on the employment of disabled people in the context of an ageing society;

31.

Stresses the importance of investment in human capital and research and development, and of adequate education and training to facilitate professional mobility; also calls for further work on the issues of violence against women and human trafficking;

32.

Reiterates its call for a strong EU-wide cohesion policy post-2013, which must streamline existing funds and programmes, ensure adequate financing, be based on multi-level governance and be closely aligned with the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy; insists on the need to improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the Solidarity Fund and expects proposals to that end; is convinced that it is possible to find, by appropriate means, common ground for the EU cohesion and research and development policies, which ought to be targeted towards growth and competitiveness while respecting the principles of economic, social and territorial cohesion as well as excellence;

33.

Supports initiatives at Union level to complement national efforts in increasing micro-credit and boosting social entrepreneurship which delivers services that are not sufficiently provided by the public or private sectors;

34.

Welcomes the more robust approach taken by the Commission to protecting the rule of law and fundamental rights across the Union; calls for a review of the Fundamental Rights Agency in order to guarantee effective monitoring and implementation of the Charter of Human Rights and align it with the Lisbon Treaty; supports the Commission in its negotiation of the EU’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights;

35.

Calls on the Commission to examine the implementation of the Racial Equality Directive (Council Directive 2000/43/EC (3) and the transposition of the Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia (Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (4), and considers it regrettable that the EU framework for national Roma integration strategies is not legally binding;

36.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that freedom of movement of persons is secured and that the Schengen acquis is fully respected; stresses the need to replace inadequate peer review by Member States and calls for the Commission to take full responsibility for the supervision of the Schengen rules; welcomes the Commission’s support for its position on the legal basis for the Schengen rules;

37.

Considers regrettable the absence of a legislative proposal on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum; calls for a legislative proposal to establish a common European asylum system combining responsibility and solidarity;

38.

Underlines the importance of adopting the regulation on a general framework for data protection and the directive on data protection in the field of prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences in order to ensure that any further counter-terrorism measures uphold high standards of privacy and data protection; calls on the Commission to bring forward its review of the Data Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5));

39.

Strongly supports the Commission’s emphasis on implementing citizen-friendly initiatives in the context of the proposal for a decision on the European Year of Citizens (2013) (COM(2011)0489) so as to further strengthen citizens’ awareness of the benefits deriving from European citizenship;

40.

Takes note of the ongoing reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; welcomes the Commission’s commitment to promoting a balanced and integrated approach which safeguards both the sustainable and efficient production of high-quality and affordable food and respect for the environmental and heritage value of the countryside; urges that the CAP be closely aligned with the Europe 2020 strategy in order to encourage innovation in farming and enhance the sustainability, fairness and competitiveness of European agriculture at local and regional levels;

41.

Stresses that the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy must be ambitious in order to achieve sustainable and healthy long-term fish stocks; urges the Commission to ensure that Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is the legal basis for its proposals and to limit the use of Article 43(3) to proposals strictly connected to the setting and allocation of fishing opportunities; recalls its opposition to the practice of discards and to ill-judged and costly measures aimed at reducing fleet capacity;

42.

Calls for the Commission and the European External Action Service to work together to propose well-coordinated initiatives to the Council in the field of common foreign and security policy; urges the Commission to unite all its relevant activities and services, including development policy, with a view to attaining the international objectives of the Treaty of Lisbon and, in particular, Article 208 TFEU, which relates to policy coherence for development (PCD), while remaining faithful to the values on which the Union itself was built;

43.

Expects legislative initiatives to revise the legal bases for the next generation of external financial assistance instruments, using to the full the system of delegated acts; calls for more flexibility in disbursing financial assistance in crisis situations;

44.

Expects the Commission to support the enlargement of the Union to include any European country which respects the Union’s values and is committed to promoting them, while taking into account the requirement for accession countries to fulfil the Copenhagen criteria and the Union’s capacity for integration; believes that the Union would lose moral authority and political credibility worldwide were it to close its doors to its neighbours; expects the Commission to continue its work on the ongoing accession negotiations;

45.

Calls on the Commission to apply an enhanced outcomes-oriented development policy ensuring greater aid effectiveness and guaranteeing tighter policy coherence and greater donor coordination at national, EU and global level and, increasingly, with emerging global development players; insists on the need to set up a dedicated trust fund to address the problem of malnutrition in developing countries and to open a consultation process on the phenomenon of land grabbing; urges the Commission to ensure greater EU aid effectiveness in the light of possible post-2015 Millennium Development Goals;

46.

Considers the reciprocal and balanced openness of markets to be a strategic policy instrument for the EU’s internal growth and employment; underlines the importance of involving Parliament at all stages of negotiations and remains committed to a multilateral approach to international trade; stresses the importance of the fight against protectionism at the multilateral level and through all trade agreements;

47.

Supports the Commission’s efforts in all ongoing bilateral and regional trade negotiations; recognises the need for continuing progress in reaching bilateral free trade agreements with significant partners;

48.

Stresses the importance it attaches to the mainstreaming of human rights, social and environmental standards and corporate social responsibility in all international policy, together with clear rules requiring responsible behaviour by European companies;

49.

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

3.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 353/31

—

having regard to Article 184 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular Article 1 on human dignity and Article 3 on the right to the integrity of the person, which refers to the “prohibition on making the human body and its parts as such a source of financial gain”,

—

having regard to the Second Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Voluntary and Unpaid Donation of Tissues and Cells (COM(2011)0352),

—

having regard to Directive 2010/53/EU of 7 July 2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 19 May 2010 on the Commission Communication: Action Plan on Organ Donation and Transplantation (2009-2015): Strengthened Cooperation between Member States (2),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products and amending Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004,

—

having regard to Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells (4),

—

having regard to Directive 2006/17/EC of 8 February 2006 (5) implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for the donation, procurement and testing of human tissues and cells,

—

having regard to the World Health Organization’s Guiding Principles on Human Cell, Tissue and Organ Transplantation,

—

having regard to the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, and its Additional Protocol concerning Transplantation of Organs and Tissues of Human Origin,

—

having regard to the Oviedo Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, and the additional protocol thereto on transplantation of organs and tissues of human origin,

—

having regard to the European data on Tissues, Haematopoietic and Reproductive Cells donation and transplantation activities of the 2010 Report of the European Registry for Organs, Tissues and Cells,

—

having regard to its resolution of 10 March 2005 on the trade in human egg cells (6),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0223/2012),

A.

whereas donated tissues and cells, such as skin, bones, tendons, corneas and haematopoietic stem cells, are increasingly used in medical therapies and as starting material for advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMP); whereas Directive 2004/23/EC stipulates that Member States shall endeavour to ensure voluntary and unpaid donations and shall also endeavour to ensure that the procurement of tissues and cells as such is carried out on a non-profit basis; whereas this is a clear legal obligation, and if a Member State does not comply with the principle, infringement proceedings may be brought;

B.

whereas in accordance with Article 12(1) of Directive 2004/23/EC, Member States shall submit reports on the practice of voluntary and unpaid donation to the Commission every three years;

C.

whereas 27 of the 29 reporting countries have some form of provisions governing the principle of voluntary and unpaid donation of tissues and cells (binding or non-binding);

D.

whereas 13 countries have guiding principles regarding the possibility of giving forms of compensation or incentives to donors of tissues and cells;

E.

whereas 19 countries report providing some form of compensation or incentives for living donors of tissues and cells (excluding reproductive cells);

F.

whereas 14 countries give some form of compensation or incentives for the donation of reproductive cells;

G.

whereas four countries provide forms of compensation or incentives to relatives of deceased donors;

H.

whereas targeted public awareness-raising and the dissemination of clear, fair, scientifically based and conclusive medical information at national and European level, particularly among the patient’s immediate circle, play a very important role in gaining public support and increasing tissue and cell donation rates;

I.

whereas advertising the need for, or availability of, human tissues and cells with a view to offering or seeking financial gain or comparable advantage, should be prohibited;

J.

whereas, while 11 countries have official policies in place to endeavour to promote self-sufficiency of tissues and cells, 17 other countries have bilateral agreements with the same aim of ensuring national supplies of human tissues and cells;

K.

whereas it is also of the utmost ethical importance to ensure, in so far as possible, an adequate supply of tissues and cells needed for medical purposes; whereas that supply must be managed in the interest of citizens and should therefore be supervised by public bodies;

L.

whereas the majority of the reporting countries have public collectors/suppliers of tissues and cells or a dual system of private and public collectors/suppliers;

M.

whereas the procurement of human tissues and cells shall be carried out by persons who have successfully completed a training programme specified by a clinical team specialising in the tissues and cells to be procured or a tissue establishment authorised for procurement;

N.

whereas the removal of tissues and cells for the benefit of recipients may only be carried out under two conditions: it must be done with a medical or scientific and therapeutic aim, and all the elements removed must be donated without any payment being made;

O.

whereas the removal of tissue and cells must be subject to the following principles: anonymity (except in the case of removal from a living person for a relative), non-remuneration, consent, the obligation to share organs for transplant fairly among patients, and safeguarding the health of donors and recipients;

P.

whereas tissues and cells may only be removed if the donor has given prior free and informed consent to it in writing; whereas this consent may be withdrawn at any time, and with no particular requirement as to format;

Q.

whereas the use of tissues and cells for application in the human body carries a risk of transmission of disease to recipients; whereas that risk can be reduced by careful donor selection, an evaluation of potential donors prior to procurement based on a risk/benefit analysis, testing and monitoring of each donation and the application of procedures to procure tissues and cells in accordance with rules and processes established and updated according to the best available scientific advice;

R.

whereas the donation of some tissues and cells creates a severe risk for the donor; and whereas this risk is particularly high in egg cell donation because of the hormone treatment which is necessary to prepare for the donation;

S.

whereas the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is the EU’s leading principle and has been legally binding since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, prohibits making the human body and its parts as such a source of financial gain;

T.

whereas it would be desirable for all Member States to have binding rules to enforce that ethical principle, including by means of criminal law;

U.

whereas, however, doubts remain concerning the compatibility with this ethical principle of certain kinds of compensation provided in connection with donations, particularly when such compensation is provided to the relatives of deceased donors;

V.

whereas unpaid donation is not only an ethical principle but also necessary to protect the health of the donor and the recipient, as the involvement of large sums of money in the donation process may encourage the donor to take risks and may hinder the disclosure of risks in his/her medical history;

W.

whereas there is ample evidence to show that allogeneic cord blood transplantation is already successful for many patients, and whereas there are also credible reports that in some cases autologous treatment with these kinds of cells can be successful;

X.

whereas reports from reputable media sources suggest that in the area of tissues and cells the principle of unpaid donation is being violated time and again;

Y.

whereas the capacity to trace cells and tissues from the donor to recipients and vice versa and long-term follow-up of living donors and recipients of cells and tissues are central elements of safety and quality management;

1.

Welcomes the presentation of the Second Report on Voluntary and Unpaid Donation of Tissues and Cells, which shows that much is being done in the Member States to implement the principle of unpaid donation, but also that there is a lot still to do;

2.

Notes with concern that half of Member States state that they regularly face a lack of human tissues and cells, particularly spinal marrow, gametes and tissues such as corneas and skin; believes that the policies and laws in force should therefore be reviewed, as they are not adequate to meet the challenge of self-sufficiency in the European Union;

3.

Stresses that donation should be voluntary, unpaid and anonymous (except in the case of procurement from a living person for a relative), governed by protective legal and ethical rules which respect the integrity of the person;

4.

Calls on Member States to adopt protective measures for living donors and to guarantee that donation is anonymous (except in the case of procurement from a living person for a relative), voluntary, freely agreed to, informed and not remunerated;

5.

Asks the Commission to carefully monitor developments in the Member States, to examine carefully any reports from civil society or in the media about violation of the principle of unpaid donation, and to take appropriate action, including, if necessary, infringement proceedings;

6.

Believes that it is vital for all Member States to clearly define the conditions under which fair and proportionate financial compensation may be granted, bearing in mind that compensation is strictly limited to conditions making good the expenses incurred in donating tissues and cells, such as travel expenses, loss of earnings or medical costs related to the medical procedure and possible side effects, thereby prohibiting any financial incentives and avoiding disadvantages for a potential donor; such compensations must be transparent and regularly audited;

7.

Calls on the Commission to report on current national practices and criteria for compensation of living donors, especially as regards egg cell donation;

8.

Calls on the Member States to ensure that any compensation provided to donors is compatible with ethical principles; advises that particular attention should be paid to this issue where the compensation is given not to the donor, but to the donor’s family after death;

9.

Calls on Member States to ensure that living donors are selected on the basis of an evaluation of their health and medical history, including a psychological evaluation if deemed necessary, based on a risk-benefit analysis, by qualified and trained professionals;

10.

Calls on Member States to take measures to protect minors and adults under guardianship with regard to the removal of tissues and cells;

11.

Stresses that the principles of transparency and safety are key to achieving a high level of public support for donation; encourages Member States to work towards creating a transparent donation system which is safe for donors and recipients;

12.

Calls on all Member States to set up rules for ensuring the traceability of tissues and cells of human origin from donor to patient and vice versa, as well as a system for the regulation of imports of human tissues and cells from third countries, ensuring that equivalent standards of quality and safety will apply;

13.

Calls on Member States to step up their public information and awareness-raising campaigns to promote the donation of tissues and cells and to ensure the provision of medical information that is clear, fair, scientifically based and conclusive and of data enabling the public to make informed choices; stresses that donors should be fully informed of the procedures used in this process and their moral, psychological, medical and social consequences;

14.

Calls on Member States to take coordinated actions to prevent the development of a black market in gametes on the Internet, as such a market risks both undermining the quality and safety of tissues and cells and raises legal, ethical and public health problems;

15.

Calls on Member States to step up exchanges of good practices, particularly with regard to the supply of tissues and cells, the protection of the quality of tissues and cells while they are being transported, raising awareness of donating and training health staff;

16.

Expects all Member States to establish public tissue and cell banks;

17.

Calls for European standards and requirements for private tissue and cell banks;

18.

Considers that, in order to pursue the ethical imperative of ensuring adequate supply, the Commission and the Member States should consider the possibility of setting up a Europe-wide database of donors and potential recipients in order to manage supply in the general interest and avoid shortages where possible;

19.

Considers that the role of bilateral agreements is extremely important in supporting countries which experience shortages in tissues and cells or have no domestic donor matches and in ensuring that information on tissues and cells flows more freely between states;

20.

Particularly applauds, in the European context, the role in this field of Eurocet, which has played a crucial role in acting as the central European database for the collection of data on tissue and cell donation and transplantation activities; calls on Member State authorities to reinforce their collaboration with Eurocet in order to agree further common standards in the donation of cells and tissues and thereby enable healthcare professionals to improve the matches offered to European citizens;

21.

Calls on Member States to explore all possible opportunities for wider international cooperation in this field, in particular with regard to the potential uses of haematopoietic stem cells;

22.

Recognises the significant scientific advances made in the cord blood field, which is a very promising therapeutic alternative in the treatment of many diseases, including children’s illnesses;

23.

Points out that currently, clinical trials using umbilical cord blood stem cells for treatments linked to non-haematological diseases are mostly taking place outside the EU; calls therefore on the Commission and Member States to take appropriate measures to establish a regulatory framework which could stimulate increased availability of umbilical cord blood stem cells;

24.

Regrets that at present, stem cells from umbilical cord blood are only stored at 1 % of total births in the EU; underlines, consequently, the importance of mothers donating cord blood and tissue at birth into banks which adhere to common operational and ethical standards in order to help treat illnesses and further research in the field; stresses moreover that traceability must be one of the conditions required for the authorisation of these banks at national or European level; emphasises that the allocation process through such banks must be fair, equitable, non-discriminatory and transparent;

25.

Points out that public cell banks must take the necessary steps to protect data confidentiality in order to reconcile the traceability requirement with the need to protect donors’ rights, such as medical confidentiality and privacy;

26.

Takes the view that donations of non-family allogeneic umbilical cord blood — regardless of whether the bank is public or private — should be further developed, so that stored units of umbilical cord blood are registered in the Bone Marrow Donors Worldwide (BMDW) database and made available to any compatible patient who needs them;

27.

Points out that this donation must be subject to consent from the mother that is free, informed and given in writing, and that this consent may be withdrawn at any time prior to the donation, with no particular requirement as to format;

28.

Calls on Member States to raise awareness of public cord blood banking through information campaigns that may take place, for example, during antenatal classes, and proposes that in compliance with the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

29.

Considers that men and women should be informed about all existing options related to cord blood donation at birth e.g.: public or private storage, donation for autologous or heterologous purposes or for research; considers that comprehensive, objective and accurate information should be provided about the advantages and disadvantages of cord blood banks;

30.

Calls on Member States to improve, at the same time, the protection of parents’ rights to informed consent and freedom of choice regarding cord blood stem cell preservation practices;

31.

Proposes that Member States consider adopting and enforcing operational and ethical standards for public and private cord blood banks that uphold the principle of non-commercialisation of the human body and its parts, for example, and ensure traceability;

32.

Expects all Member States to establish at least one public stem cell bank;

33.

Calls for the opinion issued by the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies in 2004 on “Ethical Aspects of Umbilical Cord Blood Banking” (Opinion No 19) to be updated in the light of developments in cord blood stem cell preservation and ongoing clinical trials on the use of umbilical cord blood stem cells;

34.

Calls on Member States to provide a territorial network of maternity centres authorised to carry out this procurement to guarantee cord blood supply in all population centres;

35.

Calls for that all banks that respect the EU operational standards for collection and storage of cord blood to be consulted by national authorities when defining and implementing national information campaign strategies for parents;

36.

Calls for European standards and requirements for private stem cell banks;

37.

Notes that collaboration models and opportunities between public and private sectors already exist in some Member States, and encourages public and private cord blood banks to collaborate closely in order to increase the availability and exchange of national, European and international cord blood and tissue samples; calls on Member States to appropriately regulate both public and private banks to guarantee the fullest transparency and safety of cord blood, underlining that banks need to ensure working practices which are open and robust in their information sharing, in order to provide maximum benefit for the patient;

38.

Highlights the development of non-intrusive procedures of harvesting stem cells using peripheral blood stem cell collection (PBSC);

39.

Takes the view that Member States ought to consider increasing the number of donors of bone marrow and peripheral blood stem cells, improving their registries of bone marrow donors so that, with the collaboration of other countries’ national registries through the BMDW, any patient in need of a stem cell transplant has the best chance of finding a compatible donor;

40.

Calls on Member States to develop programmes which encourage minority ethnic backgrounds to donate tissues and cells to public banks in order to address the shortages of successful donor matches in this group;

41.

Emphasises that it is for the Member States to decide whether to allow, prohibit or regulate research with human embryonic stem cells and in vitro fertilisation but that Member States in this respect need to respect the rules set out in Directive 2004/23/EC, including those on quality and safety and those relating to the principle of unpaid donation; points out that the European Union has limited competence in this area and, when applying this competence, needs to respect the principles of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principles applied in the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union;

42.

Calls on the Commission to propose, as soon as possible, a revision of Directive 2004/23/EC in order to bring it into line with the principles governing organ donation laid down in Directive 2010/45/EU, and to take into account the new legal situation after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, scientific developments, the practical experience of those involved in the sector and the recommendations of this report;

43.

Also calls on the Commission to propose a revision of Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 in order to include a provision that guarantees the application of the principle of unpaid donation similar to that referred to in Directive 2010/45/EU and to take into account the problems that have occurred in respect of the implementation of the regulation, especially for SMEs;

44.

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

3.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 353/38

—

having regard to Articles 2 and 3(3), second subparagraph, of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Article 8 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to Article 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 20 June 2011 entitled ‘Rio+20: towards the green economy and better governance’ (COM(2011)0363),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 8 March 2011 entitled ‘A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050’ (COM(2011)0112),

—

having regard to the Commission staff working paper of 11 February 2011 entitled ‘Report on the progress on equality between women and men in 2010’ (SEC(2011)0193),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 21 September 2010 entitled ‘Strategy for equality between women and men 2010-2015’ (COM(2010)0491),

—

having regard to the Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing in September 1995, the Declaration and the Platform for Action adopted in Beijing and the subsequent outcome documents of the United Nations Beijing +5, +10 and +15 Special Sessions on further actions and initiatives to implement the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action adopted respectively on 9 June 2000, 11 March 2005 and 2 March 2010,

—

having regard to the United Nations Convention of 18 December 1979 on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW),

—

having regard to the report of the European Institute for Gender Equality of 2012 entitled ‘Review of the Implementation in the EU of area K of the Beijing Platform for Action: Women and the Environment Gender Equality and Climate Change’,

—

having regard to the joint publication of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS) of the report ‘Why a Green Economy Matters for the Least Developed Countries’ (1), prepared for the LDC-IV Conference in May 2011,

—

having regard to the UNEP report of September 2008 entitled ‘Green Jobs: Towards Decent Work in a Sustainable, Low-Carbon World’ (2),

—

having regard to the UN Women report of 1 November 2011 entitled ‘The Centrality of Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women for Sustainable Development’ (3), prepared in anticipation of the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) to be held in 2012,

—

having regard to the Women’s Major Group Rio+20 Position Statement Summary of 1 November 2011 (4),

—

having regard to the Women’s Major Group position paper of March 2011 in preparation for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development 2012 entitled ‘A Gender Perspective on the ‘Green Economy’ ’ (5)

—

having regard to the publication of the official government report (Stockholm, Sweden) of 2005 entitled ‘Bilen, Biffen, Bostaden: Hållbara laster – smartare konsumtion’ (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 April 2012 on women and climate change (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 March 2012 on women in political decision-making – quality and equality (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 March 2012 on equality between women and men in the European Union – 2011 (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 29 September 2011 on developing a common EU position ahead of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) (10),

—

having regard to its resolution of 7 September 2010 on developing the job potential of a new sustainable economy, (11)

—

having regard to its resolution of 17 June 2010 on gender aspects of the economic downturn and financial crisis, (12)

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0235/2012),

A.

whereas a green economy is defined as a sustainable economy, which means social and ecological sustainability; whereas social sustainability involves a social order permeated by gender and social equality regardless of gender, ethnicity, colour, religion, sexual orientation, disability or political opinion;

B.

whereas climate change and the loss of biodiversity threaten women’s and men’s living conditions, welfare and wellbeing; whereas the preservation of our ecosystem is therefore a cornerstone of a green economy; whereas today’s generation cannot leave the responsibility of solving today’s environmental problems to future generations; whereas ecological sustainability involves using, conserving and enhancing the community’s resources so that ecological processes on which life depends are maintained and the total quality of life, now and in the future, can be increased;

C.

whereas due to gender roles, women do not affect the environment in the same way as men, and in many countries women’s access to resources, and their opportunities to manage conditions and adapt, are curtailed by structural norms and discrimination;

D.

whereas environmental policies impact directly on the health and the socio-economic status of individuals, and whereas gender inequality, combined with lack of sensitivity to women’s different economic and social status and needs, means that women often tend to suffer disproportionately from environmental degradation and inadequate policies in this area;

E.

whereas the role of women in the green economy in several Member States continues to be underestimated and ignored, creating numerous discriminations in terms of lost benefits, such as social protection, healthcare insurance, adequate salaries and pension rights;

F.

whereas it is the poorest people, an estimated 70 % of whom are women, who will be hardest hit by climate change and the destruction of the ecosystem;

G.

whereas the transition to a green and sustainable economy is essential to reducing environmental impact, improving social justice and creating a society in which women and men enjoy equal rights and opportunities;

H.

whereas the transition to a green economy often raises particular issues regarding the integration of women in the market for green jobs, as women often lack the adequate technical training required to undertake specialist roles in the green economy;

I.

whereas women are clearly under-represented in environmental negotiations, budget deliberations and decisions on achieving a green economy;

J.

whereas consumption and lifestyle patterns have a significant impact on the environment and climate; whereas the rich world’s consumption patterns, e.g. food and transport, are unsustainable in the long term, especially given that all men and women on earth are entitled to live a good life with proper wellbeing;

K.

whereas consumption patterns generally differ between women and men; whereas women consume less in comparison to men, regardless of socioeconomic status, but also seem to show a greater willingness to act to preserve the environment through consumer choices, such as eating less meat, driving less and being more energy efficient;

L.

whereas women, in consequence of the current gender power structure, do not have the same control over, or access to, transport systems as men; whereas in order to improve women’s transport opportunities, it is necessary to introduce more efficient means of public transport, more walking and cycling routes and shorter distances to services, and to develop and enhance knowledge and innovation of environmentally friendly means of transportation;

M.

whereas women are particularly vulnerable to the effects of environmental hazards and climate change due to their lower socio-economic status relative to men, their traditionally disproportionate share of domestic responsibilities and the danger they face of being exposed to violence in situations of conflict created or exacerbated by scarcity of natural resources;

N.

whereas women must participate fully in the policy formulation, decision-making and implementation of a green economy; whereas women’s participation has resulted in improved emergency response, increased biodiversity, increased food safety, reduced desertification and increased forestry protection;

O.

whereas there is a lack of comprehensive and comparable data on the impact of a green economy on the labour market;

1.

Supports the need to move society towards a green economy in which ecological considerations go hand in hand with social sustainability, e.g. greater equality and greater social justice;

2.

Notes that specific and important parts of the green economy affect the ecosystem, consumption, food, growth, transport, energy and the welfare sector;

3.

Regrets that the Commission’s communication to EU institutions and committees regarding ‘Rio+20: towards a green economy and better control’ lacks a gender perspective;

4.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to compile age- and gender-disaggregated data when strategies, programmes and budgeting projects are being planned, implemented and evaluated for the environment and climate sectors: without statistics, the options for implementing relevant measures to improve equality are reduced;

5.

Regrets that gender concerns and perspectives are not well integrated in policies and programmes for sustainable development; recalls that the absence of gender perspectives from environmental policies increases gender inequality, and calls on the Commission and Member States to establish gender mainstreaming mechanisms at international, national and regional levels in environmental policies;

6.

Calls on the Commission to initiate research on gender and the green economy, as well as on women’s contribution to the development of green innovations, services and products;

7.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support and promote specific research and studies on how the conversion into a green economy will affect women and men in different sectors, and on women’s essential role in facilitating the transition; calls on the Commission and the Member States to integrate a gender perspective in environmental protection and environmental impact assessment studies;

8.

Recognises the urgent need for an international agreement regarding a common definition of the green economy, based on the pillars of both social and ecological sustainability; emphasises the significant role that civil society – especially social movements, environmental organisations and women’s rights organisations – have to play in defining the aims and objectives of the green economy;

9.

Calls on the Commission to systematically include a gender-equality perspective in the definition, implementation and monitoring of environmental policies at all levels, including in local and regional development and in research activities; calls on the Commission to use and support the promotion of gender mainstreaming as an instrument for good governance;

10.

Calls on the Commission to promote gender equality as a key issue when designing, and conducting negotiations on, future regulations and programmes for the EU structural funds (the European Social Fund (ESF) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)) and the Common Agricultural Policy, especially in the framework of measures related to the transformation towards a green economy;

11.

Observes that renewable energy can be used in remote and isolated areas where there is no electricity, and that it contributes to the production of non-polluting energy; encourages, therefore, the Member States to develop facilities to exploit renewable and environmentally friendly energy through the use of the ERDF and the ESF; encourages, furthermore, more innovation, and more participation of both women and men, in the development of, for example, renewable and environmentally friendly energy and architecture;

12.

Calls on the Commission to raise, in its information campaigns, awareness about the importance of converting to a green economy and about the positive effects of gender-sensitive environmental policies;

13.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to introduce gender equality into all environmental policy areas, and at all levels of economic decision-making; these targets should be compiled in consultation with civil society;

14.

Urges the Commission and Member States to start applying a new, social and climate-friendly indicator on growth, which includes non-economic aspects of wellbeing and sets its primary focus on issues related to sustainable development such as gender equality, poverty reduction and lower greenhouse gas emissions;

15.

Notes that work to meet people’s legitimate demands for housing, food, provisions, energy and jobs must always be carried out so that ecosystems are conserved and climate change is limited, while the earth’s resources are used in a manner consistent with human rights, leading to greater equality and allocation based on the principles of environmental equality;

16.

Stresses the importance of ensuring that children and grandchildren enjoy good living conditions and that economic development meets current needs without compromising future generations;

17.

Emphasises that GDP is a measurement of production and does not measure environmental sustainability, resource efficiency, social inclusion or social development in general; calls for the development of clear and measurable indicators that take account of climate change, biodiversity, resource efficiency and social equality;

18.

Calls on the Member States to implement fiscal measures which lead towards a green economy, partly by putting a price on environmental impact and partly by investing funds to stimulate green innovations and sustainable infrastructural systems;

19.

Believes that EU public funds should be used, to a much higher degree, for sustainable collective uses;

20.

Calls for conditions to be imposed such that EU subsidies are limited to activities that benefit the environment and favour social sustainability;

21.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to create sustainable transport systems which take equal account of women’s and men’s transportation needs and which, at the same time, have a low impact on the environment;

22.

Calls on the Commission to focus its research financing, a vital lever, on projects to develop innovative and sustainable transport solutions;

23.

Calls on the Member States to reduce the environmental and energy impacts of the transport sector and to improve equality by working to increase access to IT systems and traffic-efficient planning;

24.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to introduce a transport hierarchy that clearly indicates which mode of transport should be prioritised for overall environmental and traffic targets to be achieved;

25.

Calls for statistical data to be compiled prior to the development of any transport hierarchy, in order to measure the environmental impact of public and private methods of transport in the full range of differing local contexts, and calls on the public authorities concerned to set examples in this effort;

26.

Calls on the Member States to integrate the impact of the use of transport by public authorities in the state audits carried out by respective auditing authorities;

27.

Calls on the Member States to promote remote working by means of social and tax incentives, and by providing a protective legal framework for workers;

28.

Calls on Member States to significantly strengthen local public transport by increasing the quantity and quality of transport services, by improving the safety, comfort and physical accessibility of transportation modes and facilities, and by providing integrated and additional systems of transport, including to small towns and rural areas, thus strengthen the ability to travel for women, disabled and the elderly, allowing for their greater social inclusion and enhancing their living conditions;

29.

Stresses that investment in sustainable transport systems must take into account the fact that women’s and men’s perception of public spaces is different and is based on different risk assessments, which means that safe environments in the transport system must be prioritised for both women and men;

30.

Notes that green jobs in areas such as agriculture, energy, transport, utilities, research, technology, IT, construction and waste are of great importance in the green economy;

31.

Calls on the Member States to promote women’s entrepreneurship in the green economy by facilitating women’s access to it, through the dissemination of data and training workshops and by creating measures to help women achieve a balance between their working and private lives; calls on the Member States to encourage women’s entrepreneurship in the development of environmental protection and environmentally friendly technologies, e.g., in sectors such as renewable energy, agriculture and tourism, and in the development of green innovations, especially within the service sector; notes that renewable energy can create new job opportunities for women entrepreneurs in areas where female unemployment is particularly high;

32.

Calls on the Member States to ensure that women enjoy appropriate working conditions, have access to a decent standard of health care, education and habitation, and participate with a strong voice in social dialogues to facilitate the transition to the new green jobs;

33.

Notes that a sustainable economy means that it is “green for all”, creating decent work and sustainable communities and allowing for a fairer distribution of wealth;

34.

Notes that it is not only green jobs but all work with a low environmental impact that is important in a green economy; notes that while such work can be found in the private sector, it also found in the welfare sector, e.g., in schools and care services;

35.

Calls on the Member States to ensure that women are equally represented in political decision-making bodies as well as in government-appointed bodies and institutions dealing with defining, planning and implementing environmental, energy and green jobs policies, so as to include the gender perspective; calls on the Member States to appoint more women in management roles and company boards within the green jobs sector; stresses that if it is not possible to achieve this through voluntary means, targeted initiatives, such as the establishment of quotas or other methods, must be used to strengthen equality and democracy;

36.

Points out that the ecological conversion of the economy, and the transition to a low-carbon economy, will create a huge demand for skilled workers; refers to the fact that female workers are strongly under-represented in the renewable sector and especially in science- and technology-intensive jobs; stresses, therefore, that it is especially important that the Member States develop action plans to encourage more women to choose courses and careers within fields such as engineering, natural sciences, IT and other areas of advanced technology, as these will be the focus of many green jobs in the future;

37.

Calls on the Member States to use and develop ways to encourage women to choose courses and careers in the environmental, transport and energy sectors whilst determinedly fighting stereotypes that favour careers in natural and applied sciences for men;

38.

Notes the need to support and encourage women’s access to microcredit for small businesses;

39.

Calls on Member States to use and develop methods to encourage men to choose courses and careers with a low environmental impact in the welfare sector;

40.

Invites the Member States to develop training courses, through EU programmes such as the ERDF and the ESF, designed to facilitate women’s access to new ‘green’ jobs, and emerging technologies with a low environmental impact, in both the private and public sectors; calls on the Member States to ensure that female workers are included more in training projects and programmes on ecological transformation, i.e., in the renewable sector and in science- and technology-intensive jobs, and to focus on giving women, through education and training, the competences and qualifications they need in order to compete with men on an equal basis for employment and individual career development; observes that men have easier access to the advanced agricultural production means and the business technologies needed to gain high-skill positions in the green economy;

41.

Notes that in order for women to participate in the green economy on the same terms as men, more centres for the care of children and the elderly are needed, both women and men must be able to reconcile family and working life, and women’s sexual and reproductive rights must be ensured; points out that policies and regulations should strive to provide support for social security, family planning and child care, since women will only be able to bring in their expertise, and contribute their equal share to prospering green economies, in a society that satisfies these requirements;

42.

Points out that the greening of the economy has come to be regarded as a means of stimulating economic development, particularly in the context of the economic crisis and the EU 2020 Strategy; calls on the Commission and the Member States to support efforts to “green” the economy by encouraging investments and programmes which promote green innovations and green jobs and that are targeted at those who need them the most; insists that a gender perspective is crucial if exacerbating inequalities are to be avoided;

43.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to collect and analyse gender-disaggregated data on the distribution of financial resources in correlation to gender-divided sectors and green innovations, and to develop indicators in order to measure the potential, disaggregated effects of a green economy on territorial and social cohesion; calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop strategic direction and a set of instruments for responding effectively to possible changes in employment levels and in the structure of the labour market;

44.

Expects that the transition to broader and more sustainable economic indicators, including in development policy, will lead to more emphasis being placed on social and environmental objectives for developing countries, and that specific policies and regulations will secure women’s property rights and control over natural resources; stresses that there is a need to promote women’s access to such services and new technologies as are needed to manage and operate energy and water schemes, business enterprises and agricultural production; stresses that there is a need for women to engage more in business and in organisational leadership;

45.

Calls on the Commission to fully recognise and address the multiple effects of environmental degradation on inequalities, in particular between women and men, and to ensure the promotion of women’s equal rights in the elaboration of new policy proposals in the field of climate change and environmental sustainability;

46.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop indicators to assess the gender-specific impact of projects and programmes, and to facilitate a gender and equality perspective in environmental strategies for achieving a green economy;

47.

Calls on the Commission to be particularly aware that access to clean water is of major importance to girls and women in many parts of the world, as it is often their responsibility to fetch and carry water home; stresses that it is also important to retain female indigenous knowledge of local ecosystems;

48.

Calls on the Commission to pay particular attention to the fact that in many developing countries, the opportunities for women to pursue careers in a green economy are still severely limited as a result of social conditioning and patriarchal patterns, and that women fail to gain access to the information, training and technologies needed to access this sector;

49.

Calls on the Commission to be particularly aware that billions of people are totally dependent on biomass for energy, and that children and women suffer from health problems because they collect, process and use biomass; stresses that investments are therefore needed in renewable and more efficient energy sources;

50.

Calls for in-depth impact analyses, from a climate, gender and sustainability perspective, of the outcome of multilateral and bilateral trade agreements negotiated between the EU and third countries, and urges the Commission to authorise explicit support for the management of climate change as part of all aid-for-trade and other relevant development aid;

51.

Calls on the Commission to develop programmes for the transfer of modern technology and expertise to help developing countries and regions adapt to environmental changes;

52.

Stresses that gender inequalities in relation to access to resources, such as microloans, credit, information and technology, should be taken into account when defining strategies to combat climate change;

53.

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

3.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 353/47

—

having regard to Articles 2 and 3(3), second subparagraph, of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and to Articles 8, 153(1), indent (i), and 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to Article 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 18 April 2012 entitled ‘Towards a job-rich recovery’ (COM(2012)0173) and the accompanying document on exploiting the employment potential of the personal and household services (SWD(2012)0095),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal of 6 October 2011 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a European Union Programme for Social Change and Innovation (COM(2011)0609),

—

having regard to the European Pact for Gender Equality (2011-2020), adopted by the European Council in March 2011 (1),

—

having regard to the Commission’s 2011 Report on the Progress on Equality between Women and Men in 2010 (SEC(2011)0193),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 21 September 2010 entitled ‘Strategy for equality between women and men – 2010-2015’ (COM(2010)0491),

—

having regard to the proposal for a Council decision on ‘guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States – Part II of the Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines’ (COM(2010)0193),

—

having regard to the Council Conclusions of 8 June 2009 on Flexicurity in times of crisis,

—

having regard to Directive 2006/123/EC of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (2),

—

having regard to Directive 2006/54/EC of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (3),

—

having regard to Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services (4),

—

having regard to the 2008 report by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions entitled ‘Working in Europe: Gender differences’,

—

having regard to the 2007 report by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions entitled ‘Working conditions in the European Union: The gender perspective’,

—

having regard to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) of 18 December 1979,

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 March 2012 on ‘equality between women and men in the European Union – 2011’ (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 March 2011 on the face of female poverty in the European Union (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 19 October 2010 on precarious women workers (7),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A7-0246/2012),

A.

whereas many countries have undergone a tertiarisation of their economy, meaning that the service sector now accounts for the majority of jobs and is the largest contributor to GDP in the countries concerned, representing more than 70 % of economic activity in the European Union and a similar and growing percentage of total employment, and whereas in the EU in 2010 employment in the service sector accounted, on average, for almost 70 % of total employment, while employment in industry accounted for 25,4 % and employment in agriculture for 5,2 %;

B.

whereas currently nine out of ten jobs are created in the service sector and studies indicate that further enhancement of the single market for services could help to unlock considerable potential for employment – jobs which the EU urgently needs in this time of crisis;

C.

whereas the employment rate for women is 62,1 %, compared with 75,1 % for men, which means that the Europe 2020 strategy’s primary goal of attaining 75 % employment by 2020 can be achieved only if more women have access to the labour market;

D.

whereas most of the female workforce is employed in the service sector, and whereas in the EU in 2010 this proportion averaged 83,1 %, compared with 58,1 % of the male workforce;

E.

whereas women tend to be disproportionately represented in the flexible and part-time employment market because of gender stereotypes in our society which depict women’s primary responsibility as being the family carer, and whereas they are therefore deemed to be more suited than men to working on a temporary, casual or part-time basis or to working from home; whereas flexible working time arrangements, including teleworking and part-time or home-office work, are still largely considered as a ‘female’ way of organising working time;

F.

whereas the service sector offers many opportunities for flexible employment contracts – flexitime, part-time and short-term contracts – which can help both male and female caregivers, where they have the ability to choose, to combine work and caregiving; whereas women are more likely to turn to flexible or part-time employment in order to reconcile professional and family obligations, even where there is a pay difference in terms of hourly rate between part-time and full-time workers; and whereas women have more career breaks and amass fewer working hours than men, which can affect their career development and prospects for social promotion, and thus also results in a less remunerative career;

G.

whereas precarious work is a persistent feature of the European Union’s labour market, and whereas women are more affected by such precarity, are discriminated against in terms of pay and are more involved in part-time work, and are therefore paid less than men, enjoy less social protection, are more restricted in terms of career progression and have less chance of economic independence, which encourages them to return to the private sphere, with a subsequent setback in the sharing of responsibilities; whereas women represent a great proportion of workers in undeclared employment, who are engaged mainly in domestic and care work;

H.

whereas, at all levels of training, a higher percentage of men have jobs than women, even though the latter may be as or better qualified than men, but whereas their skills are often less well-regarded and their career advances slower;

I.

whereas women make up around 60 % of university graduates, yet their representation in senior official and decision-making positions in the service sector is disproportionately low;

J.

whereas women are over-represented in the lowest-ranked jobs and positions in the service sector in terms of qualifications, pay, remuneration and prestige and women therefore face greater job insecurity and are paid less than men;

K.

whereas women’s contribution to the labour force is usually underestimated by employers, since they are more likely to interrupt their careers in order to bear and raise children;

L.

whereas better opportunities for women in professional life have to be seen as an asset and an investment for society as a whole, especially in the context of the current demographic changes and challenges in Europe;

M.

whereas women face greater difficulties in balancing work and family life, as the responsibilities associated with family life are not always equally shared and care of dependent family members falls mainly to women, and whereas creating a balance between work and family life will thus help to unlock substantial employment potential for women and facilitate better matching of women to available jobs in the service sector and all other occupational sectors, thereby boosting economic growth, employment and innovation; whereas, in this connection, government policies that provide care services for children and dependants are an important factor in the ability of women and men to manage the different demands arising from workplace and caregiving activities;

N.

whereas traditional gender roles and stereotypes continue to have a strong influence on the division of roles between women and men at home, in the workplace and in society at large, and tend to perpetuate the status quo of inherited obstacles to achieving gender equality and to limit women’s range of employment choices and personal development in the service sector, impeding them from realising their full potential as individuals and economic actors;

O.

whereas domestic, marital, economic and sexual violence against women is an infringement of human rights that affects all social, cultural and economic strata;

P.

whereas women’s economic independence is a condition sine qua non for them to take charge of their personal and professional trajectories and to be given real choice;

Q.

whereas there are continuing inequalities between men and women in access to and use of new technologies and the internet, which often lead to a skills gap and even to ‘digital illiteracy’, a phenomenon widely known as the ‘gender digital divide’;

R.

whereas the difference in pay between men and women for the same work or work of equal value is at one of the highest levels in the service sector;

1.

Stresses that there is a strong horizontal segregation or gender-specific division of labour in the service sector: almost half the women in employment are concentrated in 10 of the 130 occupations listed in the International Standard Classification of Occupations drawn up by the International Labour Organisation (ILO): shop salespersons and sales demonstrators, domestic and related helpers, cleaners and launderers, personal care and related workers, office clerks, administration associate professionals, housekeeping and restaurant services workers, secretaries and keyboard operators, general managers, finance and sales associate professionals and nursing and midwifery associate professionals;

2.

Invites the Commission to fight this gender divide by means of campaigns promoting the aforementioned occupations;

3.

Underlines the importance of reducing occupational segregation in order to bridge the gender wage gap, which is often worse for women employed in female-dominated jobs than for women holding the same qualifications but employed in other sectors;

4.

Points out that there is also a concentration of women working in the public sector, where 25 % of the active female population can be found, compared with only 17 % of the active male population; highlights the fact that in this sector women are more vulnerable to loss of employment on account of budget cuts; points out that, in order to achieve the target of 75 % employment for women and men, set out in Europe 2020 (the EU’s growth strategy), efforts are needed to get more women working in both the public and private sectors; notes that in a large number of Member States there are considerably more female doctors than male doctors;

5.

Calls upon Member States to ensure that the public sector, which is characterised by transparent and clear recruitment criteria and terms of promotion, displays an exemplary attitude regarding equal access to employment in the public service and especially to management positions; stresses the need to introduce transparent rules for the selection and recruitment of employees in the private sector;

6.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take concrete measures towards a further deepening of the market for services in order to develop its significant jobs potential;

7.

Stresses the importance of combating stereotypes and gender-based discrimination by adopting active policies that can reduce the real disadvantages affecting women in the service sector, where there is an assumption that there are male and female jobs, and that the latter are associated with the work women do at home and are considered as an extension of these (clothing and textiles, teaching, nursing, cleaning, etc.); calls for educational and professional counselling to play a greater role at school, for equality between men and women to be promoted among young people and for the fight against stereotypes to steer young women towards qualifications and professions in which they are under-represented; notes that the proportion of men entering the teaching profession is considerably smaller than that of women and stresses the need for more males in the profession;

8.

Points out that, among women employed in the service sector, there are more who find employment in the social, care and telecommunications sectors, which tend to require lower qualifications, enjoy little social prestige and correspond to women’s traditional roles in society, while men dominate the most prestigious and lucrative sectors: finance and banking;

9.

Points out that care policies and services for older people, dependants and children, including maternity, paternity and parental leave provisions, are absolutely fundamental elements to achieving gender equality; notes, therefore, that women and men should have the choice to engage in paid work and to have children and a family, without being deprived of their freedom to make full use of their right to employment and equal opportunities;

10.

Draws attention to the fact that part-time employment (19,2 % of total employment in the EU in 2010) is still a predominantly female domain; notes that in the EU in 2010 31,9 % of the female workforce was in part-time employment, compared with just 8,7 % of the male population, meaning that 78 % of part-time work is carried out by women; points out that in the EU as a whole 19 % of women and 7 % of men work ‘short’ part-time hours (fewer than 20 hours a week) and only 3 % of men aged between 35 and 49 are on ‘short’ part-time hours, compared with 18 % of women in the same age group; notes also that part-time jobs are found mostly in specific sectors, with more than 38 % of part-time workers, including those on both ‘short’ and ‘substantial’ hours (i.e. between 20 and 34 hours a week), being employed in education, health and social services, other services or retail and wholesale;

11.

Draws attention to the increasing prevalence of flexible working hours: weekend work, irregular and unpredictable working hours and the extension of the working day, and to the fact that, given that the demand for flexibility is greatest amongst part-time workers, who are mostly women, this means that more women than men have their working hours changed from week to week, making it even harder for women to strike a balance between work and family life, especially single mothers and those caring for dependent family members; stresses that work contracts should be stable and working hours scheduled, but that working hours may be negotiated upon the employee’s request in order better to reconcile professional, family and private life; emphasises that flexible working hours should be the worker’s decision, and should not be imposed or enforced by the employer; rejects situations of flexibility and contractual uncertainty that do not allow for family formation and stability;

12.

Recalls that flexible working arrangements are specific to many jobs in this sector; emphasises that, on the one hand, increased flexibility in working arrangements – provided that it is voluntary and geared to the real needs of workers, and that workers have control over it and clarity as to their working hours and part-time arrangements – increases women’s opportunities to participate actively in the service sector and supports the reconciliation of work, family and private life, but that, on the other hand, flexibility can have a negative impact on women’s wages and pensions and negative consequences for women in employment, such as a lack of formal contracts, social security and employment security; notes that it can also result in employers failing to ensure adequate occupational health and safety conditions;

13.

Stresses the importance of ‘home-working’, which is becoming increasingly fashionable; points out that more than 90 % of companies in Germany and Sweden are dividing their working week in new ways, judging staff on annual rather than weekly hours and allowing husbands and wives to share jobs;

14.

Highlights the importance of ensuring decent working conditions coupled with rights relating to, inter alia, pay, health and safety standards, accessibility, career prospects, further training, sustainable social security and lifelong learning;

15.

Notes that in the EU in 2010 the proportion of the female workforce on a fixed-term contract was 14,5 %, which was slightly higher than the proportion for men, at 13 %;

16.

Recalls, once more, that women earn on average 16,4 % less than men in the European Union; states that women do not receive the same salary in cases where they hold the same jobs as men or jobs of equal value; notes that in other cases they do not hold the same jobs, owing to the continuing vertical and horizontal occupational segregation and the higher incidence of part-time jobs; calls, therefore, on the Member States, employers and trade union movements to draft and implement serviceable, specific job evaluation tools to help determine work of equal value in order to ensure equal pay for women and men, and encourages companies to undertake annual equal pay audits and publish the data for maximum transparency and to narrow the gender pay gap; points out that the gender pay gap often leads to a retirement pension gap, which may result in women finding themselves below the poverty line;

17.

Stresses, therefore, the importance of enforcing the principle of equal pay for women and men in the same workplace, as enshrined in Article 157 of the Treaty of Lisbon; recalls its resolution of 24 May 2012 on equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value (8), and reiterates its request therein for a review of Directive 2006/54/EC by 15 February 2013 at the latest;

18.

Notes with concern that the vast majority of low salaries, and almost all very low salaries, are for part-time work and that about 80 % of the working poor are women; points out that there is a need for concrete measures to combat precarious employment in the service sector, which particularly affects women, and therefore calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop strategies in order to combat precarious employment;

19.

Claims that a fairly widespread yet discriminatory practice is to assign different occupational categories to men and women for the same work or work of equal value: in the case of cleaning services, for example, men are appointed as maintenance technicians whereas women are appointed as cleaning auxiliaries, a situation which is used as a means to justify lower pay for women’s work;

20.

Notes that a rise in women’s level of education is seldom matched by a move up the hierarchy at work or an improvement in their conditions of employment, so much so that over-qualification could be said to exist in the female population;

21.

Notes that, in relation to the growing trend towards employing women part-time and employers’ preference to invest in employees on permanent employment contracts, women clearly have limited access to a wide range of training and retraining courses, which decreases their opportunities for professional development;

22.

Stresses the need for all workers in the service sector, with attention paid to those belonging to the most vulnerable groups, to have access to permanent upskilling programmes and lifelong learning, in order to improve their future labour market opportunities and reduce the mismatch between skills and constantly evolving work duties;

23.

Notes women’s low level of participation in vocational training in the service sector in the context of lifelong learning, and calls on the Member States to take action on the matter;

24.

Stresses the need for upskilling in the case of older workers and parents returning to the labour market after time spent caring for children or dependent relatives;

25.

Points out that in 2010 only one in seven members of the boards of major European companies were women (13,7 %) and only 3,4 % of the boards of the biggest companies were chaired by a woman;

26.

Stresses the importance of working to get more women into the research sector and emphasises that women can play a decisive role in the development of new and innovative systems and new products and services in the service sector, in particular because, although women are responsible for 80 % of the world’s purchasing decisions, most products are designed by men, including 90 % of technical products; believes that greater participation by women in innovation processes would open up new markets and increase competitiveness; believes also that innovative services are essential for meeting the challenges of the future, in particular the rising demand for welfare services from an ageing population, and can create better opportunities for people to live and work in cities, towns and rural areas throughout the Union through the provision of good communications and commercial services;

27.

Emphasises that, as many women continue to choose training in the service sector and are thus building up their commercial experience and knowledge of the trade, there is ample scope and great potential for female entrepreneurship; believes that, in order for efforts to increase entrepreneurship and enterprise among women to be effective, equivalent conditions to those in the service sector are needed for the production sector; welcomes, in this connection, the proposal to extend microfinance as a specific axis of the Programme for Social Change and Innovation, and highlights the importance of microfinance as an instrument to support female entrepreneurs and persons who are in a vulnerable labour-market position in the service sector, welcomes the Commission communication entitled ‘Social Business Initiative’ (COM(2011)0682), because women in particular are taking up work in the social business sector;

28.

Notes that, in the service sector, women in managerial positions tend to work mainly in sectors such as retail distribution and hotels, although they are making headway in less traditional sectors such as insurance and banking, and that in most cases women are managers of small companies or companies without any employees; notes also that in large organisations women usually reach senior management positions only in less important areas of the company, such as human resources and administrative roles; encourages companies to make regular training available to juniors and to implement effective maternity, paternity and parental support schemes;

29.

Calls for an end to the glass ceiling in the public service that prevents women from attaining positions of high responsibility; notes that the public sector must play an exemplary role in this field;

30.

Emphasises that women account for a greater proportion than men of the informal economy in the service sector, partly because there is greater deregulation in the sectors in which women traditionally work, for example domestic service or care work; notes, on the other hand, that the informal economy has grown as a result of the crisis, although it is very difficult to determine its particular contours in the absence of reliable data on incidence and impact;

31.

Welcomes the Annual Growth Survey working document entitled ‘On exploiting the employment potential of the personal and household services’ and calls on the Member States, the social partners and other stakeholders actively to accept the Commission’s invitation to conduct a discussion on this issue;

32.

Calls on the Member States to develop policies aimed at turning precarious workers in the informal economy into regular workers, for instance by introducing tax benefits and service vouchers; calls for the development of a programme aimed at educating workers in the service sector about their rights and promoting the organisation of such workers; calls for initiatives targeting employers and the wider public in order to raise awareness of the negative effects and impact of precarious irregular work, including on occupational safety and health;

33.

Calls on the Commission to order an independent study on the effects of liberalising the domestic care sector on the position and conditions of workers;

34.

Is concerned about the situation of female immigrant and undeclared workers in the service sector, in particular those employed in private households, as the vast majority work without a contract in precarious employment and domestic service with poor working conditions, substantially lower wages than declared workers and no social rights of any kind; stresses, therefore, the need for appropriate policies to ensure that migrant workers are entitled to basic human rights, including the right to health care, fair labour conditions, education and training, moral and physical integrity and equality before the law; calls on the Member States to review national policies and practices in order to place a greater focus on recruitment practices, access to information and human rights protection and to encourage such workers to report abusive working conditions without the risk of any impact on their residence status;

35.

Encourages the Member States to ratify without delay ILO Convention No 189 on domestic workers, which was adopted by the tripartite organisation in 2011 with the aim of ensuring decent working conditions for domestic workers and the same basic labour rights as those available to other workers and supporting the development of a formal domestic and care services sector;

36.

Calls on the Member States to consider introducing a special regime for the personal and household service sector in order to regularise the widespread phenomenon of undeclared work - which particularly affects women - and thereby ensure decent working conditions; calls on the Member States to report on their efforts to combat undeclared work in their national reform programmes submitted under the Europe 2020 strategy;

37.

Calls on the Member States to adopt policies on integrating vulnerable workers into the labour market, with particular reference to low-skilled, unemployed, young and older workers, people with disabilities, those with mental disabilities and minority groups such as migrant workers and Roma, through targeted and tailored occupational guidance, training and apprenticeship programmes;

38.

Notes that the economic crisis and so-called austerity measures have led to a reduction in gender equality measures and are an additional obstacle to the application of the principle of gender equality, particularly with regard to job losses, access to new jobs and increased insecurity for women, which, together with the fact that male employment rates tend to recover more quickly than female employment rates, are having a negative impact on women’s employment in the service sector and on their careers and pensions; calls on the Commission to collect data on the impact of austerity measures on women in the labour market, with particular emphasis on the service sector; emphasises the need for greater recognition of the interdependence between social and economic issues, as increased attention to social issues is a prerequisite for effectively addressing gender-based inequalities;

39.

Points out that the Fifth European Working Conditions Survey, published in April 2012, found that 18 % of workers reported a poor work-life balance; stresses the need for strengthened policies to reconcile work and family life and calls, in particular, for an increase in free and quality social public services and facilities in order to provide childcare services and care for other dependants which are compatible with the reconciliation of professional, family and private life, in both rural and urban areas; stresses that the provision of care facilities will also help to reduce poverty among women by making it possible for them to work;

40.

Stresses that the active participation and involvement of men in reconciliation measures, such as part-time work, is crucial for achieving work-life balance, since both women and men could benefit from family-friendly employment policies and from equal sharing of unpaid work and household responsibilities; calls on the Commission and the Member States to take decisive policy action to fight gender stereotypes and encourage men to share equally in caring and domestic responsibilities, in particular through incentives for men to take parental and paternity leave, which will strengthen their rights as parents, ensure a greater degree of equality between women and men and more appropriate sharing of family and housekeeping responsibilities, and enhance women’s opportunities to participate fully in the labour market; suggests that the Member States should correctly apply Council Directive 2010/18/EU (9) on parental leave, through both legislative and educational measures relating to gender equality;

41.

Calls on the Commission and the Council to adopt an action plan for achieving the Barcelona targets for childcare provision and to establish a timeline for progressively increasing the target levels;

42.

Points out the limited opportunities women have to adapt to the requirements of labour markets in a modern, highly globalised world, in which a worker’s key attribute is mobility and the ability to move to take up a position outside his or her place of residence, which in the case of women, who are more involved in caring for children and looking after the home, is often impossible, preventing them from taking full advantage of the opportunities offered by the labour market;

43.

Urges the Council to break the deadlock with regard to the adoption of the amendment to the pregnant workers directive accepting the flexibility proposed by Parliament so that Europe can make progress in protecting the rights and improving the working conditions of pregnant workers and those who have recently given birth; underlines, in this connection, the importance of effectively protecting motherhood and fatherhood by combating i) dismissal from employment during or after pregnancy, ii) salary cuts during maternity leave, and iii) downgrading of job status or remuneration upon return to work; emphasises the need to ensure that non-typical employees of companies, such as locums, freelance workers and other temporary employees, can assert rights to an extent that reflects the individual employee’s work contribution in the period prior to pregnancy and birth, and which ensures the greatest possible equality of treatment in relation to permanent colleagues in the sector in question;

44.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States, with due respect for the principle of subsidiarity and in consultation with the social partners, to develop strategies for setting minimum standards in the service sector, including regular contracts and collective bargaining, and to try to tackle the negative consequences of horizontal and vertical segregation;

45.

Stresses the need to combat all forms of violence against women in the service sector, including economic violence, psychological and sexual workplace harassment, sexual abuse and human trafficking;

46.

Stresses the need for the Commission and the Member States to ensure that women’s working conditions (the strenuousness and risks of the work carried out as well as the working environment) in the service sector comply with the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, adopted in June 1998, and with the ILO’s specific fundamental conventions;

47.

Calls on the Member States to take measures to combat the misuse of personal care services, such as massage and saunas, to mask services of a sexual nature where the latter are provided under duress and controlled by human trafficking networks;

48.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to guarantee the protection of social and employment rights for the large number of mobile workers in the service sector, and to combat all forms of exploitation and the risk of social exclusion while ensuring that information on workers’ rights is easily accessible; stresses that mobility should be voluntary;

49.

Notes the need to promote initial and ongoing training options for women which are targeted and in line with the objective of developing the scientific and technical competencies required to find work and pursue a career;

50.

Notes that, although there are increasing numbers of women using computers and surfing the internet in an elementary way, the digital divide in terms of skills remains very wide, restricting women’s access to and use of information and communication technologies (ICTs), thus hampering their ability to seek and find skilled work and, consequently, intensifying inequalities within households, communities, labour markets and the wider economy; calls, therefore, for efforts to promote women’s access to the use of new technologies by giving them priority access to free training courses; invites the Member States and the regions to set up free computer training courses through projects financed by the European Social Fund (ESF), providing women with the chance to acquire new technical skills in the fields of technology and computer science and leading to greater opportunities for female employment in the service sector; calls on governments to implement policies (such as promotion campaigns and specific scholarships) aimed at increasing the level of enrolment of female students in information and communications technology courses;

51.

Calls for a strong social dialogue and the involvement of employers’ and workers’ representatives in setting EU priorities for the service sector with regard to the protection of social and employment rights, unemployment benefits and representative rights;

52.

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

3.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 353/56

—

having regard to Articles 165 and 166 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular its Article 14,

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 23 November 2011 entitled ‘Annual Growth Survey 2012’ (COM(2011)0815),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 20 December 2011 entitled ‘Education and Training in smart, sustainable and inclusive Europe’ (COM(2011)0902),

—

having regard to Commission Communication of 3 March 2010 on ‘Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2010)2020),

—

having regard to Council conclusions of 11 May 2010 on the social dimension of education and training (1),

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (‘ET 2020’) (2),

—

having regard to the Council Recommendation of 28 June 2011 entitled ‘Youth on the Move’ – promoting the learning mobility of young people (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 1 December 2011 on tackling early school leaving (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 May 2011 on early years learning in the European Union (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 18 May 2010 on key competences for a changing world: implementation of the Education and Training 2010 work programme (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 18 December 2008 on delivering lifelong learning for knowledge, creativity and innovation – implementation of the ‘Education & Training 2010 work programme’ (7),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Culture and Education and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A7-0247/2012),

A.

whereas, despite some improvement in education and training, for the majority of the EU population lifelong learning (LLL) is still not a reality, and certain indicators are, in fact, worrying; whereas, in addition to general education and vocational training, the importance of formal and non-formal adult education should also be highlighted;

B.

whereas LLL strategies are far from being properly implemented in many Member States, although they are a key part of the EU 2020 strategy;

C.

whereas education and training policies need to provide LLL opportunities for all, irrespective of their age, disability, gender, race or ethnic origin, religion or belief, sexual orientation, linguistic and socio-economic background;

D.

whereas limited and poorly tailored learning opportunities still persist for people of different groups; and whereas both indigenous populations and linguistic and cultural minorities should be able to learn in their own language;

E.

whereas economic growth must be based, as a matter of priority, on education, knowledge, innovation and appropriate social policies to make the EU emerge out of the current crises, and it is important to implement the policies in this sphere within the EU 2020 strategy framework properly and in full in order to get through this crucial period;

F.

whereas the Member States have a public responsibility to draft education and training policies, and whereas these spheres require adequate public funding in order to guarantee equal access to education without social, economic, cultural, racial or political discrimination;

G.

whereas the austerity measures, and the consequent budget cuts to education and training systems throughout the EU, endanger one of the key drivers of cohesion and growth and undermine the objective to establish a knowledge-based economy in Europe;

H.

whereas the Member States must continue to work together and exchange best practices in order to drive forward their national education and training systems;

I.

whereas insufficient language knowledge continues to be an enormous obstacle to mobility for the purposes of education and training;

J.

whereas a successful education and training strategy should also aim at equipping learners with skills and competences necessary for personal development and active citizenship;

K.

whereas LLL should genuinely mean lifelong within the actual demographic context, and whereas we should continue to take better account of the potential of knowledge accrued by older people;

L.

whereas skills in new technologies significantly facilitate the objectives of the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP);

M.

whereas LLL is a continuing process of learning and should last during a person’s entire life, from quality early-childhood education to post-working age;

N.

whereas providing all children with quality early-childhood facilities and education is an investment in the future and provides a great benefit both for the individual and for society;

O.

whereas early school leaving (ESL) has serious consequences for the individual and for the EU’s social and economic development;

P.

whereas further innovation in the field of student grants at the pre-university stage of education should be considered;

Q.

whereas the accessibility of education and training is a crucial challenge also to further contribute to social inclusion, cohesion and fight against poverty;

R.

whereas European, national, regional and local authorities must cooperate in order to address successfully the challenges that Europe is currently facing;

1.

Notes the above-mentioned Commission Communication on ‘Education and Training in smart, sustainable and inclusive Europe’;

2.

Recalls that, prior to the current crisis, the performance of Member States in terms of participation of all age groups in education, training and LLL varied widely and the overall EU average was falling behind international averages;

3.

Points out that some Member States have pursued budget cuts in education and training in light of the current economic situation, but believes that those investments with the greatest strategic value should be safeguarded and even increased; emphasises that the Union’s multiannual financial framework anticipates that education and related sectors will obtain the biggest percentage increase under the EU’s long-term budget;

4.

Points out the need to approve the budget increase dedicated to education and related sectors under the multiannual financial framework; calls on Member States to adopt their national LLL strategies, with suitable amounts of financial resources as the best possible tool available for reaching the objectives outlined in the ET 2020 strategy;

5.

Highlights that the economic costs of the consequences of educational underperformance, including school dropout and social inequalities within education and training systems and their impact on the development of the Member States, are significantly higher than the costs of the financial crisis, and the Member States are already paying the price year after year;

6.

Asks the Member States to prioritise expenditures in education, training, youth, lifelong learning, research, innovation and linguistic and cultural diversity, which are investments for future growth and economic balance, while at the same time ensuring the added value of such investment; reiterates, in this regard, the request to target a total investment of at least 2 % of GDP in higher education, as recommended by the Commission in the Annual Growth and Employment Survey, being the minimum required for knowledge-based economies;

7.

Recalls that in order to be competitive in the future with the new global powers the Members States are required to achieve the basic Europe 2020 objectives which, in the field of education, can be expressed as reaching 3 % in investments for research, increasing to 40 % the number of young people with a university education, and reducing early school leaving to below 10 %;

8.

Recalls the importance of research in the framework of an ambitious strategy for education and training; asks, therefore, the Commission and the Member States to reinforce their actions aiming to increase the number of young people moving into this field;

9.

Recalls that a special focus should be given to young people, bearing in mind that the EU unemployment rate has increased to over 20 %, with peaks in excess of 50 % in some Member States or some regions, and that young people, particularly the least qualified young people, are particularly hard hit in the current crisis; highlights, in particular, the detrimental effects of austerity programmes on youth unemployment in certain EU States, especially those in southern Europe, leading, for example, to a significant brain drain to other countries, including countries outside the EU; recalls also that one out of seven of today’s pupils (14,4 %) leaves the education system with no more than a lower secondary education and does not participate in any further education or training;

10.

Notes the existence of dual vocational training systems in some Member States that ensure a link between theory and practice and allow a better entry into the world of work than purely school-based forms of training;

11.

Proposes that the Member States deduct investments in education and training from the national deficit calculation of the fiscal compact as they are considered to be key drivers for a sound recovery in line with the EU 2020 objectives;

12.

Calls on the EU institutions to make further efforts to elaborate clearer and more targeted youth policies at EU level which are tailored to meet society’s new challenges; the current generation of young people feels that it will not be able to attain the same level of prosperity as the previous one did;

13.

In particular, asks the Member States to implement measures targeted at young people likely to leave school early or who are not in education, training or employment, in order to offer them quality learning, and provide them with training and youth guarantee schemes, so that they can gain the skills and experience they need to enter employment, and in order to facilitate the re-entry of some of them into the educational system; calls, at the same time, for special attention to vocational education and training in tertiary education, taking into account the diversity of national education systems; calls on the Member States to step up their efforts to ensure that young people can gain real work experience and quickly enter the job market; stresses that traineeships must be relevant for the studies and form part of the curriculum;

14.

Points out that the employability of young people is particularly at risk during a period of crisis; stresses the importance of monitoring how quickly young graduates obtain employment appropriate to their education and knowledge after they complete their education, and of making an assessment, on the basis of this information, of the quality of education and training systems and of the need and possibility to make adjustments;

15.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to work consistently on the introduction, implementation and further development of the European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training, Europass and the European Qualifications Framework;

16.

Stresses that young people have a key role to play in achieving the EU headline targets for 2020 as regards employment, research and innovation, climate and energy, education and the fight against poverty;

17.

Stresses the importance of informal and non-formal education for the development of values, aptitudes and skills, particularly for young people, as well as for learning about citizenship and democratic involvement; calls on the Commission to provide support, including financial support, for informal and non-formal education within the framework of the new programmes for education and youth, as well as for citizenship;

18.

Calls on universities to widen access to learning, and to modernise their curricula to address the new challenges, in order to upgrade the skills of the European population, without calling into question their academic remit in terms of passing on knowledge, and bearing in mind that demographic change is an undeniable reality in Europe; highlights, in this context, the importance of supporting and recognising non-formal education and informal learning;

19.

Encourages dialogue between private stakeholders, particularly SMEs and local and regional authorities, civil society stakeholders and higher-education institutes/universities in order to promote the acquisition by students of knowledge and skills to facilitate their entry into the labour market; reminds employers of the importance of initiation into work, as this promotes the adjustment of young people to working life;

20.

Recalls that creativity is an essential element of the new knowledge-based economy; stresses that the creative sector makes a significant and increasing contribution to the economy, amounting to 4,5 % of EU GDP and 8,5 million jobs;

21.

Considers the synergy between the supply of labour and the ability of the labour market to absorb it to be essential;

22.

Stresses the essential role played by public employment services in carrying out policies to support and advise jobseekers, in particular as regards assistance in seeking employment or training; emphasises that an increasing number of these jobseekers must receive adequate training that facilitates their return to the labour market, and therefore urges the Member States to make the necessary resources available;

23.

Stresses the decisive importance of facilitating access for persons with disabilities to LLL, not only through the formulation and implementation of targeted programmes but also through disability mainstreaming in all programmes intended for the general public; particular attention must be paid, in this connection, to the relationship between disability and LLL so as to prevent social exclusion and genuinely strengthen the position of those with disabilities on the labour market, given that, according to all relevant studies, the educational level of those with disabilities is below average while their degree of participation in the programmes in question is extremely low;

24.

Recalls that employers have a key responsibility in making LLL a reality for all, with due regard for gender equality; encourages employers to facilitate continuous training throughout workers’ careers by giving more visibility to the right to training, by ensuring that training is available to all workers and by giving workers proper credit for in-service training, thus making further specialisation possible and creating opportunities for career advancement;

25.

Calls for greater efforts to establish and implement a European system for the certification and recognition of qualifications, formal and non-formal learning, including voluntary service, so as to strengthen the vital links between non-formal learning and formal education, as well as to improve national and cross-border educational and labour market mobility;

26.

Notes the great disparities between national education and training systems and, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, recommends that the progress report be accompanied by a handbook for each individual Member State containing recommendations as to how existing policies might be improved and the national education systems developed;

27.

Calls for the external dimension of EU policies to be enhanced through an intensified policy dialogue and through cooperation on education and training between the Union and its international partners and neighbouring countries, aiming to (a) reflect the increasing economic, social and political interdependencies, (b) contribute to the implementation of the external dimension of Europe 2020, and (c) support stability, prosperity and better employment opportunities for our partner countries’ citizens, all the while developing better instruments for managing and facilitating skilled migration to Europe, thereby balancing skill shortages and gaps that are the result of demographic developments in Europe;

28.

Recalls that, as players on the global education market, national vocational education and training (VET) systems need to be connected to the wider world in order to remain up to date and competitive, and need to be more capable of attracting learners from other European and third countries, providing them with education and training as well as making it easier to recognise their skills; highlights that demographic change and international migration make these issues even more relevant;

29.

Stresses that, although a European area of education and training is emerging, the objective of removing obstacles to mobility has not been achieved yet, and the mobility of learners in VET remains low; underlines that increasing the transnational mobility of VET learners and teachers substantially, and recognising the knowledge, skills and competences they have acquired abroad, will be important challenges for the future, and that better and targeted provision of information and guidance is also needed to attract more foreign learners to our VET systems;

30.

Regrets that the Commission Communication on ‘Education and Training in a smart, sustainable and inclusive Europe’ does not give adequate coverage to the issue of early school development, particularly its linguistic dimension, despite the fact that it comprises a basic objective of the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy; believes that this stage in education should be seen as the most crucial for the individual’s future educational attainment and personal and social development; believes that children will benefit from early education that is aimed at enhancing motoric and social skills as well as promoting balanced emotional growth while at the same time stimulating intellectual curiosity;

31.

Calls on the Commission to encourage and help the Member States put in place measures to assist children in genuine educational pathways, from a very early age;

32.

Strongly believes that investing in early childhood education and care (ECEC), appropriately tailored to the sensitivity period and maturity level of each target group, brings greater returns than investing in any other stage of education; points out that investing in the early years of education has been proven to reduce later costs; believes also that the success of education at all levels depends on well-trained teachers, and on their continually advancing professional training, and sufficient investment is therefore needed in teacher training;

33.

Stresses the need for professional child care to address the social development of children, particularly children in families experiencing social difficulties;

34.

Highlights the need for everyone to acquire excellent language skills from a very early age, covering not only the official languages of the EU but also regional and minority languages, as this will enable people to be more mobile, giving them greater access to the labour market and significantly increased opportunities for study, while serving to promote intercultural exchanges and greater European cohesion;

35.

Emphasises that it is necessary to encourage mobility for language learning in order to achieve the objective that all citizens of the European Union should know at least two languages besides their mother tongue;

36.

Notes the need to begin language acquisition before school, and welcomes initiatives that enable pupils to learn their native language in written and spoken form as an elective subject in school, thereby acquiring additional skills;

37.

Believes that it is vital to promote mobility through ambitious community programmes for education and culture, in particular through exchanges of teachers, students and pupils, and especially in the language field, in order to promote an active citizenship and European values as well as language skills and other valuable skills and competences;

38.

Encourages the Commission to support the development of innovative solutions in the field of education and training that easily could be adapted with regard to languages and in technical terms, and that would create mobility in sectors less affected by the phenomenon of multilingualism;

39.

Recognises the important contribution of the EU Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations 2012, and recalls that it is important for the EU that its citizens be given the opportunity to engage in learning, in all its forms, late in life, and to involve older learners in dialogue with professionals who work in the services that provide and support learning;

40.

Recalls that the Grundtvig programme aims to help develop the adult education sector as well as to enable more people to participate in learning experiences; point out that it focuses on the teaching and study needs of learners taking adult education and ‘alternative’ education courses, as well as on the organisations delivering these services; asks Member States to improve the quality of education offered by – and to foster co-operation between – adult education organisations;

41.

Stresses the need to promote existing European tools, particularly the Structural Funds for training;

42.

Stresses that adult learning extends beyond employment-related activities to include the advancement of personal, civic and social skills though formal education and training systems throughout life, as highlighted by the LLP programme;

43.

Recognises the positive impact on society in general of the activities of older people, promoted by their participation in education and training activities, which are carried out for personal fulfilment or social contact;

44.

Highlights the need for LLL statistics that cover the age group of 65 +; points out that with the retirement age in many of the EU countries rising, and with people working later in their lives, it is necessary to take into account the changes in the population that fall outside this age bracket;

45.

Recognises the role that sport plays in education and training, and therefore invites the Member States to increase investments in sports, and to promote sports activities in schools, in order to encourage integration and contribute to the development of positive values among young Europeans;

46.

Stresses that training players at local level is fundamental for the sustainable development and societal role of sport, and expresses its support for sports governing bodies that encourage clubs to invest in the education and training of young local players through measures establishing a minimum number of locally trained players in a club squad, and encourages them to go further still;

47.

Encourages the Member States to consider the possibility of introducing a wider system of small grants, with a minimum of red tape, for pre-university students facing financial difficulties, so as to encourage them to stay in education, and thereby contribute to the elimination of social inequality and ensure greater learning opportunities for all;

48.

Believes that more should be done to address the disparity between men and women graduating with degrees in STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), as exemplified by the fact that only 20 % of engineering graduates are female;

49.

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

3.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 353/64