24.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/1

24.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/2

—

having regard to the 29th annual report on monitoring the application of European Union law (2011) (COM(2012)0714),

—

having regard to the Commission’s ‘EU Pilot Evaluation Report’ (COM(2010)0070),

—

having regard to the Commission’s ‘Second Evaluation Report on EU Pilot’ (COM(2011)0930),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 5 September 2007 entitled ‘A Europe of results — applying Community law’ (COM(2007)0502),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 20 March 2002 on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law (COM(2002)0141),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 2 April 2012 entitled ‘Updating the handling of relations with the complainant in respect of the application of Union law’ (COM(2012)0154),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 September 2011 on the twenty-seventh annual report on monitoring the application of European Union law (2009) (1),

—

having regard to the legal opinion of 26 November 2013 of the Legal Service of the European Parliament on ‘Access to information about pre-infringement cases in the context of the EU Pilot and the annual report on the monitoring of the application of EU law’,

—

having regard to the Commission staff working documents accompanying the 29th annual report on monitoring the application of EU law (SWD(2012)0399 and SWD(2012)0400),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Committee on Petitions (A7-0055/2014),

A.

whereas the Lisbon Treaty introduced a number of new legal bases intended to facilitate the implementation, application and enforcement of EU law;

B.

whereas Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union defines the right of good administration as the right for every person to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions;

C.

whereas according to Article 298 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in carrying out their missions, the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union shall have the support of an open, efficient and independent European administration;

D.

whereas according to the Legal Service of the European Parliament, the EU Pilot, an online platform used by the Member States and the Commission to clarify the factual and legal background to problems arising in relation to the application of EU law, does not have any legal status, and whereas according to the Framework Agreement on Relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission, the latter has to make available to Parliament summary information concerning all infringement procedures from the letter of formal notice, including on a case-by-case basis, and may only refuse access to personal data in the EU Pilot;

1.

Reiterates its view that Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) defines the fundamental role of the Commission as ‘guardian of the Treaties’; notes in this context that the Commission’s power and duty to oversee the application of EU law and, inter alia, to launch infringement procedures against a Member State that has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties (2), is a cornerstone of the Union legal order and as such is consistent with the concept of a Union based on the rule of law;

2.

Notes that, according to its annual report (3), the Commission has decreased the number of new infringement procedures in recent years, having opened 2 900 such procedures in 2009, 2 100 in 2010 and 1 775 in 2011; notes, furthermore, that the annual report also shows an increase in late-transposition cases over the last few years (1 185 in 2011, 855 in 2010, 531 in 2009), and that the four most infringement-prone policy areas are the environment (17 %), the internal market (15 %), transport (15 %) and taxation (12 %);

3.

Notes the decreasing proportion of infringement cases (60,4 %) closed in 2011 before reaching the Court of Justice, in comparison with 88 % of cases in 2010; believes that it is essential to continue to monitor Member States’ actions carefully, bearing in mind that some of the petitions to Parliament and complaints to the Commission refer to problems that persist even after a matter has been closed;

4.

Notes that in total 399 infringement cases were closed because the Member State demonstrated its compliance with EU law, making serious efforts to settle the infringement without court proceedings; also notes that the Court delivered 62 judgments under Article 258 TFEU in 2011, of which 53 (85 %) were in the Commission’s favour;

5.

Expresses its concern at the steady increase in late-transposition infringements by Member States given that 763 late-transposition cases were still open at the end of 2011, representing a 60 % increase on the equivalent figure for the previous year;

6.

Notes that in late 2011 the Commission referred the first late-transposition infringement to the Court of Justice with a request for financial sanctions under Article 260(3) TFEU;

7.

Considers, nevertheless, that these statistics are not an accurate reflection of the actual deficit in compliance with EU law, but ‘only represent the most serious breaches or the complaints of the most vocal individuals or entities’; notes that the Commission currently has neither the policy nor the resources to systematically identify and enforce all cases of non-implementation’ (4);

8.

Draws attention to the fact that the agreement among the EU institutions on declarations setting out the relationship between the components of a directive and the corresponding parts of national transposition instruments (‘correlation tables’) came into force on 1 November 2011, and that it has therefore not been possible to evaluate its implementation in this annual report;

9.

Expects the Commission to provide an initial review of these declarations by 1 November 2014, as promised in its annual report;

10.

Believes that, as regards the functioning of infringement procedures under Articles 258 and 260 TFEU, the Commission should ensure that petitions to Parliament and complaints to the Commission are treated with equal consideration;

11.

Points out that petitions submitted by EU citizens refer to violations of EU law, particularly in the fields of fundamental rights, the environment, the internal market and property rights; considers that petitions are evidence that there are still frequent and widespread instances of incomplete transposition or of misapplication of EU law;

12.

Calls on the Commission to make compliance with EU law a real political priority to be pursued in close collaboration with Parliament, which has a duty (a) to keep the Commission politically accountable and (b), as co-legislator, to make sure that it is itself fully informed with a view to constantly improving its legislative work;

13.

Notes that it is necessary, in complaint-handling procedures, systematically to use compliance-promoting tools and to exercise Parliament’s right of scrutiny;

14.

Notes that the infringement procedure consists of two phases: the administrative (investigation) stage and the judicial stage before the Court of Justice; notes the Commission’s acknowledgement that ‘citizens, businesses and stakeholder organisations make a significant contribution by reporting shortcomings in the transposition and/or application of EU law by Member State authorities; notes, furthermore, that once detected, problems are followed up by bilateral discussions between the Commission and the Member States concerned in order to remedy them, to the extent possible, using the EU Pilot platform’ (5);

15.

Notes, in this context, that the EU Pilot is defined as a platform for ‘bilateral discussions between the Commission and the Member States’ (6) which ‘has no legal status but is a mere working tool in the framework of the Commission’s administrative autonomy’ (7) within the pre-infringement procedure;

16.

Deplores the EU Pilot’s lack of legal status and considers that ‘legitimacy can only be ensured by enabling transparency, participation of complainants and [of the European Parliament] in the EU Pilot’, and that legality can be ensured through the adoption as soon as possible of a legally binding act containing the rules governing the whole pre-infringement and infringement procedure, as stated in a recent Parliament study (8); considers that such a legally binding act should clarify the legal rights and obligations of individual complainants and of the Commission, respectively, and strive to allow the participation of complainants in the EU Pilot, as far as possible, at least ensuring that they are informed of the different stages of the procedure;

17.

Deplores, in this context, the fact that there has been no follow-up to its previous resolutions, in particular its call for binding rules in the form of a regulation under Article 298 TFEU setting out the various aspects of the infringement and pre-infringement procedure — including notifications, binding time-limits, the right to be heard, the obligation to state reasons and the right for every person to have access to his or her file — so as to reinforce citizens’ rights and guarantee transparency;

18.

Takes the view that the implementation of the EU Pilot platform needs to be enhanced in terms of transparency vis-à-vis complainants; requests access to the database in which all complaints are collected, in order to enable Parliament to carry out its function of scrutinising the Commission’s role as guardian of the Treaties;

19.

Underlines the importance of good administrative practice and calls for the establishment of a ‘procedural code’ in the form of a regulation, with Article 298 TFEU as its legal basis, which sets out the various aspects of the infringement procedure;

20.

Calls once again on the Commission, therefore, to propose binding rules in the form of a regulation under the new legal basis provided by Article 298 TFEU, so as to ensure full respect for citizens’ right to good administration as set out in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

21.

Recalls that, in the revised Framework Agreement on its relations with Parliament, the Commission undertakes to ‘make available to Parliament summary information concerning all infringement procedures from the letter of formal notice, including, if so requested by Parliament, on the issues to which the infringement procedure relates’, and expects this clause to be applied in good faith in practice;

22.

Reiterates, therefore, that Parliament is entitled to receive ‘detailed information on specific acts or provisions raising problems of transposition, as well as on the number of complaints for specific acts or provisions’ (9), and that, while ‘the Commission is entitled to refuse [the] European Parliament access to personal data of the EU pilot data base’, Parliament is ‘entitled to request information in anonymous form in order to be fully aware of all relevant aspects in the implementation and application of Union law’ (10);

23.

Welcomes the fact that all the Member States are taking part in the EU Pilot; hopes that this will lead to a further reduction in the number of infringement procedures; calls for more to be done to inform citizens about the EU Pilot;

24.

Considers the question of the EU Pilot and, more generally, of infringements of EU law and Parliament’s access to relevant information relating to the pre-infringement and infringement procedure, to be an essential point to be put on the agenda in connection with a future interinstitutional agreement;

25.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the European Ombudsman and the parliaments of the Member States.

24.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/6

—

having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Article 286,

—

having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to Opinion No 2/2004 of the European Court of Auditors on the ‘single audit’ model (and a proposal for a Community internal control framework) (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 17 November 1992 on the procedure for consulting the European Parliament on the appointment of Members of the Court of Auditors (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 19 January 1995 on procedures to follow when Parliament is consulted in connection with appointment of Members of the Court of Auditors (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 3 July 2013 on the Integrated Internal Control Framework (4),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0014/2014).

A.

whereas the Lima and Mexico Declarations of the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions lays down the main pillars of an independent audit institution and affirms that national supreme audit institutions (SAIs) may interpret the declaration principles with considerable freedom;

B.

whereas the European Court of Auditors, as a professional audit institution, must apply, among others, international audit standards applicable to the public sector;

C.

whereas the European Court of Auditors was established by the 1975 Budgetary Treaty to audit EU finances and whereas, as the EU’s external auditor, it contributes to the improvement of the Union’s financial management, while acting as the independent guardian of the financial interests of EU citizens;

D.

whereas the rapidly changing current financial and economic situation requires effective micro- and macro-prudential supervision, in accordance with the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, in a modern and challenging European Union;

E.

whereas public auditors such as the Court of Auditors and the SAIs of the Member States play an essential role in restoring confidence and trust in, and improving, EU public accountability; whereas it is therefore important to situate any discussion of possible reforms of the Court in the broader context of the challenge of improving EU public accountability;

F.

whereas the Treaty of Lisbon reaffirmed the legal framework for the Court in promoting public accountability and assisting Parliament and the Council in overseeing the implementation of the EU budget, thereby contributing to the improvement of EU financial management and the protection of citizens’ financial interests;

G.

whereas under Article 286 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Members of the Court of Auditors must be chosen from among persons who belong or have belonged in their respective Member State to external audit bodies or who are especially qualified to hold the office in question, and whose independence is beyond doubt;

H.

whereas it is essential that the Court of Auditors be composed of Members who provide, to the highest degree, guarantees of professional competence and independence as required by the Treaty, while avoiding any risks to the reputation of the Court;

I.

whereas some appointments have given rise to differences of opinion between Parliament and the Council, the persistence of which risks harming the good working relations of the Court with the aforementioned institutions and, possibly, having serious negative consequences for the credibility, and hence the effectiveness, of the Court;

J.

whereas the Council’s decision to appoint Members to the Court of Auditors in cases where Parliament has held hearings and expressed unfavourable opinions is incomprehensible and shows a lack of respect for Parliament;

K.

whereas Parliament’s opinion is subject to intense media interest; whereas, should persons whose candidacy had previously been publicly and formally turned down by Parliament take office as Members of the Court, trust in the institutions concerned would be weakened;

L.

whereas Members with professional auditing knowledge combined with a broader and more varied functional background, which ensures diverse perspectives and competences, will improve the Court’s effectiveness in judgement and operation; whereas the failure to find an appropriate gender balance is unacceptable in this day and age;

M.

whereas cooperation between the Court of Auditors and Parliament, which is central to the EU’s budgetary control system, is adversely affected when certain Members of the Court fail to secure Parliament’s approval;

N.

whereas the Peer Review 2013 calls for shorter internal procedures in the Court and clarification of its role and mandate vis-à-vis external stakeholders, and emphasises that auditees have an excessive influence on the Court's findings and audit opinions;

O.

whereas Parliament focuses mainly on proposals that avoid the need to make changes to the Treaty;

P.

whereas the Council has always respected the recommendations made by the panel set up in accordance with Article 255 TFEU to give an opinion on the suitability of candidates for the post of Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice and the General Court, despite there being no clear Treaty obligation to do so;

1.

Believes not only that the European Court of Auditors, as an external auditor to the Union's institutions, may provide the legislators with a statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions in any given budgetary year, but also that the Court is in a pre-eminent position to provide the legislator and the Budgetary Authority, especially Parliament's Budgetary Control Committee, with valuable opinions on results achieved by the Union's policies, in order to improve the performance and effectiveness of Union-financed activities, identify economies of scale and scope, as well as spillover effects among national policies of Member States, and provide Parliament with external assessments of the Commission's evaluation of public finances in the Member States;

2.

Is of the opinion that the Court should remain committed to independence, integrity, impartiality and professionalism, while building strong working relationships with its partners, particularly the European Parliament, and more specifically its budgetary control committee, as well as the specialised committees, in the accountability process of the EU institutions;

3.

Notes that the Court of Auditors is bound by the Treaty (Article 287 I (2) (TFEU)) to provide Parliament and the Council with a declaration of assurance (DAS (5)) regarding the legality and regularity of payments after having examined the regularity, legality and results of the Union's budget, and moreover that the ECA is likewise bound by the Treaty to provide Special Reports and Opinions; notes that a large part of the Court’s human resources is dedicated to the annual DAS exercise;

4.

Is of the opinion that the independence, integrity, impartiality and professionalism of the Court are key to its credibility in helping Parliament and the Council to oversee, and to contribute to the improvement of, EU financial management, and to protect the financial interests of the Union from the programming stages up to the closing of accounts;

5.

Regrets that — for the eighteenth year in succession — the results of the Court's audit did not permit the Court to give a positive statement of assurance (DAS) regarding the legality and regularity of payments; highlights the fact that an error rate as such only goes part of the way towards providing a comprehensive overview of the effectiveness of Union policies;

6.

Recalls that Article 287 TFEU stipulates that the Court shall provide the European Parliament and the Council with a statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions; points out that instead of delivering one statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, in 2012 the Court of Auditors delivered four opinions: one on the reliability of the accounts and three on the legality and regularity of underlying operations (one on the revenue, one on the commitments and one on payments); takes the view that this writing choice makes it more difficult to assess the Commission's implementation of the budget;

7.

Points out that the DAS is an annual indicator of a multiannual spending scheme, which makes it difficult to capture the cyclical nature and effect of multiannual arrangements, and that therefore the total impact and effectiveness of the management and control systems can be only partially measured at the end of the spending period; considers, therefore, that the Court should be able to present to the discharge authority a midterm review and a summary report in addition to the annual DAS on the final performance of a programming period;

8.

Welcomes the fact that, since 2009, the Court has focused considerable efforts on developing its products and services as well as its annual report; believes, however, that greater effort should be made and more resources used to improve quality further, primarily with respect to the Court's performance audit work, which provides information on the EU budget results; considers that the Court should build upon the DAS model to determine whether results have been achieved and to explain how they have been achieved, so that lessons can be learned and applied in other contexts;

9.

Acknowledges the historic, constructive role of the DAS exercise in focusing on legality and regularity as useful indices of good financial practices and management performance at all levels of Union spending and in showing the way that EU funds have been used in accordance with the decisions of Parliament, acting as legislator and budget authority; underlines, however, that at this point, and in the future, the Court should devote more resources to the examination of whether economy, effectiveness and efficiency have been achieved in the use of the public funds entrusted to the Commission; the results of the findings obtained in Special Reports should imply corresponding adjustments in EU programmes;

10.

Highlights the fact that the Court’s mandate, as established under the Treaty, provides the reference framework for the Court to fulfil its role as the independent external audit body of the Union; notes that the mandate provides for significant flexibility to allow the Court to carry out its mission beyond the scope of the DAS; recalls that the mandate enables the Court to present the results of its performance audits in special reports which provide a significant opportunity to add value by focusing on and investigating high-risk areas; notes, in addition, that these reports provide information to European citizens on the functioning of the Union and the use of European funds in many sectors, helping to bring Europe closer to its citizens and to make it more transparent and easier to understand;

11.

Recalls that one of the best ways to improve the audit of the European Union accounts and to enhance both the performance and the effectiveness of EU spending is to have a discharge voted before 31 December of the year following the financial year audited; underlines the fact that this would force the Court to present its annual report by 30 June;

12.

Recommends that the European Court of Auditors, without prejudice to its independence, form its opinion on the basis of the materiality threshold rather than the tolerable error rate alone, since this appears to be more in line with international audit standards;

13.

Proposes that the European Parliament devote a special section in its annual discharge report to the follow-up of the recommendations made by the Court in its various performance audits, in order to motivate the Commission and the Member States to implement these recommendations; Parliament should also indicate to which major follow-up actions the Court can pay special attention in its annual report, without prejudice to its independence;

14.

Notes that the Court undertakes the planning of its work programme on a multiannual and annual basis; notes that the multiannual plan allows for the Court’s strategy to be defined and updated, and the annual plan sets out the specific tasks to be undertaken during the year in question; welcomes the fact that every year the Court presents the annual work programme to the Committee on Budgetary Control, listing the priority audit tasks and the resources allocated for their implementing;

15.

Believes that the current form of meetings of the Court with Parliament and the Council provides valuable advice on the drawing up of the Court's annual work programme; stresses that structured preparatory dialogue of this kind greatly assists in ensuring effective and democratic accountability to citizens regarding the use of the public funds provided to meet EU objectives; emphasises that despite increased advisory collaboration with Parliament and the Council, the Court should, independently of political or national influence, itself decide on its annual work programme;

16.

Notes that issues of major interest to external stakeholders, such as the European Parliament, and subsequent audit requests are neither collected in a structured way nor fully treated as preferential; considers this to be detrimental to the relevance and impact of the Court's audit results; notes, furthermore, that the added value of the Court is directly linked to the use made of its work by Parliament and other stakeholders in the accountability process; invites the Court, therefore, to take into consideration in its annual work programme the political priorities of the legislators and issues of major interest to EU citizens communicated by the Parliament’s Budgetary Control Committee as a channel of EU citizens' concerns;

17.

Expects that closer cooperation between the ECA and Member States’ SAIs will be established, with concrete results concerning the sharing of the annual work of the ECA; expects, furthermore, concrete methodological steps and agreements on audit calendars; expects the Commission, on the basis of a legal study, to make proposals to integrate Member State SAIs’ audit work into the Court's audits of shared management in their respective Member States;

18.

Emphasises that the Court should be at the forefront in defining a working method whereby national SAIs and the Court step up the coordination of their resources to evaluate the expenditure and performance of the EU budget, avoiding duplication of control work and sharing control information, identifying risk areas, conducting joint audits or involving SAIs more closely in ECA audit missions, which results in the development of common working methods and greater effectiveness at each control level; notes that the sharing of audit and control data and best practices between the Court and the SAIs is key to improving the targeting of audit and control efforts; notes that too many layers of control exist and that these duplications should be avoided in order to decrease the burden on managing authorities and beneficiaries;

19.

Calls, therefore, for closer cooperation between national audit institutions and the European Court of Auditors in connection with the auditing of shared-management arrangements, pursuant to Article 287(3) TFEU;

20.

Proposes examination of the possibility of national audit bodies, in their capacity as independent external auditors, and with due regard for international audit standards, issuing national audit certificates for the management of Union funds, which would be submitted to Member State governments with a view to being produced during the discharge process in accordance with an appropriate interinstitutional procedure, to be introduced;

21.

Stresses the importance of including European programmes when planning the controls carried out by SAIs, paying particular attention to shared management, with national parliaments having a key role to play in this context in being able to ask their respective SAIs to carry out audits on European funds and programmes; notes that by institutionalising and regularising this control, its results could be presented once a year to the national parliament;

22.

Notes that the regulations covering the main areas of expenditure for the period 2014-2020 have substantially changed the financial and legal frameworks governing the implementation of the EU budget; points out that these reforms imply significant changes that will alter the landscape of financial management risk by simplifying funding rules, increasing conditionality and leveraging the EU budget; insists, therefore, that the Court increase its focus on results, providing adequate reporting on the risks and performance of new instruments of this kind;

23.

Suggests to the Court that it synchronise its multiannual work programme with the MFF and include a midterm review, as well as a comprehensive review of the Commission's closure of accounts, regarding the respective MFF;

24.

Notes that Performance Audits often lack a clear analysis of the causes of audit findings; notes, furthermore, that there is no system in place to ensure that the auditors assigned to performing a specific audit possess the technical knowledge and methodological skills needed to conduct the audit without having to work from scratch on any audit matter; considers that these circumstances increase the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of the Court's findings in Performance Audits;

25.

Expects from the Court full transparency about the Court's time needs for its products, and calls on the Court to publish within each respective Performance Audit the time schedule and the different phases the respective product underwent in its development, i.e. the time that was needed to go through each of the different phases in place, these phases currently being:

26.

Notes that Performance Audits by the Court, including a preliminary study, take two years, which in several cases has made the audit findings outdated and prevented the implementation of adequate measures; expects the Court to streamline the drawing up of its Performance Audits and to cut down on redundant procedural steps;

27.

Expresses its wish that the Court should in future not only publish the Commission's comments on its findings, conclusions and recommendations, but clearly express a final counter-reply where appropriate;

28.

Is of the opinion that the Court should regularly communicate statistics on the presence of Members at its seat in Luxembourg to Parliament's Budgetary Control Committee; expects full transparency of the Court vis-à-vis Parliament in this regard; wishes to receive from the Commission an analysis of the feasibility of replacing part of the remuneration of the Court's Members with a daily allowance;

29.

Emphasises that, despite the need to be fair and to refer to arguments of the auditee in the relevant report, it is not necessary to reach consensus with the auditee;

30.

Notes that in some cases parliamentary deliberations on issues addressed by special reports were already concluded, making it impossible to put the results of the Court's audit to effective use; notes, furthermore, that in some cases key recommendations of the Court had already been implemented by the Commission when the Court's report was presented; expects the Court to bear all external time constraints and developments in mind when conducting its audits;

31.

Expects that the Court will clearly communicate in its reports the weaknesses and best practices of Member State authorities by consistently disclosing them;

32.

Is convinced that economies of scale and scope could be achieved by a thorough analysis of the resource needs of the Court's Members; expects the Court to explore such economies, inter alia with respect to a shared driver service for Members as well as shared cabinets and staff;

33.

Deplores the fact that intergovernmental action outside the EU Treaty framework, such as that used for the establishment of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), also creates serious challenges for public accountability and auditing, while weakening the Court’s essential role;

34.

Deplores the fact that in the case of the EFSF no arrangements whatsoever have been made so far for independent public external control, and regrets the fact that even after the ECA has nominated a member of the ESM audit board, the annual audit report of the board will be made available neither to Parliament nor to the general public; calls on the Court to provide Parliament regularly with the annual audit report of the board and all other necessary information on the Court's activities in that regard, so that Parliament can scrutinise the work of the Court of Auditors during the discharge procedure;

35.

Notes that the composition and appointment procedure of the Court are fixed in TFEU Articles 285 and 286; stresses, however, the need for a Treaty change putting the Council and Parliament on an equal footing when appointing Members of the Court of Auditors, in order to ensure the democratic legitimacy, transparency and complete independence of the Members of the Court of Auditors;

36.

Deplores the fact that some appointment procedures have resulted in a conflict between Parliament and Council on candidates, despite the fact that the Treaty does not foresee such a conflict; stresses that it is, as stipulated in the Treaty, Parliament's duty to check the nominees; is of the opinion that Council should, in the spirit of good cooperation among the European Institutions, respect decisions taken by Parliament subsequent to its hearing;

37.

Calls for the European Parliament, under the next review of the EU Treaty, to be made responsible for the selection of ECA Members on a proposal from the Council; takes the view that such a procedure would enhance the independence of ECA Members vis-à-vis the Member States;

38.

Welcomes the fact that the Court adopted new rules of procedure in 2010 which enabled it, under the current legal framework, to streamline its decision-making process so that audit reports and opinions are now adopted by chambers of 5 to 6 Members rather than the full college of 28 Members;

39.

Takes the view that the present geographic representation rule relating to high-level management, according to which there may be one Member per Member State, has by far outlived its initial usefulness and credibility, and that it could be replaced by a light management structure tailored to a broader accountability mandate, with proper provisions to guarantee independence in all of the Court’s activities;

40.

Proposes, therefore, that the Court should have the same number of Members as the Commission; Members should have, at the least, professional experience of auditing and management; Members of the Court should be especially qualified for their function, and their independence must be beyond doubt;

41.

Proposes a review of the method of remuneration of the Court Members and the resources directly and personally allocated to each Member in order both to bring them into line with national and international practices for similar functions and to allow the Court Members to fulfil their responsibilities independently;

42.

Adopts the following principles, selection criteria and procedures for delivering its opinion on the candidates for membership of the Court of Auditors:

43.

Considers that the criteria for appointment of Members of the ECA should be further specified on the basis of Article 286 TFEU, and underlines that Parliament’s assessment will be guided mainly by the following criteria:

44.

Calls on the Council to undertake to:

45.

Stipulates the following as regards procedures before the Committee on Budgetary Control and in plenary sitting:

46.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Court of Auditors, and, for information, to the other institutions of the European Union and the parliaments and audit institutions of the Member States.

24.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/14

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making (1),

—

having regard to Protocol No 2 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union concerning the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, in particular Articles 4, 6 and 7 thereof,

—

having regard to the practical arrangements agreed on 22 July 2011 between the competent services of the European Parliament and the Council for the implementation of Article 294(4) TFEU in the event of agreements at first reading,

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 September 2012 on the 18th report on Better legislation — Application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (2010) (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 September 2011 on better legislation, subsidiarity and proportionality and smart regulation (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 June 2011 on guaranteeing independent impact assessments (4),

—

having regard to the Commission report on subsidiarity and proportionality (19th report on Better Lawmaking covering the year 2011) (COM(2012)0373),

—

having regard to the Commission communications on EU Regulatory Fitness (COM(2012)0746) and (COM(2013)0685),

—

having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘Smart regulation — Responding to the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises’ (COM(2013)0122),

—

having regard to the Commission staff working document on monitoring and consultation on smart regulation for SMEs (SWD(2013)0060),

—

having regard to the Commission communication on Smart Regulation in the European Union (COM(2010)0543),

—

having regard to the Council conclusions on Smart Regulation of 30 May 2013,

—

having regard to the report of 15 November 2011 of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens, entitled ‘Europe can do better: Report on the best practices in the Member States to implement EU legislation in the least burdensome way’,

—

having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 30 May 2013 (5),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (A7-0056/2014),

A.

whereas the smart regulation agenda constitutes an attempt to consolidate efforts in terms of better lawmaking, simplification of EU law and the reduction of administrative burdens, and to embark on a path towards good governance grounded in evidence-based policymaking, in which impact assessments and ex post controls play an essential role;

B.

Considers that national parliaments should be involved in ex post assessments of new regulations, which would as a result help the Commission with its reports and in general improve assessments of European issues by national parliaments;

C.

whereas the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Lawmaking of 2003 has become ill-suited to the current legislative environment created by the Treaty of Lisbon, not least in view of the piecemeal approach taken by the EU institutions in terms of adopting joint political declarations on explanatory documents and secretariat-level practical arrangements for the implementation of Article 294 TFEU;

1.

Stresses that legislation proposed and adopted at the European level should be simple, effective and efficient, should provide a clear added value, and should be easy to understand and accessible in all the official languages of the Member States, as well as delivering full benefits at minimum cost; recognises that the economic crisis has put increased strain on the resources of national administrations, and believes that a commitment to producing clear and easily transposable legislation would help alleviate some of the burden on national administrations and on private individuals who have to comply with the law; emphasises the fact that the European institutions are responsible for ensuring that legislation is clear and easily understood and does not place any unnecessary administrative burdens on citizens or enterprises;

2.

Stresses that evaluating the impact of new regulations on SMEs or on large companies must neither result in discrimination between workers on the basis of the size of the companies that employ them nor erode workers’ fundamental rights, including the right to information and consultation, or their working conditions, wellbeing at work and rights to social security, nor must it hinder improvements to these rights or their safeguarding at the workplace in the face of existing and new risks connected with work;

3.

Emphasises that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality must be respected by the European institutions when legislating;

4.

Recalls its earlier comments remarking that these principles have on many occasions been found by the Impact Assessment Board and by national parliaments to have been inadequately addressed in Commission impact assessments; expresses its disappointment once more that such criticisms have been repeated for a further year;

5.

Believes that better lawmaking should be pursued in a spirit of multilevel governance, i.e. through coordinated action by the EU, national institutions and local and regional authorities;

6.

Calls once more for the 2003 Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Lawmaking to be renegotiated in order to take into account the new legislative environment created by the Treaty of Lisbon, consolidate current best practices, and bring the agreement up to date in line with the ‘better lawmaking’ agenda; recommends that any new agreement should be adopted on the basis of Article 295 TFEU and should be of a binding nature;

7.

Urges the Commission and Council to engage with Parliament in negotiations on the criteria for the appropriate application of Article 290 and 291 TFEU; considers that this can be achieved in the framework of the revision of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Lawmaking, which would thus, inter alia, include such criteria;

8.

Considers that the variety of titles applied to the schemes used by the Commission to evaluate adopted laws and deliver burden reductions to be confusing and needlessly complicated; recommends that a single title be adopted under the ‘better lawmaking’ heading, and reiterates its call for one Commissioner to be responsible for the brief;

9.

Calls on the Commission to step up its review of the application of the principle of proportionality, especially with regard to the use of Articles 290 and 291 TFEU on delegated and implementing acts;

10.

Considers that, in the context of greater democratic legitimacy, close attention should be paid to the early warning system;

11.

Points out that, while the economic and financial crisis necessitates better coordination of policies and the strengthening of the Union’s powers in a range of domains, it is also essential to maintain a clear understanding of the division of competences in the European Union system of multi-level governance and, following a transparent debate, to take decisions transparently at the most appropriate level, cutting down on red tape;

12.

Stresses that the European institutions must respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality enshrined in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union and Protocol No 2 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which are of a general nature, binding the institutions in exercising the powers of the Union, with the exception that the principle of subsidiarity does not apply in those areas which fall within the exclusive competence of the Union;

13.

Suggests assessing whether appropriate criteria should be laid down at EU level for the evaluation of compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

14.

Notes that Protocol No 2 provides national parliaments with the formal opportunity to advise the EU legislator as to whether a proposed law falls short of the subsidiarity test since its objectives cannot, by reason of their scale or effects, be better achieved at Union rather than at Member State level;

15.

Notes the crucial importance of impact assessments as tools for aiding decision-making in the legislative process, and stresses the need, in this context, for proper consideration to be given to issues relating to subsidiarity and proportionality;

16.

Welcomes the closer participation of national parliaments in the framework of the European legislative process, and notes that the parliaments of the Member States are showing an ever greater interest in the proper application of these principles by the Union institutions; this is illustrated by the fact that in 2011 the European Parliament received 77 reasoned opinions claiming that a draft legislative act did not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, and 523 other contributions on the merit of a draft law, whereas the respective figures for 2010 were 41 and 299; expresses its willingness to continue with and strengthen cooperation and interparliamentary dialogue with national parliaments;

17.

Strongly underlines the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, both by the European Parliament and by the national parliaments; recommends that the national parliaments be afforded substantial assistance to enable them to carry out their scrutiny tasks; suggests that the national parliaments be provided with guidelines to assist them in their assessment of compliance with the principle of subsidiarity;

18.

Stresses that the Court of Justice, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, is competent to review the legality of legislative acts as regards compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, and that this principle constitutes a political guideline on the exercise of powers at Union level;

19.

Points out, on the other hand, that the Court of Justice, by virtue of the Treaties, has jurisdiction in actions brought on grounds of ‘infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application’, and that pursuant to the Treaty on European Union the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality pertain to these rules; notes that the judicial review of the validity of Union acts does therefore extend to compliance with these principles;

20.

Emphasises that the Court of Justice, in its judgment of 12 May 2011 in case C-176/09 (Luxembourg v. European Parliament and Council), states that the principle of proportionality ‘requires that measures implemented through provisions of European Union law be appropriate for attaining the legitimate objectives pursued by the legislation at issue and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve them’ and that ‘in the fields in which the European Union legislature has a broad legislative power’ the lawfulness of a measure adopted in this context can only be affected if the measure is manifestly inappropriate with respect to the objective which the competent institutions are seeking to pursue, although the European legislator must nonetheless ‘base its choice on objective criteria’ and, when assessing the burdens associated with various possible measures, ‘examine whether objectives pursued by the measure chosen are such as to justify even substantial negative economic consequences for certain operators’;

21.

Observes that the subsidiarity principle as formulated in the Treaties permits Union action in areas which do not fall within the Union’s exclusive competence only ‘if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States’, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level, while, under the proportionality principle, the substance and form of Union action must not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties; points out that subsidiarity and proportionality are closely related but distinct: while the former relates to the appropriateness of Union action in sectors which do not come within the Union’s exclusive competence, the latter relates to proportionality between the means and ends stipulated by the legislator and is a general rule governing the exercise of Union powers; notes that consideration of proportionality regarding a draft legislative act must logically follow consideration of subsidiarity, while, at the same time, verification of subsidiarity would not be sufficiently effective without the verification of proportionality;

22.

Observes that the Commission received only a small number of parliamentary questions (32 out of more than 12 000) in 2011 on issues relating to compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

23.

Highlights the fact that in 2011 the Commission received 64 reasoned opinions within the meaning of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which represents a considerable increase in comparison to 2010; notes, however, that these 64 reasoned opinions represented barely 10 % of the total of 622 opinions forwarded to the Commission by national parliaments in 2011 within the terms of the political dialogue in question; also draws attention to the fact that no Commission proposal received a sufficient number of reasoned opinions to trigger the ‘yellow or orange card procedures’ under the Protocol; notes, however, that on 22 May 2012 a ‘yellow card procedure’ was for the first time triggered by a Commission proposal (proposal for a Council regulation on the exercise of the right to take collective action within the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, i.e. the proposal for the ‘Monti II’ Regulation); stresses that the Commission withdrew the proposal, not because it considered the principle of subsidiarity to have been infringed upon, but because it realised that the proposal was unlikely to gain enough political support in Parliament and the Council to ensure its adoption;

24.

Takes the view that the mechanism for verification of the subsidiarity principle must be designed and put to use as a major instrument for collaboration between European and national institutions; notes with satisfaction that this instrument is used in practice as a means of communication and cooperative dialogue among the different institutional levels of the multi-level European system;

25.

Notes with concern that some reasoned opinions from national parliaments highlight the fact that, in a number of the Commission’s legislative proposals, the justification of subsidiarity is insufficient or non-existent;

26.

Recommends that the reasons why so few formal, reasoned opinions are submitted by national parliaments be investigated and that it be determined whether this is due to the fact that the principle of subsidiarity is observed on all sides, or to the fact that the national parliaments are unable to enforce this principle due to a lack of resources or the tightness of their deadlines; considers an analysis by the Commission to be desirable;

27.

Highlights the need for the European institutions to make it possible for national parliaments to scrutinise legislative proposals by ensuring that the Commission provides detailed and comprehensive grounds for its legislative decisions on subsidiarity and proportionality in accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 2 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

28.

Notes furthermore in this regard that the current timeframe for national parliaments to carry out subsidiarity and proportionality checks has often been considered insufficient;

29.

Considers that the pressure on time and resources faced by national parliaments when responding to draft legislation contributes to the perceived ‘democratic deficit’ within the EU;

30.

Recalls its previous requests for a more detailed examination of the problems national parliaments encounter in order to improve the functioning of the existing mechanism; believes that it would also be desirable to explore moves to strengthen this mechanism which, perhaps in the context of future Treaty revision, could give more rights to national parliaments; suggests that in such a review consideration could be given to the appropriate number of national parliament responses required to trigger such a procedure, whether it should be limited to subsidiarity grounds, and what its effect should be, with particular reference to recent experiences of the ‘yellow card’ procedure; views such a discussion as a useful stage in the evolution of the power accorded to national parliaments, aligning incentives to exercise scrutiny with effects at European level;

31.

Considers that in the meantime several initiatives could be introduced to improve the evaluation of European issues by national parliaments; in particular:

32.

Believes that an effective approach to the challenges of better lawmaking, in terms of both existing laws and prospective legislation, will help the European institutions respond to the crisis; considers that the reform of European legislation and legislative practices is an essential tool for delivering growth, competitiveness and decent jobs in Europe;

33.

Welcomes the increasing emphasis placed by the Commission on a policy ‘cycle’, with the initiation, impact assessment, consultation, enactment, implementation and evaluation stages of EU legislation being seen as part of a coherent process; believes in this context that the ‘Think Small First’ principle should be a key element throughout, and that the ex ante evaluation of new legislation should be improved, thus forming an intelligible and transparent process for stimulating growth and competitiveness in Europe;

34.

Welcomes, in this regard, the Commission communications on smart regulation and on EU regulatory fitness, as well as the Staff Working Document on the ‘Top 10 most burdensome legislative acts for SMEs’; considers that these documents represent credible advances in the better lawmaking agenda and reflect many of Parliament’s previous requests;

35.

Considers that these rhetorical advances should now be consolidated with concrete action; urges the Commission, therefore, to come forward with further concrete proposals to reduce the overall EU regulatory burden without undermining health and safety at work, and in particular to:

36.

Emphasises that improving health and safety at work and the information and consultation of workers are two important keys to strengthening productivity and competitiveness in the European economy; stresses that strong and stable regulation in those areas does not hamper, but rather contributes to growth;

37.

Considers that the Commission should further explore the option of introducing a ‘white paper’ stage in the legislative process; believes that affording stakeholders the ability to comment on draft proposals and accompanying provisional impact assessments would improve the quality of the draft legislation presented by the Commission, without unduly adding time to the gestation period of prospective laws;

38.

Further recalls the invitation made by Parliament to the Commission to put forward proposals implementing regulatory offsetting, which would require equivalent cost offsets to be identified in advance of new legislation that would introduce the imposition of costs; notes that EU legislation does not automatically mean 28 national laws being scrapped in favour of one European law, nor does it automatically mean that a new European law imposes a lesser burden than the respective national laws; urges the Commission, therefore, to seriously examine this proposal, and to present an assessment of its impact before the end of the current parliamentary term in 2014;

39.

Regrets the fact that the Commission intends to withdraw its proposal on the statute of the European private company, which Parliament had called for in a legislative own-initiative report; asks the Commission to consult Parliament before withdrawing any proposal based on such a report of Parliament;

40.

Emphasises the significance of simplification for streamlining the regulatory environment, especially for local and regional authorities, whose resources for the implementation of legislation are often limited and diminishing;

41.

Understands ‘gold-plating’ to be the practice whereby Member States, in transposing EU directives into national law, go beyond the minimum requirements; reiterates its support for measures to tackle unnecessary gold-plating and therefore invites Member States to explain, in cases where gold-plating is undertaken, their reasons for doing so;

42.

Welcomes the fact that the Commission’s impact assessments attempt to cover a wide and comprehensive range of potential impacts, but believes that the system could still be strengthened in a number of ways, such as including the territorial dimension (financial and administrative implications for national, regional and local authorities); in this regard, is encouraged by the Commission’s decision to update, consolidate and revise its Impact Assessment Guidelines by June 2014, and reserves the right to make a detailed contribution in the coming months setting out potential improvements to those guidelines; insists that these impact assessments, which are vital in shaping public and political opinion, should uphold the principle of multilingualism;

43.

Asks the Commission to analyse the methodology used in drafting impact assessments with a view to evaluating means of improving both the qualitative indicators and the general conduct of the consultation process, with particular reference to the involvement of relevant stakeholders;

44.

Believes that there needs to be complete consistency between the impact assessment published by the Commission and the contents of the legislative proposal as adopted by the College of Commissioners; requests that any impact assessment for a proposal that is amended by the College be automatically updated to reflect the changes made by the Commissioners;

45.

Calls on the Commission to strengthen the role and independence of the Impact Assessment Board (IAB), and in particular only to finalise and present legislative proposals where they have been approved with a favourable opinion by that Board; urges the IAB to draw on the expertise of the social partners;

46.

Believes that the current disclaimer which states that the Commission’s impact assessment ‘only commits the Commission’s services involved in its preparation and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission’ highlights an important weakness in the existing system;

47.

Welcomes the positive development of the Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value within Parliament; believes that a systematic approach to the consideration of impact assessments should be adopted throughout Parliament; welcomes the preparation by the Impact Assessment Directorate of short summaries of the impact assessments accompanying Commission proposals, and considers that these should form an essential element of committees’ consideration of legislative proposals under debate; proposes that Parliament’s impact assessments should include a territorial dimension when appropriate; requests the Conference of Committee Chairs to consider how best to implement this recommendation;

48.

Recalls the commitment made by Parliament and the Council in the 2005 Interinstitutional Common Approach to Impact Assessment to carry out impact assessments where they consider it to be appropriate and necessary for the legislative process, prior to the adoption of any substantive amendment; calls on the committees to make use of the Impact Assessment Unit in implementing this commitment;

49.

Further recalls the 2003 Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Lawmaking, and encourages the Council to complete work on establishing its own mechanism for undertaking impact assessments on its own substantive amendments without undue delay, in fulfilment of its obligations under the 2003 Agreement;

50.

Insists that the Commission give serious consideration to the European added value assessments accompanying legislative own-initiative reports, setting out in detail the reasons why it does not accept or consider relevant any of the arguments put forward by Parliament;

51.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

24.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/21

—

having regard to Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union,

—

having regard to Articles 8 and 10 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 21 thereof,

—

having regard to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,

—

having regard to Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member states on measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, adopted on 31 March 2010,

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission entitled ‘Strategy for the effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the European Union’ (COM(2010)0573),

—

having regard to the 2012 Commission Report on the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (COM(2013)0271), and to the accompanying staff working documents,

—

having regard to the proposal for a Council directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (COM(2008)0426) and to its position of 2 April 2009 on that proposal (1),

—

having regard to the guidelines to promote and protect the enjoyment of all human rights by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons adopted by the Council of the European Union at its meeting of 24 June 2013,

—

having regard to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights report of November 2010 on homophobia, transphobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity,

—

having regard to the results of the European Union lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender survey carried out by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and published on 17 May 2013,

—

having regard to the FRA opinion of 1 October 2013 on the situation of equality in the European Union 10 years on from initial implementation of the equality directives,

—

having regard to its resolution of 24 May 2012 on the fight against homophobia in Europe (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 December 2012 on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (2010-2011) (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 March 2013 on strengthening the fight against racism, xenophobia and hate crime (4),

—

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 and the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0009/2014),

A.

whereas the European Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities;

B.

whereas in defining and implementing its policies and activities, the European Union aims to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation;

C.

whereas in June 2013 the Council of the European Union adopted strong guidelines to promote and protect the enjoyment of all human rights by LGBTI persons outside the European Union, and should ensure that they are protected effectively inside the EU;

D.

whereas the European Union already coordinates its action through comprehensive policies in the field of equality and non-discrimination through the ‘Framework strategy for non-discrimination and equal opportunities for all’, in the field of gender equality through the ‘Strategy for equality between women and men 2010-2015’, in the field of disability through the ‘European Disability Strategy 2010-2020’, and in the field of equality for Roma persons through the ‘EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020’;

E.

whereas in its ‘Strategy for the effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the European Union’, the Commission has acknowledged the necessity of developing individual policies concerning certain specific fundamental rights on the basis of the Treaties;

F.

whereas in the 2013 EU LGBT survey, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) found that across the EU in the year preceding the survey one in two LGBT respondents felt discriminated against or harassed on grounds of sexual orientation, one in three were discriminated against when accessing goods or services, one in four were physically attacked, and one in five were discriminated against in employment or occupation;

G.

whereas the FRA recommended that the EU and Member States develop action plans promoting respect for LGBT persons and protection of their fundamental rights;

H.

whereas in May 2013 11 equality ministers (5) called on the Commission to issue a comprehensive EU policy for LGBT equality, and 10 Member States (6) have already adopted or are discussing similar policies at national and regional levels;

I.

whereas the European Parliament has asked 10 times for a comprehensive European Union policy instrument for equality on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity;

1.

Strongly condemns any discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and strongly regrets that the fundamental rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people are not yet always fully upheld in the European Union;

2.

Believes that the European Union currently lacks a comprehensive policy to protect the fundamental rights of LGBTI people;

3.

Acknowledges that the responsibility to protect fundamental rights lies jointly with the Commission and Member States; calls on the Commission to use its competences to the fullest extent, including facilitating the exchange of good practices among Member States; calls on Member States to fulfil their obligations under EU law and under the Council of Europe Recommendation on measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity;

4.

Calls on the Commission, Member States and relevant agencies to work jointly on a comprehensive multiannual policy to protect the fundamental rights of LGBTI people, i.e. a roadmap, a strategy or an action plan featuring the themes and objectives hereunder;

5.

Emphasises that this comprehensive policy must respect the competences of the European Union, of its agencies, and of Member States;

6.

Recalls that the freedom to express and display one’s beliefs and opinions in keeping with the principle of pluralism of ideas, and provided that it does not incite to hatred, violence or discrimination, should be respected;

7.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European External Action Service, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, all agencies cited herein, and the Council of Europe.

24.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/27

—

having regard to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive) (1),

—

having regard to the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee entitled ‘First Report on the application of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’ (COM(2013)0139),

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the application of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’ (COM(2013)0138),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (the Regulation on consumer protection cooperation) (2),

—

having regard to Directive 98/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 January 2009 on the transposition, implementation and enforcement of Directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2010 on the impact of advertising on consumer behaviour (5), and the Commission’s follow-up response adopted on 30 March 2011,

—

having regard to the study entitled ‘Transposition and Enforcement of the Directive on unfair commercial practices (2005/29/EC) and the Directive concerning misleading and comparative advertising (2006/114/EC), requested by its Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (6),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0474/2013),

A.

whereas consumption is one of the essential drivers for growth in the European Union, and consumers therefore play a vital role in the EU economy;

B.

whereas the protection of consumers and their rights is one of the Union’s fundamental values:

C.

whereas Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices is the European Union’s main legislative tool regulating misleading advertising and other unfair practices in business-to-consumer transactions;

D.

whereas the Directive aims, through the ‘internal market’ clause, to ensure a high level of consumer protection throughout the European Union and to boost consumer confidence in the Single Market, whilst guaranteeing businesses significant legal certainty and a reduction in barriers to cross-border trade;

E.

whereas there have been major differences in the implementation of Directive 2005/29/EC from one Member State to another;

F.

whereas the temporary derogations allowing Member States to continue to apply national provisions that were more restrictive or prescriptive than the Directive and that implemented minimum harmonisation clauses in other EU legislative instruments expired on 12 June 2013;

G.

whereas Member States which so wish are free to extend application of the Directive to business-to-business relations, and whereas to date only four Member States have chosen to do so;

H.

whereas the Commission has announced that it will propose shortly a review focusing on business-to-business relations of Directive 2006/114/EC on misleading and comparative advertising;

I.

whereas the development of the digital economy and all its technological applications have revolutionised purchasing methods and the way in which businesses sell and advertise their goods and services;

J.

whereas some undertakings, particularly the smaller ones, as well as many consumers, are still insufficiently aware of consumers’ rights in Europe;

K.

whereas it is necessary to strengthen the role of consumers’ associations and enable them to enhance their capacities;

1.

Lays stress on the effectiveness of the legislation established by the Directive and its importance in making consumers and traders more confident with regard to transactions within the internal market (particularly cross-border transactions), in guaranteeing businesses greater legal certainty, and in helping to enhance consumer protection in the Union; stresses that disparities in the application of the Directive risk impairing its effectiveness;

2.

Regrets that despite provisions in Directive 2006/114/EC to combat misleading practices in business-to-business advertising, some of these practices, notably ‘directory scams’, still persist; notes the Commission’s intention to propose shortly amendments to Directive 2006/114/EC focusing on business-to-business relations, in order to combat these practices more effectively; suggests that the Commission could, in this context, consider the merits of a targeted black list of commercial practices that are to be considered unfair in all circumstances in the field of business-to-business relations for Directive 2006/114/EC, similar to that which already exists for Directive 2005/29/EC; does not, however, consider it appropriate for the moment to extend the scope of Directive 2005/29/EC on business-to-consumer relations to include business-to-business unfair commercial practices;

3.

Calls on the Commission to clarify the relationship between Directives 2005/29/EC and 2006/114/EC, in order to guarantee a high level of protection for all economic operators in the Union, particularly consumers and SMEs, from fraudulent and unfair practices, thus boosting confidence within the Single Market;

4.

Takes the view that the derogations laid down for the property and financial services sectors are justified and that it is appropriate for them to be retained;

5.

Considers that it would not be appropriate at this stage to expand the black list in Annex I; calls however on the Commission to draw up a list of practices which national authorities have identified as unfair within the meaning of the general principles of the Directive, in order to assess whether such an expansion would be advisable in the future;

6.

Notes that with certain forms of consumer-to-business engagement, consumers may be victims of unfair commercial practices, for example when selling a product on to a trader; calls on the Commission to investigate problems of this kind and, if appropriate, explore targeted and practical remedies which might include inter alia more flexible interpretations of the provisions of Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices, and could be explained in the Commission’s guidance on the application of this Directive;

7.

Recalls that, with effect from 12 June 2013, Member States may no longer maintain the provisions retained until that date as temporary derogations; calls as a consequence on Member States to comply with the Directive as swiftly as possible; at the same time, calls on the Commission to carry out research into how Member States have transposed the Directive, in particular regarding national prohibitions not included in Annex I, and to submit within 2 years to Parliament and to the Council a new comprehensive report on its application, containing, in particular, an analysis on the scope for further harmonisation and simplification of Community law relating to consumer protection and suggestions for any necessary measures to be taken at Community level to ensure that a high level of consumer protection is maintained;

8.

Reasserts the importance and absolute necessity of the Directive being fully and uniformly applied and properly implemented by Member States in order to eliminate legal and operational uncertainties for businesses operating across borders; notes with disquiet that in 2011 and 2012 the Commission was obliged to employ the ‘EU Pilot’ consultation system because several Member States had failed to transpose the Directive correctly; calls on the Member States to support enforcement at national level with all available means, in particular with sufficient resources; stresses the essential role of stepping up cooperation between the national authorities responsible for implementing the Directive as well as the importance of building up a structured dialogue between public enforcers and other stakeholders, in particular consumer associations;

9.

Notes that, since the expiry of the deadline for implementation of the Directive in 2007, there have been numerous cases of Member States not correctly implementing or applying key provisions, in particular the black list of banned, misleading and aggressive commercial practice; calls therefore on the Commission to continue monitoring closely application of the Directive and, if necessary, to bring proceedings against Member States which infringe the Directive or fail to implement it or to apply it correctly, in accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; calls in particular on the Commission to urgently resolve any outstanding issues with regard to the consultations launched in 2011, either by terminating the infringement procedures or by referring them to the Court of Justice;

10.

Supports the Commission’s wish to draw up a list of indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of the mechanism whereby the Member States implement the Directive;

11.

Welcomes the fact that since the Directive was transposed in Member States, cross-border purchases have increased; recalls however that reinforced cooperation and coordination between the Commission and national authorities is essential in order to promote converging practices in implementation, and to provide a rapid and efficient response; notes that particular attention should be paid to dealing with cross-border online purchasing, especially where price comparison websites do not clearly disclose the identity of the trader operating the site;

12.

Reasserts the importance of enhanced cooperation between national authorities responsible for applying the Directive in order to achieve its full application and proper implementation by the Member States; encourages the Commission in this respect to examine thoroughly the scope, effectiveness and operational mechanisms of the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation (CPC Regulation), as it has committed itself to doing before the end of 2014; welcomes, with that in mind, the recent opening by the Commission of a public consultation on the revision of that regulation and the availability of the consultation in all EU languages; calls on involved stakeholders to take a part in this consultation;

13.

Stresses the usefulness of the ‘sweeps’ carried out under the CPC Regulation and calls on the Commission to further develop and strengthen them and broaden their scope; urges the Commission to summarise the data collected and the list of actions taken by the Commission and Member States in the wake of these sweeps, and to publish its findings, while taking into account the need to ensure the confidentiality of certain sensitive information that is being used in the framework of a judicial procedure at national level; calls on the Commission to report to Parliament on its findings and to further propose additional measures if needed in order to improve the functioning of the internal market;

14.

Agrees that further efforts should be made to strengthen the enforcement of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive in relation to vulnerable consumers;

15.

Expresses concern at the conflicts of interest involved and the misleading use to which some traders are putting customer review tools and price comparison websites; welcomes the Commission’s decision to consider how the information provided on such platforms might be made clearer to consumers;

16.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure proper application of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive especially regarding misleading ‘hidden’ internet advertising in the form of comments posted on social networks, forums or blogs, apparently emanating from consumers themselves while they are in reality messages of a commercial or advertising nature directly or indirectly generated or financed by economic operators; insists on the damaging effect of such practices on consumer confidence and competition rules; calls on the Member States to take appropriate measures to further prevent the development of such practices, including by launching information campaigns aimed at warning consumers of these ‘hidden’ forms of advertising, or by encouraging the emergence of forum observers/moderators who are specifically trained and alert to the dangers of ‘hidden’ advertising;

17.

Maintains that, given the rapid spread of online advertising, a suitable method for monitoring the protection of vulnerable groups of people, especially children, and their accessing by advertisers, needs to be developed;

18.

Regrets that, despite current EU legislation on airline prices and the 2007 sweep under the CPC Regulation of websites selling plane tickets, consumers continue to fall victim to the very many misleading practices in this sector, such as not including unavoidable costs like credit and debit card surcharges when booking online; notes with concern the increasing number of complaints concerning online ticket purchasers who have fallen victim to what is commonly referred to as ‘IP tracking’, a practice which seeks to record the number of web visits by individual users through the same IP address and then artificially push up prices based on the level of interest revealed by other similar searches; calls on the Commission to investigate the frequency of this practice, which results in unfair competition and constitutes a misuse of users’ personal data, and, if appropriate, to propose suitable legislation to protect user interests;

19.

Considers that the penalties imposed for failure to comply with the Directive ought never to be lower in value than the profit made through a practice deemed to be unfair or misleading; reminds Member States that the Directive states that penalties must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive; asks the Commission to compile and analyse data on penalties applied by Member States as well as on the efficiency of enforcement regimes in particular with regard to the complexity and length of enforcement procedures; calls on the Commission to provide the Parliament with results of these analyses;

20.

Welcomes the efforts of the Commission to assist Member States in transposing and applying the directive;

21.

Welcomes the database on national legislation and case law concerning unfair commercial practices developed by the Commission and recognises it to be a useful means of adding to the information available to consumers; regrets that it is only available in English; asks the Commission to increase progressively the number of languages in which the database is available and to enhance its visibility, particularly for economic operators; calls on the Commission to consider also additional instruments for raising the awareness of SMEs with regard to unfair commercial practices;

22.

Emphasises the importance of the guidance document produced by the Commission to assist in application of the Directive; welcomes the Commission’s intention to revise this document by 2014; encourages the Commission to work transparently, holding wide-ranging consultations with stakeholders throughout the process; calls on the Commission to continue updating and clarifying this document on a very regular basis in the future; calls on the Member States to take this guidance document into account as far as possible and to exchange best practices on its implementation; calls on the Commission to submit an evaluation of interpretation and implementation problems which national authorities and stakeholders have regularly encountered while implementing the provisions of the Directive, in order to assess which aspects of the guidance document need to be improved;

23.

Underlines that the principle of maximal harmonisation set by the Directive implies that national legislation cannot provide for stricter provisions than those provided under this Directive; stresses that the Court of Justice has interpreted that principle as requiring that bundled sales and other commercial promotions, which are treated by the Court as unfair commercial practices and which do not feature on the black list in Annex I, can only be prohibited on a case-by-case basis; stresses that for reasons of legal certainty, and to guarantee a high level of consumer protection, the Commission should specify, as part of its review of the guidance document, in what precise cases bundled sales and other commercial promotions should be deemed illegal; calls also on the Commission to reflect on the necessity of a new legislative proposal dedicated to commercial promotions;

24.

Stresses that the use of false environmental claims is an unfair practice which is on the rise; encourages the Commission to expand the section of the guidance document devoted to this practice in order to clarify the application of the Directive for economic operators; at the same time, calls on the Commission to explore the initiatives it could take to improve consumer protection against such practices;

25.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to raise business’ awareness of consumer rights in order to promote greater respect for these rights by economic operators;

26.

Points out that many consumers hesitate to ask for redress when it seems to them that the amount concerned is not very high; stresses that consumers need to be made more aware of the support available to them from both consumer associations and the network of European Consumer Centres; underlines the importance of consumer organisations in raising awareness of existing unfair commercial practices as a preventive measure, and on their role in assisting victims of unfair practices, thus enabling consumers to properly assert their rights; calls for coordinated actions between consumer organisations at national and European level, as well as with national authorities and the Commission;

27.

Stresses the importance for consumers of having effective, swift and inexpensive legal remedies; asks in this regard for Member States to implement fully the Directive on alternative dispute resolution methods and out-of-court settlement of online disputes;

28.

Points to the importance of collective redress mechanisms for consumers and welcomes the Commission’s recently published recommendation C(2013)3539 and its communication COM(2013)0401; agrees that a horizontal framework on collective redress would avoid the risk of uncoordinated sector-specific EU initiatives; calls on the Member States to follow the Commission Recommendations for the establishment of horizontal common principles, whose implementation in Member States would serve to assess whether further measures, including a legislative initiative, are needed, in particular for cross-border cases; recalls that none of the various approaches to collective redress must give any economic incentive to bring abusive collective actions and that all such approaches must include appropriate safeguards to avoid unmeritorious claims;

29.

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

24.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/32

—

having regard to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Central Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 27 March 2013 entitled ‘The EU Justice Scoreboard — A tool to promote effective justice and growth’ (COM(2013)0160),

—

having regard to the biannual evaluation reports on European judicial systems drawn up by the Council of Europe’s Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ);

—

having regard to Rules 48 and 119(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0442/2013),

A.

whereas the Commission has issued the EU Justice Scoreboard, which is a comparative, non-binding tool aiming to assess the effectiveness of national justice systems, with the goal of better defining justice policies and with its scope focusing on the parameters of justice systems which contribute to improving the business and investment climate in the Union;

B.

whereas the EU Justice Scoreboard compares national justice systems using particular indicators, but does not present an overall ranking of national justice systems;

C.

whereas the 2013 Justice Scoreboard focuses exclusively on civil, commercial and administrative justice;

D.

whereas a non-binding comparative exercise has the merits of identifying improvements and backward steps, and of striving towards the exchange of best practices across the Union while leaving the autonomy of national legal and judicial systems untouched;

1.

Takes note of the EU Justice Scoreboard with great interest; calls on the Commission to take this exercise forward in accordance with the Treaties and in consultation with the Member States, while bearing in mind the need to avoid unnecessary duplication of work with other bodies;

2.

Supports the aim of the exchange of best practices with a view to ensuring an efficient and independent justice system that can contribute to economic growth in Europe and boost competitiveness; stresses that an effective and trustworthy justice system gives businesses incentives to develop and invest at national and cross-border level;

3.

Notes the importance of judicial benchmarking for cross-border mutual trust, for effective cooperation between justice institutions and for the creation of a common judicial area and a European judicial culture;

4.

Believes that any comparison of national justice systems, especially in relation to their previous situation, must be based on objective criteria and on evidence which is objectively compiled, compared and analysed; points out the importance of assessing the functioning of justice systems as a whole, without separating them from the social, historical and economic situation of the Member States or from the constitutional traditions that they stem from; stresses the importance of treating Member States impartially, thus ensuring equality of treatment between all Member States when assessing their justice systems;

5.

Calls on the Commission to discuss the proposed method at an early date, in a transparent procedure involving the Member States;

6.

Points out that benchmarks must be set before information on national justice systems is gathered in order to develop a common understanding of methodology and indicators;

7.

Lauds the efforts of the Commission to provide measurable data; points out, however, that certain goals, such as the quality and the impartiality of justice, are very difficult to measure objectively;

8.

Notes that the effectiveness of the justice system cannot be measured using statistically quantifiable parameters alone, but should also take into account structural peculiarities and differing social traditions in the Member States; calls, in this respect, on the Commission to take into greater consideration in future the differences between national judicial systems when gathering data and setting benchmarks;

9.

Calls on the Commission, in the field of company law, to give equal consideration to both the monistic and dualistic systems;

10.

Calls on the Member States to examine the results of the 2013 Justice Scoreboard closely and to determine whether any consequences need to be drawn therefrom for the organisation and progress of their respective civil, commercial and administrative justice systems;

11.

Encourages the Member States to collect relevant data on issues such as the cost of proceedings, mediation cases and enforcement procedures; regrets that no data have been provided by some Member States for certain categories indicated in the Justice Scoreboard; believes, however, that the Commission should have drawn a distinction between those instances where data was not available and those where indicators were not relevant or applicable to individual Member States;

12.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to encourage mutual understanding and cooperation between national judicial systems, including by means of networks of contact judges;

13.

Calls for greater importance to be given to training programmes for judges, court staff and other legal practitioners, especially in the fields of European and comparative law; stresses the need for language training to be an essential component of law studies;

14.

States its interest in receiving data on cross-border cases, which often involve a greater degree of complexity than purely domestic cases and demonstrate the obstacles that EU citizens face when exercising their rights deriving from the EU single market, particularly in the application of EU law;

15.

Points to the importance of alternative dispute resolution in reducing the burden on court systems and saving money for all stakeholders;

16.

Asks the Commission to consider cross-border mediation procedures in its next exercise of this kind; encourages Member States to actively promote mediation procedures with special regard to commercial matters and to family matters regulated at EU level (as in the cases of Rome III and Brussels II);

17.

Stresses that there are major disparities between Member States in the development of ICT systems; points out that the use of new technologies can effectively contribute to reducing costs and speeding up judicial procedures, in particular through the use of computerised applications and case management and communication tools;

18.

Points out that small claims procedures and undisputed claims can be dealt with more quickly using ICT tools;

19.

Underlines the role of the CEPEJ in gathering and presenting the relevant data at both national and regional level; considers that the EU institutions should seek to cooperate with the CEPEJ, as it provides an excellent basis for the exchange of best practices, and duplication needs to be avoided;

20.

Recalls the leading role of the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters, as well as of the e-Justice Portal, in facilitating access to knowledge on European and national civil and commercial law for EU citizens;

21.

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

24.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/34

—

having regard to Articles 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Protocol 26 of the TFEU,

—

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

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (1),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Regional Development Fund and on specific provisions concerning the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (2),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1300/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the Cohesion Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 (3),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1298/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 as regards the financial allocation for certain Member States from the European Social Fund (4),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1299/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on specific provisions for the support from the European Regional Development Fund to the European territorial cooperation goal (5),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1302/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 on a European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC) as regards the clarification, simplification and improvement of the establishment and functioning of such groupings (6),

—

having regard to Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (7),

—

having regard to the Community Guidelines on State Aid for Environmental Protection (8),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 734/2013 of 22 July 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (9),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication ‘EU Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to the rapid deployment of broadband networks (10)’,

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 12 April 2011 entitled ‘Smart Grids: from innovation to deployment’ (COM(2011)0202),

—

having regard to Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (11),

—

having regard to Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC (12),

—

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 Communication of 15 November 2012 entitled ‘Making the internal energy market work’ (COM(2012)0663),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 6 June 2012 entitled ‘Renewable energy: a major player in the European energy market’ (COM(2012)0271),

—

having regard to the Commission’s Green Paper of 27 March 2013 entitled ‘A 2030 framework for climate and energy policies’ (COM(2013)0169),

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 September 2013 on microgeneration — small-scale electricity and heat generation (13),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 January 2013 on the role of EU cohesion policy and its actors in implementing the new European energy policy, (14)

—

having regard to its resolution of 10 September 2013 on the implementation and impact of the energy efficiency measures under Cohesion Policy (15),

—

having regard to the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 January 2012 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation) (COM(2012)0011),

—

having regard to the Commission Staff Working Document of 14 November 2008 entitled ‘Regions 2020: An assessment of future challenges for EU Regions’ (SEC(2008)2868),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 6 October 2010 entitled ‘Regional Policy contributing to smart growth in Europe 2020’ (COM(2010)0553),

—

having regard to the consultation document containing draft Commission Regulation (EU) No …/.. of XXX declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development and the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0019/2014),

A.

whereas a number of best practice examples, such as the Burgenland region, the ‘MaRes’ (Macaronesia Research Strategy) project and the ‘Green Islands project’, the Energy Valley in the Netherlands, the regenerative model region of Harz in Germany, Hostětín in the Czech Republic, the Orkney Micro Renewables project in Scotland, as well as pilot project cities and communities under the Commission’s CONCERTO initiative or the CO-POWER initiative for the efficient use of energy and decentralised energy production show that local communities and citizens can become ‘prosumers’, producing for their own energy needs while also selling energy to the grid or receiving credit for their surplus electricity and making use of net metering, operating in virtual power plants together with other actors, achieving maximum benefits by including all actors in the planning and implementation of regional actions, fostering active participation and information exchange, and developing a holistic approach by including other energy-related sectors such as transport and housing, using intelligent financial support mechanisms and creating new jobs;

B.

whereas Parliament has adopted reports on the role of EU Cohesion Policy and its actors in implementing the new European energy policy and on the implementation and impact of the energy efficiency measures under the Cohesion Policy;

C.

whereas the personal data collected in connection with the operation of smart energy systems are highly sensitive, since they can be used to gain an insight into consumer behaviour, and whereas special protection of this data must therefore be guaranteed;

1.

Welcomes a paradigm shift for the regions in the way energy is produced and consumed, moving from an inflexible traditional model, which functions on a ‘base load logic’, to variable, decentralised and local production, integrating a high share of small-scale renewable energy with flexible and responsive demand and distributed storage; recognises that in order to preserve sustainable development and to meet the requirements of future demands, new models of energy production and consumption based on decentralised and local production should be promoted; stresses the fact that a smart grid is essential for such a paradigm shift and that smart grid implementation should be embedded in a cross-sectoral and comprehensive approach to regional development in order to maximise benefits and market opportunities for the regions as well as to achieve sustainability, growth and innovation;

2.

Points out that many European regions have pursued projects within the existing EU framework which have both fostered synergies in selected areas and promoted energy sustainability and renewables, and where public and private partners join efforts to explore regional growth opportunities in the energy sector, through the early take-up of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), targeted partnerships at local, regional, national and European level, and effective, decentralised implementation strategies for the exploitation of local energy resources;

3.

Underlines the numerous benefits of smart grids in terms of lowering greenhouse gas emissions, increasing the share of renewable energy and distributed generation, ensuring the security of supply to households, creating the conditions required for the efficient use of electricity in transport, giving consumers the ability to adapt their consumption in order to benefit from the lowest prices and at the same time save energy, improving energy efficiency, saving electrical power, reducing costly investments in electricity grids by using energy outside peak periods, boosting EU technology innovation and development; stresses the need for citizen involvement at every stage including the deployment of advanced metering infrastructure that provides a two-way flow of information, also in activities planned by the distribution system operators (DSOs) and providers of smart grid technologies; points out, also, that the development and use of smart grids greatly reduces energy loss during transmission and distribution; highlights that automatic grid reconfiguration can be used to prevent or restore outages owing to its self-healing capabilities; notes, however, that national support systems in various regions often do not prioritise the most effective means of applying renewable technologies for private households;

4.

Highlights, in this context, the opportunities for geographical (or territorial) changes to the energy grid and the promotion of smart grids for disadvantaged regions, including outermost, peripheral and island regions, which can develop from energy consumers into energy producers, obtaining high economic and competitive benefits while ensuring a secure energy supply and the deployment and operation of smart grids; notes that the deployment and operation of smart grids, in particular, offer opportunities to these regions, which can reduce the energy costs that they incur;

5.

Points out that grid infrastructure, grid management and market regulations are currently geared towards the needs and possibilities of nuclear and fossil-fuel power stations and thus represent a competitive disadvantage for new technologies such as renewable energies;

6.

Calls on Member States and regional and local authorities to invest as early as possible in local smart grids by thoroughly considering boosting investments using the ESIF, including financial instruments to leverage private investment, taking into account the environmental, economic, social and territorial needs of the specific regions and their specificities, given that there is no single solution for all regions; calls for a flexible approach at local and regional level to reduce the barriers to combining measures for energy production, storage, including across borders, and efficiency, and to work with other sectors such as information and communications technology (ICT) and transport; stresses in this regard the importance of pumped storage associated with the exploitation of renewable energy sources;

7.

Stresses that the deployment of smart grids requires a stable, long-term policy framework; calls on the Commission to propose ambitious strategies, policies and targets for 2030 for energy efficiency and renewable energies as well as for greenhouse gas emissions, in order to give future certainty to investors and interconnected industries and to facilitate a smart energy system;

8.

Recalls that in most Energy Roadmap 2050 scenarios the proper integration of distributed renewable generation will be unfeasible without the development of local and regional smart distribution network grids for electricity, particularly given that they generate information links and electricity supply links between local socioeconomic development areas, allowing flexible management and necessary back-up for those variable energy sources; calls, therefore, for greater importance to be attached to the distribution networks; stresses, however, that the development of smart grids relates to the efficient transporting of energy from the site of production to the site of final use; points out, furthermore, that the added value of smart grids becomes even greater as they communicate on a wider scale, for example at national or even European level, and controlling electricity demand on this scale, by spreading the demand, provides further opportunities for the elimination of consumption (consumption sources) when local production is too low (or too high);

9.

Calls for a more flexible approach in EU regulations and directives on the internal market to reduce barriers to region-specific solutions in terms of energy production, supply, storage and efficiency measures and the combination of such measures, including public-private partnerships and cross-border projects;

10.

Stresses that in order for smart grids to be successfully implemented, a strategy for regions and local communities aimed at ‘smart energy systems’ should be developed, with smart grids becoming part of the regional energy system and integrating a high share of energy from renewable sources, including decentralised generation capacities, combined with demand-side management, energy efficiency measures, the increase of energy savings, smart storage solutions, the transport sector (e-transport) and increased exchange with neighbouring networks;

11.

Notes the role that smart meters have in enabling two-way communication, allowing for accurate billing for consumers and increasing demand-side participation, where consumers adjust their habits according to peaks and troughs in energy production; stresses that citizens should receive the full benefits of a smart energy system and that citizen ownership increases behavioural efficiency and thus overall greater energy saving through open protocols; highlights the responsibility of DSOs as service providers to local, regional or national authorities to guarantee access to this service of general interest for all by ensuring network security and stability; highlights that every citizen should have direct access to consumption and production data in order to ensure efficient, safe and secure smart grid operations; urges the Commission to take steps to ensure that electrical appliances (in particular washing machines, dishwashers, heat pumps and storage heaters, etc.) are capable of operating automatically in conjunction with smart meters by providing consumers with the most favourable tariffs;

12.

Calls on the Commission, and its Smart Grid Task Force, to update and expand its existing definition of smart grids to include the smart energy system; calls on local and regional authorities to manage energy consumption and load-shedding and work on and adopt regional strategies based around a smart energy system;

13.

Emphasises that in order to ensure the economic efficiency of smart grids for regions it is necessary to combine direct and indirect advantages, linking the energy sector with several other sectors, particularly housing and transport, but also the environment, urban planning, social inclusion, waste management, and the construction sector, in order to achieve energy saving targets while at the same time maximising economic benefits and balancing a region’s energy supply and demand;

14.

Calls for innovation and greater investment in the ICT sector in order to overcome the main challenges facing smart technologies, which include the interoperability of technologies with the existing network, as well as regulatory challenges; calls on the Commission and national and regional actors to create positive regulatory and investment frameworks to allow the development of interoperable ICT solutions;

15.

Encourages all regions and local authorities to consider the advantages of and to invest in smart energy systems as a potential source of local green and sustainable jobs; highlights that the construction industry is one of the main areas where jobs will be created, not only through direct investments in smart energy grids, but also through boosting EU technology development, innovation and the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), investments in energy efficiency measures and renovations, for instance in the housing sector, and through adapting to new technological solutions proposed for the construction of energy-efficient housing;

16.

Stresses that the deployment of smart grids also provides an opportunity to boost the competitiveness and worldwide technological leadership of EU technology providers, such as those in the electrical and electronic engineering industry, which consists mostly of SMEs;

17.

Calls on all regions to consider investments into skills and training for these new jobs, taking into account the fact that a significant number of new local jobs can also be created in ICT services, the transport sector and sectors that supply smart equipment, infrastructure and services, for instance for new installations, but also to avoid any shortage of specialist labour and enable adaptation to the needs arising from the emergence of new professions in the respective fields; calls on the Member States and regions to support training initiatives both at the academic and the craftsmanship level in the field of renewable energy, such as environmental technical studies and the development of new apprenticeships, for example solateur; highlights that regions which successfully implement a smart energy system can attract further jobs to the region in the form of specialised training through the establishment of technical universities and colleges with expertise in the area; calls on regions to cooperate on smart specialisation and welcomes schemes where knowledge is shared between regions and across borders; draws attention to the initiatives which the EIT is pursuing in the InnoEnergy knowledge and information community (KIC) for the research and development of smart grids and the training of professionals in this sector; draws attention, also, to the new scope for establishing Regional Innovation Schemes;

18.

Highlights that public investment in smart energy systems, including through European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), can foster local sustainable employment opportunities, create synergy effects and spill-over effects on employment, as well as long-term local benefits for the regions in economic, social and environmental spheres, and can equally be used as an instrument for overcoming economic challenges, especially in regions in crisis-hit countries;

19.

Emphasises that the success of a smart energy system, as shown by studies on best practices and leading examples, is often due to local ownership by individual citizens, a cooperative, a local community or a combination of these actors; recognises that such ownerships increase the acceptance of investments in all elements of smart energy systems; emphasises that citizens should be provided with better information, as well as incentives such as dynamic pricing mechanisms and appropriate ICT tools so that they could be involved at all stages of smart energy infrastructure, production and energy and grid planning distribution;

20.

Stresses the importance, given the technical nature of smart grids, of informing and educating users to become informed prosumers who are aware of the opportunities offered by these grids, particularly as regards their link to smart meters; stresses the importance of this awareness-raising being targeted at young people through educational programmes for secondary school pupils and vocational students;

21.

Calls on the Commission to remove the barriers and regulatory and legal challenges to local ownership in existing EU legislation, in particular in the state aid rules; invites the Member States to support local energy feed-in possibilities and the sharing of local energy, not only bi-directionally between the grid and the end-user but also cross-border and between end-user units, encouraging local energy production ownership and the sharing of locally produced energy;

22.

Stresses that the implementation of smart energy systems will significantly change the private and public spheres, as electricity provision will be linked to data collection and communicated in real time; calls, therefore, for transparent procedures at all levels, involving all actors, including citizens, businesses, industry, local authorities, distribution system operators (DSOs), transmission system operators (TSOs), local and regional data protection officials or ombudsmen and the providers of smart grid technologies;

23.

Underlines that smart energy systems will be operated with large amounts of personal data and many profiles and will bear a high risk of data security breaches; emphasises the need for high standards for smart meters in terms of data protection and data privacy, and for enabling citizens to decide upon and control the data which is given to the network operators beyond the absolute minimum of data that is necessary for the provision of energy; notes concerns which relate specifically to the security of smart grid systems and the consumer benefits of smart meters and calls for greater evaluation of this area and further research into data protection and data privacy of smart meters; stresses, therefore, that personal data must be protected, without exceptions, so that it remains protected and secure; stresses, furthermore, that data security must be integrated into smart grid deployment strategies;

24.

Stresses the need for improved data protection and privacy regulation and practice when smart metering systems are installed; emphasises that guaranteeing data protection and data privacy for all individuals and households connected to the grid is imperative to the functioning and deployment of smart grids; stresses that data gathered should only be used to ensure the security of electricity supply; calls on Member States to enforce data protection rules while maintaining and developing synergies throughout telecommunications and energy networks and to uphold the rights of individuals in this area; emphasises that in terms of data collection for intelligent energy systems, standards should be developed to ensure that only relevant data is transmitted in order to guarantee the security of electricity supply, to ensure that no data are passed on to third parties, to ensure that customers have the right to inspect and delete the data collected if they are no longer required for the purposes for which they were collected or otherwise processed, and to ensure that citizens retain ownership of their data and have control with respect to the parties to whom they grant access to these data;

25.

Asks the Commission to issue further guidance as to the use of personal and non-personal smart grid data in the light of the revised EU legislation on data protection and the agreed rules on the ownership and management of these data by DSOs, providers or other commercial bodies;

26.

Calls on the Commission to take steps to accelerate smart grid deployment and to focus on the following aspects: stimulating investment and financial incentives in this area, developing technical standards, ensuring data protection for consumers, establishing a regulatory framework to provide incentives for smart grid deployment, guaranteeing an open and competitive retail market in the interest of consumers and providing continued support for innovation in technology and systems;

27.

Highlights that under the new ESIF regulations for the period 2014-2020, Member States are obligated to concentrate ESIF resources on investments for a smart, sustainable and inclusive Europe; notes that the minimum share will be set out for regions to concentrate, depending on their level of economic development, at least 20 % of ERDF resources in investment in the energy transition, with much focus on smart grids, the production and distribution of energy derived from renewable sources, energy efficiency, energy savings, cogeneration of heat and energy, and low-carbon strategies, with particular emphasis on urban areas, as well as energy derived from smart grids at the distribution level; underlines the fact that public funding still plays a crucial role in stimulating private investment in smart grid research and development and demonstration projects; points out that the Cohesion Fund also allows for investment in this area; calls on the Member States to make best use of this new opportunity; points out, with regard to investments not covered by compulsory thematic concentration, that the ERDF may also be used to support the development of smart systems for the distribution, storage and transmission of energy and to integrate distributed energy generation from renewable resources;

28.

Stresses that the ESI Funds serve as catalysts for investment and that, as several territorial levels are involved in the financing and decision-making process, multi-level governance plays an important role in successful implementation; welcomes additional funding opportunities within the Intelligent Energy Europe programme;

29.

Welcomes the strong emphasis placed on smart energy projects of common interest in the Connecting Europe Facility, while regretting that only two smart grid projects were included in the current two-year list; stresses that smart grid projects at distribution system level must be taken into account; emphasises that infrastructure projects must fulfil sustainability and competitiveness criteria and be underpinned by an integrated approach, which shall be ensured by involving distribution system operators; also underlines the importance of developing north-south energy connections in the Mediterranean;

30.

Calls on the Commission to reduce the barriers to investment in smart energy systems, particularly by expanding the exemption within the state aid modernisations (SAM) to allow for public support for all elements of regional and local smart energy systems, including cross-sectoral investments and operations; urges for smart energy systems to be included as a category in the future Commission regulation declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty (GBER) and adapting the regulations on other block exemption categories which interact with the development of smart energy systems;

31.

Emphasises that interoperability for smart infrastructure is crucial, as regulatory uncertainty and different standards slow down the spread of smart infrastructure; calls, therefore, for greater cooperation between the different European technical standards organisations; highlights that open standards are needed to help interoperability and to accelerate technology development and deployment;

32.

Calls on the Commission to take measures to remove the key barriers, such as lack of interoperability and standards (standardised plug and play would reduce costs and allow connectivity also for small Distributed Energy Resources (DERs) (or small DR applications), uncertainty over roles and responsibilities in new smart grid applications, uncertainty over the sharing of costs and benefits and consequently over new business models, consumer resistance to participating in trials; the range of regulatory arrangements in Europe potentially presenting significant barriers to the replicability of project results in different countries;

33.

Recalls the 2011 Standardisation Mandate to support European smart grid deployment which was due for completion in 2012; welcomes the progress made under this mandate but stresses that further work is needed; asks that the Commission engage with the standardisation bodies in order to speed up the completion of their work and to issue a new mandate if deemed necessary;

34.

Asks Member States to cooperate further and share best practices in the Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER) forum on the regulation of national DSOs; notes, at the same time, the diversity of the organisation of DSOs, with some Member States having a single DSO and others having more than 800; encourages Member States to work together more closely; calls on Member States and the Commission to agree upon a unified classification system to determine whether an organisation is to be deemed a transmission operator, a distribution operator or a combined operator;

35.

Calls on the Commission to assess whether it is necessary to bring forward proposals, in line with the third internal energy market package, for the development and promotion of smart grids, which must continue to be guaranteed by means of effective action by the Commission, as this could allow the increasing involvement of more market participants and boost potential deployment, development and maintenance synergies across telecommunications and energy networks; stresses, however, that these proposals should be integrated into a streamlined regulatory framework in accordance with the principles laid down by the Commission;

36.

Calls for cooperation in the development of smart grids at European, national and regional level; believes that smart grids offer an important opportunity to boost innovation, research and development, job creation and the competitiveness of European industry at local and regional level, in particular with regard to SMEs;

37.

Calls on regions to network and share benefits, knowledge and best practices, and to cooperate in terms of cost benefit analyses on smart energy systems within the territorial cooperation objective of the ESI Funds; calls on the Commission to establish a transnational network for regions with smart energy systems; invites cross-border regions to use the legal instrument of European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation to jointly establish and manage services of general economic interest in the field of renewable energy and energy savings and smart grid infrastructure in such a network;

38.

Underlines the importance of initiatives such as the Covenant of Mayors, which is the mainstream European movement involving local and regional authorities in the fight against climate change and which is based on a voluntary commitment by signatories to meet and exceed the EU objective of a 20 % reduction in CO2 through increased energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy sources, which endorse and support the efforts deployed by local authorities in the implementation of sustainable energy policies; stresses that local governments play a crucial role in mitigating the effects of climate change, in particular considering that 80 % of energy consumption and CO2 emissions is associated with urban activity;

39.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, Commission and the Committee of the Regions.

24.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/42

—

having regard to the objectives of the common agricultural policy as laid down in Article 39 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the objectives of increasing ‘agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of the factors of production, in particular labour’, and ensuring ‘a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture’,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (1), and in particular Articles 32 and 61 thereof on redistributive payments and the small farmers scheme respectively,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (2), and in particular Articles 7 and 19 thereof on thematic sub-programmes and farm and business development respectively,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 3 May 2011 entitled ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: An EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’ (COM(2011)0244),

—

having regard to its resolution of 7 September 2010 on ‘fair revenues for farmers: a better functioning food supply chain in Europe’ (3),

—

having regard to the 2013 study entitled ‘Semi-subsistence farming: value and directions for development’ by Parliament’s Policy Department B (Structural and Cohesion Policies),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A7-0029/2014),

A.

whereas small agricultural holdings in Europe are subject to sustained demographic, commercial and technological pressure, which is leading to the gradual de-agrarianisation and depopulation of villages in areas in which such holdings predominate, with small livestock holdings being abandoned en masse and specific local crops no longer being grown;

B.

whereas these smallholdings represent a model of social agriculture which is still predominant in the EU and which can and must coexist with other, more large-scale and market-oriented models of agriculture;

C.

whereas the roles played by small agricultural holdings are not just production-related, in that such holdings also play key roles in the delivery of public goods; whereas these include roles relating to nature and the countryside (helping maintain both the characteristic features of Europe’s countryside and biodiversity in rural areas), social roles (providing a livelihood for millions of people in Europe, preventing poverty and constituting a workforce reserve for industry and other sectors of the economy, such as tourism), and cultural roles (preserving fine traditions, customs and other non-material heritage and manufacturing regional and traditional products);

D.

whereas small agricultural holdings create favourable conditions for carrying out agricultural activities that are environmentally friendly and good for animal welfare;

E.

whereas depopulation and the rural exodus are highly detrimental to living conditions in rural communities — and therefore to the quality of life and working conditions of farmers — and are frequently a determining factor in decisions to retain or abandon small agricultural holdings; whereas the creation of sustainable prospects, in particular for young people, in rural areas is of vital importance to the future of small agricultural holdings;

F.

whereas in some areas the presence and survival of small agricultural holdings guarantees a source of income and limits depopulation;

G.

whereas market price volatility is often made worse by intermediate buyers dictating prices, taking advantage of producer vulnerability;

H.

whereas small agricultural holdings tend to be more flexible and adapt more easily to market crises;

I.

whereas many small agricultural holdings are specialised and come together to form producer organisations, thereby allowing them a rightful claim to produce for the food market on an equal footing as larger holdings;

J.

whereas a broader approach is needed to address the problems of small agricultural holdings; whereas support for possible alternative incomes and the prospect of diversification, as well as the creation of non-agricultural jobs and the provision of public services in rural areas are vital for the future of small agricultural holdings and rural communities;

K.

whereas small agricultural holdings are not given sufficient consideration under the common agricultural policy (CAP), and whereas the reasons for this include the fact that the structure of CAP support is principally based on surface area and past production levels, and is therefore unable to respond suitably to the situation and function of small agricultural holdings, the fact that some Member States place minimum funding thresholds in the second pillar and the Member States’ failure to bring in implementing measures that meet the needs of this type of holding;

L.

whereas it is difficult for smallholders to secure financial support given that they may, for example, have problems in accessing EU programme funding due to their inability to meet the capital and/or capacity requirements for eligibility, or the fact that they have a low or non-existent level of creditworthiness;

M.

whereas smallholdings in the outermost regions should also receive particular attention given the dual constraints under which they operate;

N.

whereas supplementary and ancillary earnings are of great importance for many small agricultural holdings;

O.

whereas some types of smallholdings, such as subsistence farms, are acting as a buffer against absolute deprivation, providing at least meagre levels of food and income;

P.

whereas in certain cases smallholders do not receive enough administrative support or good quality advice; whereas Member States often create unnecessary red tape’ and certain smallholders not having the necessary resources and experience to follow the relevant administrative processes effectively;

Q.

whereas because they are dispersed geographically, the bargaining power of agricultural holdings in the food chain is far weaker than that of other participants in the market, and whereas this is particularly acute in the case of small agricultural holdings;

R.

whereas small agricultural holdings play a special role in maintaining the vitality of certain areas, such as mountain areas, less-favoured areas and outlying regions, not to mention those in which, owing to geographical and morphological constraints, farming is one of the few — if not the only — economically sustainable activities;

S.

whereas the level of income and the living standards of families who make their living by working on small agricultural holdings are much lower than those of commercial farmers or farmers employed in other sectors of the economy;

T.

whereas many smaller agricultural holdings cannot survive on farming alone, with alternative sources of income being necessary to keep them afloat; whereas, at the same time, these smallholders should focus increasingly on the profitability and productivity of their operations;

U.

whereas small agricultural holdings provide, in many regions, a livelihood to families who do not have the opportunity to find other sources of income;

V.

whereas there are not enough reliable data available on the situation with regard to small agricultural holdings and the impact of CAP instruments on the sector, and the definition of small farms varies substantially from one Member State to another;

W.

whereas certain smaller agricultural producers, such as beekeepers, do not possess or make use of land and are thus excluded from the small farmers scheme;

X.

whereas the United Nations General Assembly has declared 2014 the International Year of Family Farming;

1.

Calls on the Member States and the Commission to take appropriate action under the new common agricultural policy and draw up guidelines for the period beyond 2020 in which greater attention is paid to the specific needs of small family holdings, which are an important element of the European agricultural model and which are central to the multi-functional development of rural areas and to sustainable regional development in general;

2.

Calls for a policy of supporting the consolidation of agricultural land and of granting payments to farmers participating in the small farmers scheme who have definitively transferred their land to another farmer, to be continued as an effective means of improving the production structure of agriculture;

3.

Takes the view that simply reducing the number of small agricultural holdings should not be the main objective of restructuring, as this will not boost the competitiveness of larger holdings; calls, in this connection, on the Member States to come up with appropriate solutions and development models for smallholdings, taking account of the specific characteristics of farming in the country that are concerned and of regional variations, to boost the competitiveness, viability and profitability of smallholdings, to foster entrepreneurship, to create jobs and to curb rural depopulation;

4.

Takes the view that the process of rural exodus and depopulation must be countered without delay in order to ensure suitable conditions and sustainable prospects for smallholdings in their current locations; calls on the Member States, to deploy efficiently available EU funding to promote infrastructure, educational, medical and nursing facilities, childcare, access to high-speed internet and the establishment and development of rural small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), so as to ensure equivalent living conditions in urban and rural areas; recommends that efforts be focused on the creation of sustainable future prospects for young people, the well educated and women;

5.

Calls for an increase in direct sales — such as sales of traditional products — on local and regional markets, and for the development on smallholdings of a sustainable, responsible form of processing and an essential and proportionate monitoring system; encourages the Commission and Member States to review the existing provisions on food safety with a view to reducing burdens and eliminating the obstacles that they may cause for the development of food processing and sales by small agricultural holdings; encourages the Commission and the Member States to establish a platform for the exchange of best practices on how to regulate and monitor the processing carried out by small agricultural holdings; calls, furthermore, on regional authorities to be more active with regard to the development of infrastructure for direct sales, including rural and urban marketplaces, making it easier for consumers to acquire cheap, healthy, high-quality farm produce;

6.

Takes the view that in the process of solving the problems of small agricultural holdings, other EU policies, including the cohesion policy, must be brought in alongside the CAP to help improve technical infrastructure and access to public services in rural areas, whilst resources from the European Social Fund should be used to finance community and social action involving social inclusion, education, training and the transfer of knowledge; takes the view, furthermore, that since these smallholdings do not have a significant impact on the market, permission could be given for additional support to be provided from national resources in line with rules agreed upon with the Commission and without hindering competition;

7.

Draws attention to the upward pressure on farmland prices resulting from the forthcoming property market deregulation in the new Member States; points out that small-scale farmers will be the hardest hit by rising land prices;

8.

Calls on the Member States to ensure that their education systems include appropriate infrastructure for vocational education and training in agriculture;

9.

Draws attention to the upward pressure on farmland prices resulting from urban expansion;

10.

Is very pleased that the support scheme for small-scale farmers has been established under the first pillar of the CAP, but takes the view, nevertheless, that it is only the form of transfer which has been simplified, whilst the low direct-payment rates allow no room for development, and that these measures are still insufficient to improve the situation of smallholdings in the EU; believes that a mechanism should be established which would enable small agricultural holdings to submit multiannual applications for direct payments, with such applications being updated only in the event where changes to the holding in question occur;

11.

Draws attention, once again, to the major disparities between farm subsidies in the various Member States, which are to the disadvantage of the new Member States;

12.

Emphasises that, given the voluntary nature of the small farmers scheme within the first pillar of the CAP, it is essential that all possible opportunities to support small producers within the second pillar be reviewed and utilised;

13.

Considers it essential, further to such measures, to find an effective means of supporting those small agricultural producers whose activity and output do not entail the ownership and/or use of agricultural land;

14.

Calls on the Member States to establish appropriate financial instruments, for example in the shape of microcredit, subsidised interest rates on loans, financial leasing, first instalment repayments or credit guarantees; takes the view, furthermore, that regional and local authorities should be involved in the process of providing such support;

15.

Stresses that even smallholdings are bound by the dictates of good agricultural practice and by European and national production and consumer protection requirements in particular, making it necessary for smallholders to possess minimum qualifications; calls, in this connection, on the Commission and the Member States to consider ways of ensuring that such qualifications can be generally acquired and adapted to the needs of smallholdings;

16.

Calls for free advice to be better tailored to the needs of smallholdings, for procedures relating to information, training, risk assessment and health surveillance to be simplified, for information campaigns to be mounted, for the sharing of best practices where the short food supply chain is concerned and for technical assistance to be provided to help those applying for EU funding, as well as for advice that helps smallholdings to adapt the profile of their production activity to their production and environmental potential;

17.

Emphasises the need for smallholdings to come together to form organisations, producers’ groups or cooperatives and mount joint marketing campaigns; takes the view that all types of smallholder association in the form of cooperatives, producer organisations or the pooling of resources, including machinery, should receive special support under EU and national mechanisms;

18.

Takes the view that smallholdings in mountain areas, less-favoured areas and outlying regions should be able to benefit from coupled support, such as for livestock farming, where they also fulfil specific environmental functions;

19.

Considers agricultural activities to be of unprecedented strategic importance, a fact that should be taken into account accordingly by all Member States in seeking ways of enabling small farmers to continue their activities, so as to strike a balance between agricultural prices and production costs;

20.

Calls for the Member States to include, in their pillar I and II programmes, sub-programmes and measures geared towards smallholdings; indicates that smallholdings in particular need to engage in supplementary and ancillary activities, such as in the tourism sector, in order to secure a sufficient income; stresses, in this connection, the importance of ensuring that the second pillar of the CAP has ample resources and that rural development programmes are properly geared towards the needs of smallholdings;

21.

Recommends that the scope of the Farm Accountancy Data Network be extended in order to look into the situation of smallholdings and the impact that the CAP has on them, and to plan their development;

22.

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

24.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/47

—

having regard to Article 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which commits the Union to working for ‘a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment’,

—

having regard to Article 9 TFEU, which establishes that ‘in defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health’,

—

having regard to Article 11 TFEU, which stipulates that ‘environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Union policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development’,

—

having regard to Article 12 TFEU, which stipulates that ‘consumer protection requirements shall be taken into account in defining and implementing other Union policies and activities’,

—

having regard to Article 14 TFEU and Protocol 26 thereto on services of general (economic) interest,

—

having regard to Article 26 TFEU, which stipulates that ‘the internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties’,

—

having regard to Articles 49 and 56 TFEU on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services within the Union,

—

having regard to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU on the rules on competition applying to undertakings,

—

having regard to Article 169 TFEU on promoting the interests of consumers and ensuring a high level of consumer protection,

—

having regard to Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC and 2008/6/EC, on postal services,

—

having regard to Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular e-commerce, in the Internal Market,

—

having regard to Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC,

—

having regard to Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council,

—

having regard to the Commission Green Paper of 29 November 2012 on ‘An integrated parcel delivery market for the growth of e-commerce in the EU’ (COM(2012)0698),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 16 December 2013 entitled ‘A roadmap for completing the single market for parcel delivery. Build trust in delivery services and encourage online sales’ (COM(2013)0886),

—

having regard to the Commission staff working document of 23 April 2013 entitled ‘E-commerce action plan 2012- 2015 — State of play 2013’ (SWD(2013)0153),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 11 January 2012 entitled ‘A coherent framework for building trust in the Digital Single Market for e-commerce and online services’ (COM(2011)0942),